Lead: One year after President Trump vowed on the campaign trail to cut Americans’ energy bills in half, results are mixed. Gasoline costs fell roughly 20% from 2024 to 2025, delivering visible relief at the pump, while electricity prices have continued to climb in many regions. Oil production did not surge as the administration had promised; U.S. active drilling rigs fell year‑over‑year as low global crude prices undercut drilling economics. The net result is a partial political win on fuel prices but an unmet national pledge on household utility bills.
Key takeaways
- Gasoline prices fell about 20% nationally between 2024 and 2025, shaving an average of $177 from household gasoline spending in 2025, and GasBuddy projects collective U.S. savings of roughly $11 billion in 2026.
- U.S. active oil drilling rigs declined by more than 6% year‑over‑year, reflecting that crude below about $60 a barrel makes many new wells uneconomic.
- Wholesale electricity prices surged in parts of the country in 2025: New York and New England wholesale prices are up more than 60%, and the mid‑Atlantic up about 45%.
- Natural gas — a major driver of power‑sector costs — rose more than 50% versus the prior year’s annual average, increasing power production and household electricity bills.
- The administration implemented many oil‑industry priorities (tax and regulatory changes) while rolling back renewables incentives and some efficiency rules, moves that may raise long‑term power costs and reduce investment certainty.
- Policy changes that could lower electricity costs quickly (grid investments, targeted transmission upgrades, demand‑management technologies) have not been prioritized, according to consumer advocates and analysts.
Background
During the 2024 campaign and in the year after his re‑election, President Trump repeatedly promised to slash Americans’ energy bills — a pledge that encompassed both transportation fuel and household electricity. The administration pursued a set of supply‑oriented policies aimed at expanding fossil fuel production and easing regulations, while reversing many of the previous administration’s climate and clean‑energy measures. At the same time, global oil markets entered a period of oversupply driven by decisions from OPEC+ members, which depressed crude prices and helped push pump prices lower.
The U.S. energy landscape entering 2025 was shaped by competing forces: cheaper crude benefiting consumers at the pump, rising natural gas demand and exports tightening domestic gas markets, and a power system stressed by aging infrastructure and increasing extreme weather costs. Industry groups such as the American Petroleum Institute (API) presented a multi‑item wishlist to the new administration; many of those items were advanced, while longer‑term structural reforms such as permitting changes remained unresolved in Congress.
Main event
By the end of 2025, the national average price for a gallon of gasoline had dropped about 20% from its level a year earlier. Analysts and market observers attribute most of that decline to global crude‑price dynamics: OPEC+ members added barrels to the market, and broader global supply exceeded near‑term demand. Political pressure on major producers also played a role, according to some investment analysts who say diplomatic and policy signals helped nudge prices lower.
Despite administration efforts to open more federal lands and waters for leasing and to ease rules on oil producers, U.S. drilling activity did not expand. The number of active rigs in the country fell by more than 6% year‑over‑year, reflecting the fact that with WTI prices often below $60 a barrel during the year, many projects lack attractive returns. Oil companies, while aligned with the administration on regulatory rollbacks, still prefer higher prices to fund capital spending and shareholder returns.
Electricity costs moved in the opposite direction. Wholesale power markets recorded sharp increases in 2025, with New York and New England wholesale prices rising more than 60% and mid‑Atlantic prices up roughly 45%. Natural gas — the largest fuel input for many U.S. power plants — increased more than 50% from the previous year’s average, driven in part by rising U.S. exports and tighter global LNG markets.
The administration has taken several steps affecting the clean energy transition: early termination of federal tax incentives for solar and wind, cancellation of over $13 billion in green energy funds, and opposition to new offshore wind projects. Those moves have reduced investor certainty for renewables, according to developers and business groups, and may reduce near‑term additions of low‑cost generation that could have moderated electricity price pressures.
Analysis & implications
Short‑term consumer savings at the pump show how global commodity dynamics and political pressure can combine to lower retail energy costs rapidly; a 20% decline in gasoline prices translated into measurable household relief in 2025. However, oil price declines also reduce the incentive for producers to drill, which helps explain why the administration’s push to expand U.S. oil output did not materialize into a drilling boom—companies are responding to market returns, not campaign rhetoric.
By contrast, electricity bills are shaped by a different and more complex set of factors: fuel input prices (primarily natural gas), grid condition, regional transmission constraints, weather‑driven demand, and policy choices that affect supply and investment. The roughly 50% rise in natural gas compared with the prior year’s average tightened power market margins and raised wholesale prices in key regions, which utilities pass along to consumers.
