In a statement published October 11, the senators said the administration had failed to consult Congress or provide an explanation they believe the law requires. They called on Trump to reverse course immediately.

The group includes three Democrats and four Republicans. Their challenge raises questions about the limits of the president’s authority, the scope of US sanctions and Congress’s role in setting policy toward Russia.

However, the senators’ legal objections do not amount to a court ruling. No judicial decision establishing that the diesel plan is unlawful was identified in the sources reviewed for this report.

Seven Senators Sign the Statement

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s official statement names all seven signatories:

• Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire and the committee’s ranking member.
• Susan Collins, Republican of Maine.
• Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut.
• Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska.
• Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon.
• Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina.
• John Curtis, Republican of Utah.

The committee’s release confirms seven signatories, although an Associated Press report listed only six and omitted Wyden.

The senators said Congress banned Russian energy imports in 2022 to prevent US payments from helping finance Russia’s war against Ukraine. They argue that allowing Russian diesel into the United States runs directly counter to that restriction.

They also said the administration had not consulted Congress or submitted the explanation they believe the law requires.

The statement is a formal public demand for a policy reversal. It is not legislation, a congressional vote to block the imports or a judicial order.

What the 2022 Import Ban Requires

Congress enacted the Ending Importation of Russian Oil Act in April 2022. Public Law 117-109 prohibits imports into the United States of Russian products classified under Chapter 27 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. That category covers petroleum products, including diesel.

The law also sets out a process for ending the import ban. Under Section 3, the president may terminate the prohibition after submitting a written certification to Congress that Russia meets specified conditions.

Before submitting that certification, the president must consult the relevant House and Senate committees and provide them with a report explaining the basis for the decision. The law requires that consultation and report at least 45 days before the certification.

Even then, the termination would take effect 90 days after the certification, unless Congress enacted a joint resolution of disapproval during that period.

The senators argue that the administration’s decision to allow Russian diesel imports conflicts with this legal framework. They also say the administration has not met the consultation and reporting requirements.

However, the exact legal relationship between the statutory import ban and the Treasury Department’s new authorization remains disputed. The administration has not publicly announced a formal termination of the import ban under the process described in the 2022 law.

What Treasury’s General License 135 Allows

The US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued General License 135 on October 9, two days before the senators’ statement.

The license authorizes certain transactions involving the sale, delivery, unloading and importation of diesel fuel originating in Russia. It covers transactions that would otherwise be prohibited under two specified US sanctions regulations.

The authorization runs until 12:01 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time on April 7, 2027. It does not authorize debits to accounts held by Russia’s central bank, National Wealth Fund or Finance Ministry at US financial institutions.

The license provides a temporary authorization under the sanctions regulations it identifies. It does not expressly repeal the 2022 statutory import ban or state that the president has completed the separate process for terminating that ban.

That distinction lies at the heart of the dispute. Treasury has authorized certain transactions under its sanctions rules, while the senators argue that the administration must also comply with the restrictions and procedures established by Congress.

Whether the license provides a sufficient legal basis for the proposed imports, or conflicts with the statutory ban, remains a legal question. The public documents reviewed for this report do not establish a final judicial answer.

A Second Sanctions Law Adds Pressure

The dispute also comes weeks after Congress enacted the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026. President Trump signed the law on September 18.

The law introduces several measures aimed at Russia. Section 112 directs the president to increase duties on goods imported from Russia, including petroleum products, to a rate of up to 500% within 30 days of enactment.

Section 113 separately directs duties of up to 100% on goods from certain countries that buy Russian-origin crude oil or natural gas or facilitate sanctions evasion, subject to the law’s conditions and exceptions.

The law also permits certain waivers. Under Section 115, the president must submit a written certification that a waiver serves the national interest, along with a report explaining the basis for that certification, before issuing a waiver under the section.

These provisions create a further legal and policy issue for the administration. General License 135 authorizes transactions under specified sanctions regulations, but it does not itself state that it waives the duties required by the 2026 law.

The senators’ statement frames the diesel plan as inconsistent with Congress’s broader effort to restrict Russian energy revenue. The specific application of the new duties and any available exceptions or waivers must be assessed under the text of the law.

Republicans Disagree Over the Plan

The opposition includes Republicans who have questioned whether the administration’s decision complies with existing law.

Tillis has publicly questioned the plan’s legality and warned about the risks of easing pressure on Russia while its war against Ukraine continues.

Senator John Barrasso, the Republican Senate whip from Wyoming, offered a different view during an October 11 interview on CBS’s Face the Nation.

Barrasso said Trump was balancing the need to lower energy costs for American families, farmers and truckers against the goal of ending Russia’s war in Ukraine. He described the move as another source of leverage for the president in seeking a long-term settlement.

Barrasso also said the new sanctions law gave the president flexibility to act in what he considers the interests of peace and lower energy prices.

His comments provide a Republican defense of the policy. However, they do not resolve the legal dispute over the 2022 import ban or the administration’s obligations under the newer law.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has also defended the administration’s approach, according to Reuters, arguing that it falls within existing legal authority and serves the public interest by seeking to lower diesel prices. A separate formal Treasury response to the senators’ October 11 statement was not identified in the public material reviewed for this report.

