Diesel fuel exports from the Middle East have been cut in half this year in some of the ever-spreading economic fallout from the wars in Iran and Ukraine. In the United States, the price of diesel at the pump has soared above $6.50 for the first time. A year ago, the price was $3.70. US diesel inventories have plummeted since the start of the Iran war on February 28, and some diesel consumers are pulling up to the pump only to find it empty. Some retailers have simply run out of supply. 

Most American passenger cars still run on gasoline. So, most voter angst is directed at rising gasoline prices. But trucks, tractors, trains, ships, and much more run on diesel, which is the lifeblood fuel of much of the American industrial and agricultural economy. With six weeks remaining until the upcoming mid-term elections, the price of fuel, including diesel, has moved to the top of voter concerns. A growing number of Members of Congress, led by senior Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, have been urging President Donald Trump to ban the export of diesel fuel. 

Read the rest of this post →

Earlier this month, I noted that the Jones Act waiver has led to record-breaking amounts of energy products being shipped within the US. But it turns out I understated the matter. Bloomberg reported last week that it had identified at least a dozen shipments made under the waiver that were missing from data published by the US Maritime Administration (MARAD), which compiles the voyage reports waiver users are legally required to submit. This means the waiver has been even more successful at spurring domestic energy flows than previously realized.

The article credited me with helping identify some of these missing voyages. I’d like to explain how the gap came to light, what my research uncovered, and why I believe there are no fewer than 15 voyages not counted in MARAD’s waiver tally.

Read the rest of this post →

For nearly a decade, the executive branch has abused the broad, highly discretionary tariff authorities Congress granted it throughout the 20th century. These abuses have imposed high economic costs on American firms and consumers; undermined the United States’ international standing; and fueled rent-seeking cronyism in Washington. Thus far, Congress has failed to rein in those abuses by reforming the underlying laws and reasserting its constitutional authority over tariffs and trade policy. To be sure, the political costs of limiting the executive branch’s powers—particularly concerning policies that benefit many well-connected, highly concentrated special interests and are simultaneously intertwined with sensitive issues like “national security” and geopolitical competition with China—are high for most legislators. 

But what is indefensible is for Congress, knowing about the economic costs and political dysfunction engendered by executive tariff abuse, to grant even broader and highly discretionary tariff authorities to the White House—and this president in particular. Yet, that is exactly what Congress did on September 16, when the House of Representatives passed the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026.

Read the rest of this post →

74% Say President Trump’s Tariffs Have Raised Prices; 53% Say Tariffs Have Weakened the Economy, 70% Say the President Needs Congressional Approval to Impose Tariffs

A new Cato Institute/​Morning Consult survey of 4,150 registered voters finds that three in four (75%) say tariffs will be important to their vote in this November’s midterm elections.

Nearly the same share—74%—say that Trump’s tariffs increased the prices of things they buy at the store, including 66% of Republicans and 84% of Democrats. Majorities say the tariffs are a tax on Americans (57%) and believe they have weakened the US economy (53%), while just 23% say the tariffs have improved their personal quality of life. 

Read the rest of this post →

The House of Representatives will likely vote this week on the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, after the Senate passed the bill 86–11 in August. The bill seeks to put more economic pressure on Russia due to its ongoing invasion of Ukraine, including by increasing tariffs on countries buying Russian energy products. Whether this effectively squeezes Russia indirectly—an assessment best left to national security experts—this grant of authority would result in a major tax hike for Americans.

Section 113 of the bill directs the president to increase the duty rate on every good from the five largest buyers of Russian crude oil or natural gas that continue purchasing after the bill’s enactment, as well as countries found to be helping Moscow evade oil sanctions, to up to 100 percent. As we’ve previously explained, one problem with the bill is that it does not specify how to construct the official list of targeted countries, thus giving the president wide authority to pick and choose new US tariff targets. Nevertheless, we can get an idea of the magnitude of the president’s new unilateral tariff powers by examining historical import volumes from the five countries most likely to top the crude list—China, India, Türkiye, Slovakia and Hungary. 

Read the rest of this post →