27th October 2026
Rising fuel prices expose the limits of presidential promises and offer a warning for Britain about the cost of energy dependence.
Donald Trump made cheaper energy one of the central promises of his return to the White House. Yet figures published on 26 October suggest that the average American price of petrol during his second presidency has now edged above the average recorded under Joe Biden. Diesel prices have risen considerably further.
The figures come at an awkward moment for Trump, with American voters due to go to the polls in the midterm elections on 3 November. They also illustrate a wider problem facing governments on both sides of the Atlantic: politicians can promise lower fuel bills, but they cannot easily control the international forces that determine what motorists pay.
According to figures from the American Automobile Association (AAA), the average price of regular petrol during Trump's second term has been $3.472 per US gallon, fractionally above the $3.471 average during Biden's presidency.
The difference in petrol prices is almost meaningless in itself. It amounts to only a fraction of a cent per gallon. But the comparison has attracted attention because it challenges the political argument that returning Trump to the White House would bring consistently cheaper fuel.
The position with diesel is more striking. Its average price during Trump's second term has reached $4.343 per gallon, compared with $4.078 under Biden. That represents an increase of around 6.5 per cent.
The figures do not mean that Biden's record on fuel prices was necessarily better. Petrol prices under Biden reached more than $5 a gallon in June 2022, following Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the disruption that followed. That peak remains a reminder of how quickly energy markets can change.
Nor does the latest comparison establish that Trump's policies alone caused the present increases. The two presidencies have faced different international circumstances, and the average over a whole presidency is not the same as the price motorists encounter today.
Nevertheless, the latest figures make uncomfortable reading for a president who repeatedly promised that energy would become cheaper.
War changes the calculation
The immediate explanation for the recent surge is the conflict involving Iran and the disruption to international fuel supplies, alongside continuing attacks on energy infrastructure associated with the war in Ukraine.
Before the Iran conflict began on 28 February 2026, American petrol averaged around $2.98 a gallon. By 26 October, AAA's national average was approximately $4.29. Diesel had risen from around $3.76 to $6.35 a gallon.
These increases are not simply a problem for motorists. Diesel powers much of the machinery used in farming, construction, freight transport and industry. When its price rises sharply, the additional cost can spread through the economy, eventually reaching supermarket shelves and other household bills.
America is the world's largest oil producer, but domestic production does not make it immune from international price movements. Oil is traded in global markets, and the prices received by producers, refiners and fuel distributors reflect a complicated mixture of supply, demand, transport costs, refining capacity and expectations about future shortages.
Higher prices can benefit American oil producers while leaving American consumers worse off. That distinction matters when a government presents increased domestic oil production as a straightforward route to cheaper energy.
The interests of an oil company selling fuel and a household buying it are not necessarily the same.
An election test for Trump
The timing is particularly significant because Republicans are seeking to defend narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress in the November midterm elections.
Fuel prices are among the most visible measures of the cost of living. Motorists see them every time they pass a filling station, and many have little choice but to pay whatever the market demands.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll published on 19 October found that 31 per cent of Americans approved of Trump's overall performance, while only 23 per cent approved of his handling of the economy.
Those figures reflect wider economic concerns, rather than fuel prices alone. Nevertheless, rising petrol and diesel costs give voters a tangible reason to question whether the administration is delivering the lower household costs it promised.
Trump can reasonably argue that an international conflict and disruption to oil supplies are not entirely within his control. His critics can equally point out that decisions about foreign policy and military action may themselves have economic consequences.
The important distinction is between circumstances a president inherits, events that develop beyond a government's control, and the consequences of decisions made while in office.
Voters will make their own assessment of how those factors should be weighed.
The lesson for Britain
There is a clear connection with Britain's own energy debate.
The UK produces oil and gas from the North Sea, but motorists still pay prices influenced by international markets. Domestic production does not guarantee that petrol, diesel or heating oil will be cheap, particularly when global supplies are disrupted.
Britain also has a different tax structure from the United States. Fuel duty and VAT account for a substantial part of UK pump prices, whereas American fuel taxes are generally much lower. Direct comparisons between prices at British and American filling stations therefore need to take account of those differences.
Even so, the underlying vulnerability is similar. International oil prices can rise quickly, and the consequences spread well beyond the forecourt.
For households in northern Scotland, where driving distances are often substantial and alternatives to the car are limited, higher petrol and diesel prices can be particularly difficult to avoid. Businesses face higher transport and operating costs, while households relying on heating oil can be exposed to another source of price volatility.
The debate over new North Sea developments, including the Jackdaw gas field, needs to recognise this distinction. Additional domestic production may contribute to energy security, support employment and generate tax revenues. But it cannot, by itself, guarantee lower prices for British consumers.
Governments must also consider the resilience of energy supplies, the capacity to refine and distribute fuel, the development of alternative energy sources and how households and businesses can be protected when international markets turn against them.
Promises meet reality
The American experience is a reminder that energy policy involves difficult choices. Expanding domestic production, maintaining reliable supplies, reducing emissions and keeping household bills affordable are related objectives, but they are not automatically achieved by the same policies.
Trump's promise of cheaper petrol was politically powerful because it offered a simple answer to a problem that matters to millions of households. The latest figures demonstrate how difficult it is to sustain that promise when international events push prices upwards.
For Britain, the lesson is not that domestic oil and gas production is pointless, or that one American president is responsible for every movement in fuel prices. It is that energy security and cheap energy are not the same thing.
A country can produce substantial quantities of oil and still find its consumers paying more. The real test for any government is how well it prepares for that possibility, how it responds when prices rise, and whether its policies leave households and businesses better able to withstand the next shock.