The Price Argument Remains Uncertain

Trump announced the Russian diesel arrangement on October 9, saying Russia would provide more than 300,000 metric tons initially, followed by additional shipments in later stages.

The administration has presented the plan as a way to ease high fuel costs. However, energy analysts have questioned whether the announced supplies would substantially lower US diesel prices.

The price effect depends on whether buyers purchase the fuel, when shipments arrive and where the diesel is delivered. The announcement and the sanctions license do not establish that the fuel has been loaded, shipped, imported or sold to US consumers.

Even if deliveries proceed, additional Russian diesel may redirect existing supplies rather than increase the amount available worldwide by the same volume. Other buyers could then seek replacement supplies elsewhere.

These uncertainties matter to the senators’ objections. They argue that the potential benefits to US consumers do not justify a move they believe conflicts with the law and could provide revenue to Russia.

However, the expected economic effect is a separate question from the legal authority to permit the imports. Neither the likely price impact nor the policy’s political appeal determines whether it complies with federal law.

What Happens Next

As of October 12, no official reversal of General License 135 or confirmed suspension of the Russian diesel plan had been identified in the public sources reviewed for this report.

The senators’ statement does not itself block the imports. A change could follow if the administration reverses course, Congress takes further legislative action or a court considers a legal challenge.

The statutory deadlines also matter. The 2022 law sets out a consultation, reporting and waiting-period process for terminating the import prohibition. Meanwhile, the 2026 law directs the administration to increase duties on Russian goods within 30 days of enactment, subject to its provisions and any applicable exceptions or waivers.

The administration’s next steps will help clarify how it intends to reconcile the new diesel authorization with those laws. Until then, the dispute remains unresolved.

The central question is not simply whether Russian diesel could lower fuel costs. It is whether the administration can permit the imports under the authority it has invoked while meeting the requirements Congress has enacted.

Reporting Credit: US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations; US Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control; US Government Publishing Office; White House.

The post Senators Urge Trump to Reverse Russian Diesel Plan, Citing Laws appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Petroleum Minister Ali Pervaiz Malik said Oct. 4 that more than 9 million citizens were benefiting from the Prime Minister’s Fuel Relief Scheme. The government introduced the program after petroleum prices rose sharply following the outbreak of the regional war.

The program is aimed at lower-income users of motorcycles, three-wheelers and small cars. It provides a Rs. 100-per-liter subsidy on eligible petrol purchases within monthly limits.

How the Fuel Relief Works

Motorcycle and three-wheeler users can receive four fuel-relief tokens each month. Each token provides Rs. 500 in relief, giving eligible users a maximum benefit of Rs. 2,000 a month.

Owners of vehicles with engines up to 800cc receive Rs. 100 per liter in relief on up to 10 liters every 10 days. That allows a maximum monthly benefit of Rs. 3,000.

The scheme is digitally managed through the government’s Fuel Pass System. Eligible users register through the designated SMS system and receive tokens that can be redeemed at participating petrol stations.

The government has also expanded eligibility and adjusted the system in response to implementation problems and public feedback.

Government Sets Aside Rs. 75 Billion

Pakistan’s Economic Coordination Committee approved Rs. 75 billion for the fuel-relief program in September.

The original structure provided Rs. 500 a week to two- and three-wheelers and Rs. 1,000 every 10 days to cars up to 800cc. The assistance is limited to non-commercial users and one vehicle per user or owner under the original framework.

The government said the digital system is intended to target assistance at eligible consumers while improving transparency and payment administration.

By Sept. 29, officials said about 7.6 million people had registered and 7.71 million fuel tokens had been redeemed. The latest government figure is higher, with the petroleum minister saying more than 9 million people were benefiting by Oct. 4.

Fuel Prices Remain Under Pressure

The subsidy does not reduce the general retail price of petrol for everyone.

Instead, eligible users receive a discount within defined limits. Fuel purchased outside those limits remains subject to the prevailing price.

Pakistan’s fuel-pricing system has been under pressure from international oil-market volatility. The Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority continues to publish frequent fuel-price and market-price data, including updated October assessments.

The government has also introduced fuel-conservation and austerity measures as it tries to limit the broader economic effect of higher energy costs.

Relief Comes With Fiscal Constraints

The fuel program comes as Pakistan continues to operate under a fiscal reform program with the International Monetary Fund.

The IMF has emphasized that fuel-price adjustments should remain aligned with international prices and that any temporary relief should be targeted, limited and budget neutral. It has also warned that broad fuel subsidies can create significant fiscal costs.

That makes the design of Pakistan’s current program important.

Rather than keeping fuel prices artificially low for the entire population, the government is directing assistance toward selected lower-income motorists.

The approach provides some protection against the immediate rise in transport costs while preserving the broader fuel-pricing mechanism.

Energy Shock Reaches Households

Pakistan’s response shows how disruption in international energy markets can quickly reach consumers far from the conflict zone.

Higher oil costs raise the expense of transportation and can add pressure to the prices of goods and services that depend on fuel.

The targeted subsidy does not remove those wider pressures. It gives eligible motorists limited relief on their petrol purchases while the government manages the larger fiscal and energy-price challenge.