Policy choices now have multi‑year implications. Rolling back tax credits and cancelling funding for large renewable projects reduces near‑term additions of low‑marginal‑cost generation, raising the risk of higher wholesale prices over time. Similarly, delaying permitting reform and transmission upgrades keeps bottlenecks in place, preventing lower‑cost generation where it is abundant from reaching load centers that need it.
On the other hand, some administration initiatives — like supporting nuclear development — could improve long‑run supply diversity and resilience, but those projects take years or decades to deliver cost benefits. The net effect is a policy mix that produces immediate gains for oil consumers while leaving households exposed to rising power bills driven by gas and grid constraints.
| Metric | Change |
|---|---|
| National average gasoline price | -≈20% |
| Average household gasoline spending (2025 vs 2024) | -$177 |
| U.S. active drilling rigs | ->6% |
| Natural gas (annual average vs prior year) | +>50% |
| Wholesale power: New York & New England | +>60% |
| Wholesale power: Mid‑Atlantic | +≈45% |
These numbers show why a single presidential pledge — cutting all energy bills in half within a year — was difficult to meet. Motor fuel is a global commodity with fast price transmission; electricity depends on regional fuel markets, infrastructure, and investment timelines that rarely move that quickly.
Reactions & quotes
Some industry analysts credit political pressure for at least part of the drop in crude prices, arguing that diplomatic and diplomatic‑economic actions altered producer behavior. Investment managers who follow energy markets note that politics and OPEC+ decisions together influenced the 2025 decline in oil prices.
“If we look at oil down 20% in 2025, you have to say political dynamics drove at least half of that.”
Dan Pickering, Pickering Energy Partners (investment analyst)
Pickering’s comment frames a view shared by other market watchers: policy and diplomacy can nudge a global market, but they cannot fully control it. That limited control helps explain the uneven results across different energy expenses.
Industry groups point to regulatory changes that they say improve competitiveness for U.S. producers and support long‑run energy security. The API summarized the administration’s actions in terms favorable to its members but acknowledged unresolved issues such as permitting reform.
“By our count, every single one of them was completed in 2025, with the exception of legislative permitting reform.”
Mike Sommers, American Petroleum Institute (industry group)
API’s statement underscores a trade‑off: easier rules and tax changes can support fossil fuel producers, but those moves do not automatically translate to lower electricity bills if fuel mix, exports, and grid issues push costs up elsewhere.
Within the administration, there is also internal friction: the Energy Secretary, a former industry executive, noted that lower oil prices are not always in the industry’s short‑term interest and contrasted that with the president’s public goal of cheaper fuel.
“He’s been no helper to the oil and gas industry”
Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, on CBS Face the Nation (television interview)
That remark — a succinct, public acknowledgement of the tension — reflects differing priorities among political leaders, industry executives, and workers who rely on higher oil prices to fund investment and jobs.
Unconfirmed
- The magnitude of the president’s direct role in persuading OPEC+ to add supply is debated; some attribution is political inference rather than independently verifiable causation.
- The claim that opening Venezuelan production will materially lower global crude prices depends on private investment decisions that have not fully materialized.
- The administration’s exact net effect on long‑term electricity costs remains contingent on future project approvals and private sector investment responses, which are not yet settled.
Bottom line
After one year, the administration delivered on lower gasoline prices in a measurable way, driven by global crude market dynamics that political action likely helped influence. Those fuel savings translated into a modest, immediate pocketbook benefit for many households: an average of about $177 less spent on gasoline in 2025, and projected collective savings next year of roughly $11 billion.
However, the broader pledge to halve Americans’ overall energy bills has not been achieved. Electricity prices rose in many regions, driven largely by higher natural gas costs, transmission constraints, aging infrastructure and policy decisions that have reduced near‑term renewable buildout and efficiency improvements. That combination means many households remain financially strained by utility costs even as pump prices fall.
Looking ahead, outcomes will depend on whether the administration or Congress prioritizes grid upgrades, transmission expansion and measures to lower natural gas dependency in power markets, and whether private investors respond to the changed policy landscape for renewables. For ordinary consumers, near‑term relief at the pump is real but incomplete; broader, durable reductions in household energy bills will require coordinated actions across markets, infrastructure and policy that typically play out over several years.
Sources
- NPR (news report summarizing developments; primary reporting)
- GasBuddy (industry data and consumer price analysis)
- American Petroleum Institute (industry group statements)
- BloombergNEF (energy market analysis)
- Pickering Energy Partners (investment research)
- CBS Face the Nation (interview source for Energy Secretary comments)
- Lazard (levelized cost comparisons for energy technologies)