Rising gasoline and diesel prices are putting pressure on Donald Trump ahead of the U.S. midterm elections. Political analyst Gregory Alegi explains how economic frustration could reshape voter loyalties and the balance of power in Congress.
Rising fuel prices take center stage in the U.S. midterm elections
The state of the economy and the sharp rise in fuel prices appear increasingly likely to shape the outcome of the U.S. midterm elections. To understand how these pressures could influence voters, perceptions of the Trump administration and the balance of power in Congress, Rinnovabili spoke with Gregory Alegi, professor of U.S. history and politics at Luiss University in Rome.
Professor, how could rising energy prices, particularly gasoline and diesel, affect voting in the U.S. midterm elections?
Many polls currently suggest that economic issues will be just as influential in the midterm elections as they were in the 2024 presidential race. Back then, the overriding concern was high inflation, particularly the price of eggs. Today, the focus has shifted to fuel prices. But there is an important difference: the current surge in fuel costs is directly linked to the Trump administration’s policies. By contrast, the high price of eggs two years ago was not the result of Biden administration policies.
Fuel prices generally matter more to Americans than they do to Italians. For one thing, the United States is a much larger country, and public transportation is far less extensive, particularly across the vast areas where people live. In Italy, someone commuting 12 to 19 miles might consider that a long journey to work. In the United States, commuting distances can easily be twice as long. That makes fuel costs much more noticeable. And although it may sound like a cliché, American vehicles also tend to be considerably less fuel-efficient.
As a result, gasoline prices have a much greater direct impact on the average American than on the average Italian. Diesel prices, meanwhile, are particularly important for freight transportation in the United States, meaning their effects are felt across a wide range of essential goods, precisely because of the distances involved. The American trucks we see in movies and television shows have enormous diesel engines and travel thousands of miles. That is why rising transportation costs ripple through entire supply chains, including the cost of getting eggs to market.
There is another aspect that often goes overlooked. Paradoxically, higher gasoline prices hit Republican voters harder because Democratic voters have been more receptive to electric vehicles over the past decade. Because of what we might call ideological opposition to EVs, some Republican voters now find themselves paying a particularly high price for gasoline, and they feel the impact more acutely. Those who have switched to electric vehicles, by contrast, are less exposed.
According to a new Associated Press-NORC poll, Trump’s low approval rating on the economy matches Biden’s 28% rating in June 2022, when inflation reached record levels in the aftermath of the pandemic. Yet Americans were less inclined to blame Biden ahead of that year’s midterms, in sharp contrast to the clear majority who now hold Trump responsible. What explains this growing dissatisfaction, particularly among Republican voters?
The pandemic began during Trump’s presidency, and his administration’s poor handling of it was one of the reasons he lost the November 2020 election. When Biden took office in early 2021, he inherited a country in need of repair. He undoubtedly governed during a period of high inflation, partly because, as in Italy, there had been massive government intervention to offset and cushion the collapse in private consumption.
Biden deserves credit for protecting the U.S. economy from the consequences of Covid-19. During his first two years, he injected money into the economy, while in the following two years he tried to bring inflation down. But he did not succeed sufficiently, and high inflation ultimately became the defining issue of the 2024 presidential campaign.
The difference is that Covid-19, conspiracy theories aside, was a global crisis. Today, there is a widespread perception that some of the country’s economic problems were created by an agenda Trump himself enthusiastically promoted and confidently sold to Americans as the solution to their problems. That includes tariffs, whose costs economic theory tells us are passed on to consumers, as well as the situation in the Strait of Hormuz and its impact on fuel prices. The pandemic was something that happened to the country. The wars and tariffs, on the other hand, were decisions made by Trump.
One of the problems Republican dissatisfaction creates for Trump is that he has never managed to broaden his appeal significantly. He has not only failed to build bipartisan support, but has also struggled to reach the large bloc of moderate, centrist voters. Trump has always relied on his core supporters and political polarization.
In that context, because he has never built up a reserve of moderate voters, losing even a small share of his own supporters could be disastrous. That is why the situation is so worrying for Trump.
In Italy, the government was able to exert pressure on Eni to lower prices. The United States has not had that option, which is why the federal government is drawing on strategic petroleum reserves. Washington is also trying to persuade other countries to do the same, increasing supply in an effort to bring prices down.
Senators from both parties have reached an agreement to overhaul permitting rules for major energy and infrastructure projects, although the legislation will not come to a vote before the midterm elections. The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act would accelerate federal permitting by setting deadlines for environmental reviews, limiting legal challenges and making it harder to revoke permits once they have been issued. Given the differences between the House and Senate, does the Republican Party’s growing willingness to support these measures suggest that Trump is losing political influence?
After the U.S. midterm elections, there is an unusual two-month period during which the outgoing Congress remains in office because the newly elected Congress does not convene until January.
In many respects, this period gives lawmakers greater freedom to act without worrying about immediate political consequences. Those who have lost their seats are leaving anyway, so there is little more they stand to lose. Those who have been reelected, meanwhile, know they have another two years before facing voters again.
Those two months could therefore provide an opportunity for Republican opposition to Trump to emerge more openly, without lawmakers having to worry quite so much about the political price they might pay.
If Republicans were to lose control of Congress altogether, the political landscape would become even more interesting and fluid. So there is a window of opportunity. I would not call it particularly wide, but something could happen.
We also know that much of the northern United States relies heavily on Canadian hydropower, which it receives at subsidized or preferential rates. There is room for change on that front as well, given the ongoing dispute with Canada, which could decide to start selling electricity at market prices.
The United States has negotiating leverage because Canada is not like Germany, which can sell electricity to Poland, Switzerland or Italy if it cannot sell to France. Canada has no other neighboring country to turn to.
Nevertheless, industries across the northern United States that have long benefited from inexpensive electricity could now find themselves having to reassess their financial calculations.