With more than 9 million people now reported as benefiting, the program has become a significant part of Pakistan’s response to the energy shock.

Reporting Credit: Government of Pakistan; Prime Minister’s Office; Ministry of Petroleum; Ministry of Finance; Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunication; Economic Coordination Committee; State Bank of Pakistan; Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority; International Monetary Fund.

The post Pakistan Expands Fuel Subsidies to 9 Million as War Drives Up Energy Costs appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The order, signed during Trump’s campaign rally in Grand Island, directs the Treasury Department to defer the federal excise tax applicable to on-road use of dyed diesel through the end of 2026 without interest or penalties. It also directs Treasury to explore ways to eliminate the obligation to pay the deferred tax.

The federal diesel excise tax is 24.4 cents per gallon. The White House said the measure could save truckers about $60 on a 250-gallon fill from the federal component alone, while savings could exceed $100 where states adopt corresponding measures.

The order also directs the Transportation Department to coordinate with states, industry and labor organizations on access to dyed diesel. The Agriculture Department is instructed to help ensure farmers can obtain the fuel in high-demand areas and encourage states to take similar action.

The policy concerns diesel commonly known as red-dyed or dyed diesel because a federal dye requirement distinguishes fuel intended for tax-exempt uses such as agriculture, construction and heating from diesel subject to highway taxes.

Trump said the order would allow broader use of the fuel and reduce costs for truckers and farmers. The White House has attributed the recent increase in diesel prices to constrained global supply and reduced refining capacity.

But the tax change does not by itself resolve the underlying supply pressures affecting fuel markets. Analysts cited in current reporting have questioned how much the measure will reduce prices because the principal pressure on diesel markets is supply rather than the federal fuel tax.

Nebraska had already moved to provide temporary relief before the federal action. Gov. Jim Pillen issued executive orders in September allowing highway-registered vehicles in the state to hold, sell or use untaxed dyed diesel without state fines or penalties. The state measures were intended to provide relief during the agricultural harvest season and remain temporary.

The federal action therefore expands a policy approach that several states had already begun using as diesel prices climbed. Other states have also taken steps to ease restrictions or provide temporary fuel-tax relief.

The timing of Trump’s announcement adds a significant political dimension. He signed the order in Nebraska during a campaign stop for Republican candidates, less than a month before the Nov. 3 midterm elections. The administration has increasingly focused on fuel and grocery costs as economic issues affecting voters.

Trump was campaigning alongside Nebraska Republican leaders, including Sen. Pete Ricketts, as part of a broader series of rallies before the election. His administration has presented the diesel action as an affordability measure rather than as an election-related policy.

The distinction between a tax deferral and a permanent tax repeal remains important. The executive order does not itself permanently eliminate the federal diesel excise tax. Instead, it directs Treasury to defer collection through the end of the year and examine possible pathways for eliminating the deferred liability.

The order also does not automatically eliminate state fuel taxes. State governments must take their own action for state-level taxes or restrictions to change, which is why the White House is encouraging states to adopt policies corresponding to the federal action.

For farmers, the practical effect may be less significant than for highway users because qualifying agricultural and other off-road uses of dyed diesel were already generally exempt from the federal highway fuel tax. The new policy primarily changes access to that fuel for uses that would ordinarily require taxed on-road diesel.

The immediate question for the fuel market is whether broader access to dyed diesel can provide meaningful relief while supplies remain constrained. The administration has presented the policy as temporary assistance for farmers, truckers and other diesel users, while the broader market remains dependent on fuel availability, refining capacity and global energy conditions.

The next developments will include how Treasury implements the tax deferral, how states respond to the federal request and whether expanded access produces measurable savings for highway diesel users before the end of 2026.

Reporting Credit: White House; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Nebraska Governor’s Office.

The post Trump Signs Order Allowing Tax-Free Red-Dyed Diesel for Highway Use appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The agreement was announced Oct. 2 after a virtual G7 meeting focused on worsening energy-market pressures and supply disruptions.

The G7 statement says the release will take into account commitments that members have already fulfilled under an earlier March 2026 agreement. The 100-million-barrel figure therefore does not necessarily represent 100 million barrels of entirely new commitments.

G7 puts diesel at the front of the release

The G7 asked the IEA to coordinate implementation of the release and monitor its effect on energy security and market stability.

The release is scheduled to begin immediately and continue for four months. The G7 said a substantial amount of diesel will be released during the first 20 days by G7 members and their partners.

The leaders also said they would meet through the IEA in the coming days to consider whether additional diesel releases are necessary.

The agreement does not provide a final public breakdown of how much of the 100 million barrels will consist of crude oil, diesel or other petroleum products.

Diesel markets are under particular pressure

The IEA said the Oct. 2 G7 meeting focused particularly on severe pressure in global diesel markets.

IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said refined-product flows remained severely constrained even as crude-oil exports from the Middle East had recovered significantly.

The IEA also said Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries had exacerbated the pressure on diesel supplies.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration has separately reported that global distillate markets have tightened as international refinery production has fallen. It expects U.S. distillate inventories to remain below the five-year average through the end of 2026 and most of 2027.

U.S. diesel prices remain elevated

U.S. government energy data show the continuing pressure on fuel markets.

