President Donald Trump has thrown his weight behind calls from farm-state Republicans for a temporary ban on diesel exports, as US diesel prices climbed to an all-time high. Speaking at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Trump said: «I've said let's not send out the diesel. We make a lot of diesel. I've called for it.» The proposal appears straightforward: keep fuel at home and prices will fall for farmers, truckers and consumers. But energy analysts and industry leaders warn the consequences would be severe and counterproductive.
The average US diesel price reached $6.52 per gallon on 23 September, a record high, after crossing the $6 threshold for the first time. California's average stands at $8.43 per gallon, with some stations reportedly displaying prices of $9.999. Petrol prices have also surged, with the national average of $4.47 per gallon marking a post-July record. The pressure has intensified as the harvest season gets under way and midterm elections approach, prompting farm-state Republicans such as Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa to push for relief.
Yet analysts argue that banning exports would not solve the underlying problem. Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, said: «If diesel exports get banned, [petrol] prices could rise toward record levels. The US is not short of diesel. The world is. A potential export ban treats the global price problem as if it was a US-only problem, and the cure would be far worse than the disease.» The mechanism is straightforward: if US refiners are forced to keep diesel at home, a domestic glut would build, storage would fill, and refineries would cut operations. Because refineries cannot switch individual fuel types on and off, petrol and jet fuel output would fall too. Oil producers would then limit activity to avoid a crude glut, pushing oil prices and fuel costs even higher.
The global context makes the proposal particularly risky. The war in Iran has disrupted Middle Eastern refinery exports, while Ukrainian drone strikes have knocked out roughly 40% of Russia's refining capacity. At least 10% of global refining capacity is offline, turning the energy crisis into a fuel problem rather than an oil one. The US now supplies about 20% of the world's diesel exports, according to the American Petroleum Institute, which strongly opposes an export ban. API chief executive Mike Sommers said: «Restricting US exports would hit an already-tight market with another supply shock. The priority should be keeping fuel moving and refineries running, not adding new barriers.» The API warned of «catastrophic» consequences for international supply chains, agriculture, shipping and manufacturing.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright risked diverging from Trump on Wednesday, agreeing that a ban would hurt US refining and push up most fuel prices. He instead offered potential support for voluntary restrictions or an export cap. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum had already dismissed the idea at a G20 meeting in Houston the previous week, arguing it would not lower prices. Dan Pickering, founder of Pickering Energy Partners, noted that an export ban contradicts Trump's stated goal of US energy dominance. «Why would you want to undermine that?» he said. «What's bad for the world isn't good for the US.»
The last time the US briefly banned exports was during the 1970s Arab oil embargo, when the country was far less of an energy exporter. Since then, the US has become the world's backstop for diesel supply. De Haan warned that telling buyers from South America to Europe that American supply is politically conditional would push them to diversify away from US refineries, softening long-term demand and forfeiting political leverage. For now, the debate pits short-term political pressure against the structural realities of a tightly interconnected global fuel market.