The Energy Information Administration reported a U.S. average retail diesel price of $6.37 per gallon on Oct. 1, based on AAA data incorporated into its daily price report. The same report put Brent crude at $114.82 per barrel and West Texas Intermediate at $99.77 per barrel at the Oct. 1 close.

Those prices provide a snapshot of the market immediately before the G7 agreement, rather than evidence of what the coordinated release will ultimately do to retail fuel prices.

The effect on consumers will depend on how quickly additional supplies enter individual markets, the condition of global shipping routes and refinery capacity, and whether broader supply disruptions continue.

Strait of Hormuz remains central to the energy crisis

The G7 linked the energy-market situation to disruptions affecting international trade and energy security.

In its statement, the group called for the immediate and full restoration of navigational rights and principles in the Strait of Hormuz and said it would increase efforts to restore the free flow of commerce through the waterway.

The IEA said the effects of the Strait of Hormuz crisis remained acute, particularly in diesel markets.

The EIA has also reported that constrained flows through the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb have contributed to oil-production shut-ins and higher crude prices.

G7 members reject energy export restrictions

The G7 agreement includes a separate commitment concerning trade between member countries.

The leaders reaffirmed that they would refrain from imposing export restrictions on energy and energy products between G7 countries.

They also called on energy producers more broadly to avoid export bans that could further intensify market tensions.

The commitment comes as governments face pressure to maintain fuel availability while protecting their own domestic supplies.

Refineries will also be part of the response

The emergency stock release is only one element of the G7’s energy measures.

The leaders agreed to coordinate refinery maintenance schedules to avoid simultaneous shutdowns that could further reduce available capacity.

They also said the G7 would encourage countries with significant refining capacity to increase production of refined petroleum products, particularly diesel.

That distinction is important because releasing crude oil does not immediately translate into additional diesel at the pump. Crude must be transported, processed and distributed before it becomes a refined fuel available to consumers.

Earlier IEA release remains part of the background

The new G7 action follows the much larger emergency stock-release effort announced by IEA members in March.

The IEA said on Oct. 2 that approximately 325 million barrels of the 400 million barrels pledged in March had already been released, representing more than 80% of that earlier commitment.

The IEA’s March data showed that participating countries’ contributions included both crude oil and refined petroleum products, with the precise composition varying by country.

The G7’s Oct. 2 statement specifically says the new 100-million-barrel implementation takes previously fulfilled March commitments into account.

The price effect remains uncertain

The coordinated release is intended to increase near-term supply and reduce pressure on energy markets, but the G7 has not specified a particular reduction in crude or retail fuel prices.

The EIA’s latest outlook before the G7 announcement said global oil inventories had fallen substantially during 2026 and that continued restrictions on Middle Eastern flows were keeping prices elevated.

The agency also said low distillate inventories were contributing to higher diesel prices and that refinery maintenance and seasonal agricultural demand could add further pressure during the fall and winter.

The emergency release therefore addresses one part of the supply problem while broader questions about shipping, refinery output and global production remain.

IEA will report on the response within 20 days

The G7 has asked the IEA to monitor both implementation and the market impact of the measures.

The group called for a follow-up report within 20 days containing recommendations for future responses, including possible replenishment of emergency stocks.

The G7 also said it would remain prepared to adjust its measures as energy-market conditions develop.

For now, the agreement establishes a coordinated four-month release of 100 million barrels through the IEA, with substantial diesel volumes to be released during the first 20 days. The precise market impact will depend on how quickly those supplies become available and whether disruptions to crude and refined-product flows continue.

Reporting Credit: G7 leaders and the French G7 Presidency; International Energy Agency; U.S. Energy Information Administration; U.S. Department of Energy; official G7 energy-security statement.

The post G7 to Release 100 Million Barrels of Oil and Fuel as Prices Surge appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The national average price for diesel reached $6.5276 a gallon on Sept. 22, according to AAA, the highest recorded average in its current series. The price was $3.6933 a year earlier and has risen by more than 73% since then.

The increase has coincided with a wider disruption in global refined-fuel markets following the war involving Iran and continuing disruption affecting Russian energy supplies.

The political response has been particularly visible among Republicans representing rural and agricultural constituencies. Several have called for measures intended to increase domestic diesel availability, including restricting exports.

The administration, however, has not adopted a blanket export ban.

Diesel has become a broader economic problem

Diesel is used extensively by the trucking, farming, construction, manufacturing and logistics industries.

That gives the price of diesel a wider economic effect than the cost of filling a passenger vehicle. Higher fuel expenses can increase the cost of transporting food and manufactured goods, operating agricultural equipment and moving freight.

The Energy Information Administration said the current increase is being driven by tight global distillate supplies and elevated crude-oil prices.

Global refining activity has been reduced in Russia, China and the Middle East, according to the EIA. Lower international production has raised global distillate prices and increased demand for U.S. diesel exports.

U.S. refineries have responded with high production.

Domestic distillate production averaged about 5.1 million barrels a day from January through August, the highest level for that period since 2019. Refinery utilization reached 97% during the week ending Sept. 11.

But high production has not eliminated the supply pressure.

U.S. distillate inventories were 13% below their five-year seasonal average as of Sept. 11, according to EIA. The agency expects inventories to remain below the five-year range through the end of 2026 and most of 2027.

Rural Republicans demand intervention

The price increase has created an unusual political problem for Republicans representing farming and trucking regions.

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley called on President Donald Trump to suspend diesel exports, arguing that domestic fuel supplies should receive priority.

Republican Reps. Ashley Hinson and Mariannette Miller-Meeks of Iowa also called for government action to reduce fuel costs. Their proposals included restricting exports and providing assistance to farmers and truckers.

Other Republicans have similarly focused on the cost of diesel in agricultural states.

The issue is particularly significant for farmers because diesel is used to operate tractors, combines and other heavy equipment. Harvest-season demand can also increase at the same time that refineries traditionally enter seasonal maintenance periods.

EIA expects that combination to contribute to continued price pressure during the fall and winter.

The administration faces a trade-off over exports

The debate over diesel exports reflects a basic problem in the U.S. fuel market.

American refiners produce more distillate than the domestic market consumes at some times of the year, allowing the United States to export substantial quantities.

Those exports also connect U.S. refiners to international prices.

EIA said U.S. distillate net exports have remained near or above the previous five-year high during every month of 2026 since February. Rising exports have contributed to declining domestic inventories.

Republicans seeking an export restriction argue that retaining more fuel inside the United States could increase domestic supply and reduce costs for American consumers.

But the policy has potential international and domestic consequences.

The Congressional Research Service has previously noted that restricting refined-petroleum exports could tighten international markets and potentially increase prices for foreign supplies imported into the United States. The United States normally exports more distillate than it imports.

The Trump administration has therefore faced pressure from lawmakers seeking immediate domestic relief while also considering the broader effects of restricting exports.

A blanket export ban remains off the table

Trump has indicated support for efforts to restrict diesel exports, but Energy Secretary Chris Wright said Wednesday that the administration would not impose a blanket ban.

The administration’s position leaves open the possibility of more targeted measures while rejecting a complete prohibition on exports.

The distinction matters because the United States is itself part of the global diesel supply system.

A broad restriction could increase domestic availability under some market conditions, but it could also reduce supplies available to international buyers and change incentives for refiners.

The effectiveness of an export restriction would also depend on refinery capacity, crude availability, inventories and the duration of the Middle East disruption.

Iran war remains central to the price shock

The current diesel surge is not caused by a single factor.

The EIA identifies global distillate production, crude prices, refining margins, inventories and international trade flows as major components of the market.

The war involving Iran has nevertheless disrupted one of the world’s most important oil-producing regions and affected transportation through the Middle East.

EIA’s September outlook assumes that normal tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz will resume in the near term. Under that assumption, additional Middle Eastern distillate exports and increased crude availability for Asian refineries would gradually reduce global refining pressure. If those flows remain constrained beyond 2026, the agency says global distillate crack spreads could be higher than its current forecast.

The longer the disruption lasts, the harder it becomes for U.S. refiners and other producers to compensate for the missing supply.

Republicans are now confronting the issue on the campaign trail

The fuel crisis arrives as candidates prepare for the November midterm elections.

Republicans in competitive races have increasingly spoken about the war’s economic consequences, with some calling for an end to the conflict and others demanding domestic measures to reduce fuel costs.

The issue reaches beyond gasoline.

Diesel is particularly important in rural areas because of its role in agriculture and freight transportation. A sustained increase can therefore affect both the operating costs of businesses and the prices consumers eventually pay for transported goods.

Recent polling has also found that fuel affordability is a concern among Republican voters. An earlier AP-NORC survey found that about six in 10 Republicans were at least somewhat concerned about their ability to afford gasoline in the following months as the Iran war pushed energy prices higher.

That polling predates the latest diesel record and should not be interpreted as a direct measure of current voter attitudes toward diesel or the midterms.

The political response is becoming more visible

The difference between the administration’s position and the demands of some Republican lawmakers illustrates the difficulty of managing the price shock.

Republican candidates and lawmakers are not taking a single position.

Some have called for ending the Iran war. Others are seeking export restrictions or financial assistance for affected industries. The administration has pursued additional measures while resisting a blanket diesel-export ban.

The policy debate is therefore shifting from whether fuel prices are a problem to which costs should be absorbed by which part of the economy.

Restricting exports could potentially increase domestic availability, but it could also affect international supplies.

Subsidies or direct assistance could reduce costs for farmers and truckers but would shift some of the burden to taxpayers.

Increasing domestic production could add supply over time, but it cannot immediately replace barrels disrupted by international conflicts or refinery constraints.

The pressure could persist into 2027

The immediate political question is whether diesel prices will ease before voters go to the polls.

The market outlook provides no simple answer.

EIA expects global distillate production to remain below last year’s levels in coming months and U.S. inventories to remain unusually low. The agency expects prices to remain elevated, particularly during the period of seasonal refinery maintenance and higher agricultural demand.

The agency’s forecast also depends on an assumption that Middle Eastern tanker traffic normalizes.

A prolonged disruption would create additional pressure.

The political consequences will depend not only on the price at the pump but also on how voters experience the broader effects — from farm operating costs to freight rates and food prices.

For Republicans, the diesel surge has therefore become a concrete economic issue during an election year in which the cost of living is already central to the political debate.

The November elections will not be determined by diesel prices alone. But the record cost of the fuel is forcing Republican lawmakers and candidates to address a problem that is particularly visible in some of the constituencies most dependent on it.

Reporting Credit: U.S. Energy Information Administration — diesel pricing, distillate production, inventories, exports and market outlook; U.S. Department of Energy — administration policy and fuel-market actions; AAA — current U.S. retail diesel price data; U.S. Congress/ Congressional Research Service — analysis of diesel exports and potential domestic and international effects.

The post Record Diesel Prices Put Pressure on Republicans Ahead of Midterms appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

According to data released Tuesday by the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, carriers spent $6.66 billion on jet fuel in May, up 84% from the same month a year earlier. The figure followed April’s fuel bill of $6.47 billion, marking the second straight month that industry-wide spending exceeded the $6 billion threshold.

Higher Fuel Prices Drive Airline Costs

The sharp increase in spending was driven primarily by higher fuel prices rather than greater consumption.

U.S. airlines used 1.627 billion gallons of jet fuel in May, down 0.6% from May 2025. Fuel consumption also edged lower in April compared with the same month last year.

The average price paid by airlines was $4.09 per gallon in May, slightly below April’s average of $4.11. However, it remained 85% higher than the $2.21 per gallon recorded in May 2025, according to the transportation agency.

Industry Continues to Adjust

Airlines around the world have responded to higher fuel costs by increasing fares and ancillary fees while trimming flight schedules. Fuel remains one of the industry’s largest operating expenses, making carriers particularly sensitive to fluctuations in global energy prices.

The latest government figures highlight the lingering effects of the surge in fuel costs that followed the outbreak of conflict in the Middle East earlier this year, which disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical route for global crude oil and refined fuel supplies.

Geopolitical Risks Keep Energy Markets on Edge

Although fuel prices have retreated from their spring peaks after the United States and Iran reached an interim ceasefire agreement, easing some financial pressure on airlines, uncertainty remains.

On Tuesday, the British military said three tankers were struck by projectiles in the Strait of Hormuz. The United States also revoked a license that had permitted Iranian oil sales under the interim agreement, raising fresh concerns about regional stability and future energy supplies.

Focus Shifts to Airline Earnings

Investors are now looking ahead to the airline earnings season for further insight into how lower fuel prices could affect profitability.

Delta Air Lines is scheduled to report its second-quarter financial results on Friday, beginning a series of earnings reports from major U.S. carriers. Executives are expected to discuss whether the recent decline in fuel prices will provide meaningful relief after a costly spring.

According to the Argus U.S. Jet Fuel Index, the average jet fuel price across the major airline hubs of Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles and New York stood at $2.88 per gallon on Tuesday. Prices fell below $3 per gallon on June 15 for the first time since early March and have remained under that level since.

This report is based on reporting by The Associated Press (AP).

Article Topics: U.S. Airlines | Jet Fuel | Fuel Prices | Aviation Industry | Airline Earnings | Energy Markets | Transportation | Inflation

The post U.S. Airlines’ May Fuel Spending Tops $6.6 Billion as Energy Costs Remain Elevated appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Speaking at the White House on Monday, Trump said his administration would move to halt the federal gas tax temporarily to reduce prices at the pump ahead of the summer travel season. The proposal comes as average U.S. gasoline prices have climbed above $4.50 per gallon following disruptions to shipping routes near the Strait of Hormuz during the ongoing Iran war.

However, the president does not have unilateral authority to suspend the tax. The federal gasoline levy — currently 18.4 cents per gallon — was established by Congress and finances the Highway Trust Fund, which supports national road and transit infrastructure projects. Any suspension would require congressional approval.

The White House has framed the proposal as part of a broader effort to contain economic fallout from the Middle East crisis. The administration has already released oil from strategic reserves and eased some restrictions affecting global energy flows in an attempt to stabilize fuel markets.

Economic Pressure Intensifies Ahead of Summer

Fuel costs have emerged as a growing political challenge for the Trump administration after months of escalating conflict involving Iran and disruptions to maritime traffic in the Persian Gulf. Oil markets reacted sharply after renewed tensions threatened shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical corridor for global crude exports.

The proposed gas tax suspension would likely provide only limited direct savings for consumers. Analysts cited by multiple U.S. outlets estimated that a full suspension could reduce prices by roughly 18 cents per gallon if retailers pass on the entire tax reduction to drivers. Economists have warned, however, that market conditions and refinery costs could dilute the impact.

Industry groups and fiscal policy experts also cautioned that pausing the tax could worsen federal budget pressures and undermine long-term infrastructure funding. According to Associated Press reporting, the federal gasoline tax generates more than $23 billion annually for transportation projects across the United States.

Congressional Debate Takes Shape

Several Republican lawmakers have indicated support for legislation backing a temporary gas tax holiday, while some Democrats noted they had proposed similar measures during earlier periods of inflation and energy volatility. Still, bipartisan consensus remains uncertain.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune reportedly expressed concerns about the financial impact on transportation funding programs, signaling potential resistance even within Trump’s own party.

The debate revives a policy dispute that surfaced repeatedly during earlier energy crises, including during the Biden administration in 2022. Previous attempts to suspend the federal gas tax failed to gain sufficient support in Congress amid concerns that the measure offered only short-term political relief without addressing underlying energy supply constraints.

Global Energy Risks Continue to Shape U.S. Policy

The administration’s proposal reflects how the Iran conflict has increasingly influenced domestic economic policy in Washington. Rising fuel costs have become intertwined with broader concerns over inflation, shipping disruptions, and energy security as global markets respond to instability in the Middle East.

Trump has continued to argue that ending the conflict would ultimately bring down energy prices more effectively than temporary tax relief measures. At the same time, his administration faces mounting pressure from lawmakers and voters concerned about the economic consequences of prolonged regional instability.

Despite the political momentum behind the proposal, analysts say a federal gas tax suspension would face a difficult path through Congress, particularly as lawmakers debate budget priorities and infrastructure spending ahead of the midterm election cycle.

The post Trump Pushes Federal Gas Tax Suspension as Iran Conflict Drives Fuel Prices Higher appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The post DoorDash Expands Driver Support Program as Fuel Costs Pressure Delivery Sector appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

According to reporting by The Associated Press, jet fuel availability has lagged behind broader oil supply growth, creating a mismatch that is increasingly visible across major aviation hubs. Industry analysts warn that the issue is not rooted in crude shortages but in the limited ability of refineries to produce sufficient volumes of aviation-grade fuel.

Refining Bottlenecks Begin to Constrain Airline Flexibility

The current supply gap is being driven largely by refining limitations rather than upstream production deficits. Several refineries have either closed or reduced output in recent years, while others have shifted toward more profitable fuel products such as diesel. This has narrowed the share of jet fuel in overall output at a time when international air travel is accelerating.

Airlines are now being forced to adapt operational strategies. Some carriers are adjusting flight schedules, reconsidering marginal routes, or increasing fuel hedging activity to manage exposure. The constraints also limit flexibility in responding to demand spikes, particularly during peak travel seasons.

From a strategic standpoint, the aviation sector is confronting a structural issue rather than a temporary disruption, suggesting that short-term fixes may be insufficient without broader refining adjustments.

Cost Pressures Intensify Across Global Carriers

Fuel remains one of the largest cost components for airlines, and tightening supply is translating into higher prices. As jet fuel premiums rise relative to crude oil, carriers are seeing margins come under pressure, particularly those operating long-haul routes where fuel consumption is highest.

This dynamic is likely to feed through to consumers. Airlines may pass on increased costs through higher fares, reduced promotional pricing, or ancillary fees. Budget carriers, which typically operate on thinner margins, could be especially vulnerable to sustained price volatility.

The pricing environment also complicates long-term planning. Airlines must now factor in not only fuel price fluctuations but also potential availability constraints, adding another layer of uncertainty to route and capacity decisions.

Regional Imbalances Expose Supply Chain Vulnerabilities

Jet fuel shortages are not uniform across regions. Some markets are experiencing more acute constraints due to logistical challenges, refining capacity distribution, or geopolitical factors affecting energy flows. This uneven landscape creates inefficiencies in global aviation networks, as airlines may need to adjust fueling strategies or reroute aircraft to ensure supply continuity.

In certain cases, aircraft may carry additional fuel from better-supplied locations, a practice known as “tankering,” which can increase weight and reduce efficiency. While viable as a short-term solution, it underscores deeper imbalances in supply chain coordination.

These regional disparities highlight the fragility of aviation fuel logistics, particularly in a system optimized for efficiency rather than resilience.

Energy Market Shifts Reshape Aviation Outlook

The jet fuel squeeze reflects broader changes within global energy markets. As refining economics evolve and environmental policies influence production decisions, aviation fuel is competing with other petroleum products for limited processing capacity.

There is also a longer-term transition underway, with growing emphasis on sustainable aviation fuels (SAF). However, current SAF production remains limited and cannot yet offset conventional jet fuel demand at scale.

This leaves airlines navigating a transitional phase where traditional fuel supplies are constrained, but alternatives are not yet sufficiently developed to bridge the gap.

Strategic Outlook: Aviation Faces Prolonged Supply Adjustment

Looking ahead, the imbalance between jet fuel supply and aviation demand may persist unless refining capacity expands or production priorities shift. The situation places airlines in a position where operational efficiency, fuel management, and pricing strategy will become increasingly central to competitiveness.

The risk is not an immediate disruption to global travel but a gradual tightening of conditions that could slow growth, reshape route economics, and alter passenger cost expectations.

In that sense, the jet fuel shortage is less a crisis than a structural adjustment—one that may redefine the operating environment for airlines in the years ahead.

The post Jet Fuel Shortage Tightens Global Aviation Margins as Supply Strains Deepen appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Major Developments We’re Following

• Strait of Hormuz disruption: Ongoing closure affects international shipping and global fuel prices.
• Fuel prices surge: U.S. gasoline prices above $4 per gallon as crude supply tightens.
• Strikes near Isfahan: Reports of attacks on nuclear-linked facilities; extent of damage unverified.
• Gulf tanker security: Commercial vessels face heightened risks; insurance costs rise.
• U.S.–European diplomatic tension: President Trump criticizes allies over support for military operations.
• Regional mediation efforts: Indirect proposals between Iran, U.S., and allies continue.
• Energy market volatility: Oil futures react to Strait closure and geopolitical risk signals.
• Civil defense alerts: Regional authorities issue warnings to local populations.

23:59 UTC — Fuel Prices Stay Above $4 Across U.S. Markets
The Associated Press reported that average U.S. gasoline prices remained above $4 per gallon as Gulf shipping disruption continued to tighten crude supply expectations.

23:54 UTC — Gulf Allies Urge Washington to Continue Campaign
AP reported that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and other Gulf partners privately urged the White House to maintain military pressure on Iran.

23:48 UTC — Fresh Fireball Seen Over Isfahan Region
A likely strike near Iran’s Isfahan nuclear-linked zone was reported by AP, with footage showing a major blast over the city skyline.

23:42 UTC — Kuwaiti Tanker Strike Raises Maritime Alarm
Regional shipping authorities said tanker routes near Dubai and Gulf approaches are under renewed security review after the vessel strike.

23:36 UTC — White House Friction With Allies Deepens
President Trump publicly criticized allies unwilling to provide greater support, AP reported.

23:30 UTC — Insurance Costs Rise for Gulf Shipping
Maritime insurers increased risk pricing for Gulf passages as the Strait closure persisted, according to regional shipping officials cited by AP-linked reporting.

23:24 UTC — Diplomatic Messages Continue Through Intermediaries
Officials familiar with mediation efforts said indirect proposals are still being relayed between capitals.

23:18 UTC — Energy Traders Watch April Deadline Signals
Oil markets reacted to renewed U.S. deadline messaging tied to reopening the Strait.

23:12 UTC — Gulf Airspace Restrictions Reviewed
Several regional governments were reported to be reassessing airspace permissions linked to military logistics.

23:06 UTC — Additional Naval Escorts Discussed
Regional security officials discussed expanded naval escort options for commercial tankers.

22:58 UTC — New Pressure on European Capitals
22:51 UTC — Traders Price in Extended Strait Closure
22:44 UTC — Fire Reported Near Iranian Industrial Zone
22:37 UTC — Gulf States Push Security Coordination
22:30 UTC — Tanker Movements Slow Further
22:22 UTC — Mediation Proposal Details Still Unclear
22:15 UTC — U.S. Officials Cite Military Objectives Progress
22:08 UTC — Regional Ports Increase Vessel Checks
22:01 UTC — Isfahan Damage Assessment Pending
21:54 UTC — Energy Futures Volatility Continues

21:46 UTC — Gulf Allies Seek Longer Campaign Window
21:39 UTC — Shipping Companies Re-route Select Cargoes
21:31 UTC — Trump Repeats Frustration With Partners
21:24 UTC — Oil Tanker Security Review Expanded
21:17 UTC — Strait Closure Remains Central Market Risk
21:10 UTC — Regional Officials Warn of Supply Delays
21:03 UTC — Military and Diplomatic Tracks Continue in Parallel
20:56 UTC — New Civil Defense Alerts Reported in Gulf
20:49 UTC — Analysts Watch Refinery Throughput Risks
20:42 UTC — Additional Ceasefire Signals Not Confirmed

20:34 UTC — AP Confirms Wider Diplomatic Strain
20:27 UTC — Gulf States Press for Decisive Outcome
20:19 UTC — Market Attention Shifts to Shipping Insurance
20:12 UTC — Nuclear-Site Region Remains Under Watch
20:05 UTC — Tanker Route Security Measures Tightened
19:58 UTC — Energy Ministers Hold Emergency Calls
19:50 UTC — Gulf Military Coordination Meetings Continue
19:43 UTC — Fresh Statements Expected From Capitals
19:36 UTC — Shipping Delays Spread to Asian Buyers
19:29 UTC — Live Tracker Remains Active as New AP Updates Arrive

What We Know

• Confirmed strikes near Isfahan reported by AP and regional media; footage shows explosions.
• Strait of Hormuz closure persists, disrupting tanker movements and raising shipping costs.
• U.S. gasoline prices remain above $4 per gallon as supply pressure continues.
• Insurance for Gulf tankers has increased, according to maritime officials.
• White House publicly criticized allies unwilling to provide operational support.
• Gulf states coordinating security and discussing expanded naval escorts for commercial vessels.
• Emergency energy and maritime calls held by ministers and regional officials.
• Indirect diplomatic channels remain open; no official ceasefire announced.

What We Don’t Know

• Full operational damage at Isfahan-linked nuclear site and impact on nuclear program.
• Exact timeline for reopening Strait of Hormuz and resumption of normal shipping.
• Effectiveness of ongoing mediation efforts between Iran, U.S., and allies.
• Potential for additional strikes or escalation in other regions of Iran or neighboring states.
• Future trajectory of fuel prices and energy markets if the disruption continues.
• Whether allied nations will change their airspace or military support policies.

The post LIVE: Iran War Escalation — 40 Rolling Security Updates appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.