Maxim GardusCommunications Specialist at Razom We Stand15:21, 12.10.26

7 min.162

Many believe this immoral deal is politically disadvantageous for Trump, as the announced volume of diesel fuel is insufficient to fundamentally change the situation in the US. After all, the initial shipment is only approximately 2.25 million barrels. For the US, which exports approximately 1.5 million barrels of diesel daily, this volume is insignificant. Analysts at Wood Mackenzie and Commodity Context doubt it will bring about a lasting price decline. Nevertheless, diesel futures fell nearly 5% following the deal’s announcement.

From the average person’s perspective, saving 10 cents per gallon isn’t much. But does Trump really need long-term price reductions? With 24 days left until the congressional elections, it’s safe to assume the short-term political impact is just as important to the administration as the economic one.

That is, the logical chain of thought: “The agreement with Putin will yield too few resources – prices across the country are unlikely to fall significantly – the agreement will be of no use in national elections” may be flawed. It’s possible that the real plan is different: “The agreement with Putin provides sufficient resources for local fuel measures – the media portrays them as a future sustainable trend – Republicans will win in contested states.” After all, in the US, winning doesn’t require convincing the entire country.

On November 3, Americans will elect 435 members of the House of Representatives and 35 senators. All will be by a plurality system. This means that the popularity of the Republicans or Trump himself is irrelevant in predicting the results. In this election, the traditional map of “red,” “blue,” and “purple” states isn’t what matters, but rather the specific competitive districts and the Senate race.

Among them are Maine (Susan Collins vs. Troy Jackson), Michigan (Mike Rogers vs. Abdul El-Sayed), Ohio (John Gusted vs. Sherrod Brown), Iowa, Texas, Alaska, and others. Even traditionally Republican Kansas was downgraded by the Cook Political Report on October 6 to a Toss Up race: Senator Roger Marshall is competing against Democrat Adam Hamilton.

What’s the situation with diesel fuel in the contested states? According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), as of October 2, U.S. inventories of diesel fuel and other distillates stood at 105.1 million barrels—12% below the five-year seasonal average. In the Midwest, home to Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, and Ohio, inventories have fallen 9% since the end of August, to 26.2 million barrels. In New England, which includes Maine, inventories remained at 2.46 million barrels—39% lower than last year. Here, diesel fuel also competes with similar heating oil, which is used to heat homes. Meanwhile, on the Gulf Coast, where Texas refining is concentrated, inventories have risen to 43.9 million barrels.

According to AAA, in early October, a gallon of diesel fuel cost approximately $6.60 in Michigan and Alaska, $6.45 in Maine, $6.00 in Iowa and Kansas, and $5.74 in Texas.

So, the situations vary: in some places there is a genuine shortage of reserves, while in others, fuel is simply expensive. Additional imports may ease local tensions, but they don’t guarantee equal price reductions even in neighboring states.

And now the most interesting hypothesis: big business and Trump’s sponsors. Russian diesel will be purchased by specific traders, distributors, and gas station chains.

It’s still unclear who exactly will be operating. Notable operators in the disputed states include Casey’s, with approximately 570 stations in Iowa and 200 in Kansas; Love’s; Pilot Flying J; and QuikTrip.

Sunoco LP is particularly interesting: the company supplies fuel to approximately 11,000 branded and partner retail outlets. Its general partner is Energy Transfer, controlled by billionaire Kelcy Warren, a Trump donor and co-organizer of his 2024 fundraiser in Houston.

Is it possible to imagine voluntary temporary discounts for large retailers with the government’s public support? Yes. But there’s no direct evidence of such agreements regarding Russian diesel fuel yet. Furthermore, the OFAC general license doesn’t give the government the right to distribute fuel to politically connected companies. However, this could be offset by behind-the-scenes agreements: Russia sells diesel fuel not to the US as a whole, but to specific companies.

There’s already a precedent for politically motivated discounts. In July 2026, the Freedom Fuel Network sold gasoline for $3.47 per gallon in honor of the 47th President of the United States. Trump publicly praised the initiative, the White House touted the low-cost fuel, and Republican fundraiser Randy Brown was among the entrepreneurs associated with the project.

The Associated Press found that the economic sustainability of this model was questionable. But as a media story, it worked: gas stations, low prices, a president who supposedly solved everything.

It’s easy to imagine similar TV reports about diesel fuel: happy, smiling farmers in plaid shirts and hats, perched on tractors, taking photos at stands displaying reduced prices. Fox News broadcasts it live. Meanwhile, Trump-friendly media and social media platforms tout his “historic success,” insisting it will always be the same—if they vote wisely.

For now, this is just a hypothesis, not a finalized plan. And the media effect doesn’t guarantee a change in electoral sentiment. However, administrative measures could be added to interventions: the authorities could reduce fuel taxes, ease transport restrictions, and facilitate the use of existing reserves.

And this is already happening. On October 1, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine (a Republican, of course) signed House Bill 519, which effectively eliminated the state’s fuel tax for 90 days, from October 4 to January 2: 38.5 cents per gallon for gasoline and 47 cents per gallon for diesel. $725 million from state reserves has been allocated to offset the budget losses. The law requires gas stations to pass on the full tax savings to customers, and the Ohio Attorney General may intervene in the event of violation.

At the federal level, Trump signed an executive order on October 5 temporarily allowing wider use of labeled diesel fuel, typically intended for agriculture and off-road equipment, and deferring the associated federal tax liability until the end of the year.

On October 6, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds (a Republican, coincidentally) suspended fines and certain restrictions on the use of such diesel fuel in the transportation of agricultural products. On October 7, the ban was expanded to include the transportation of livestock and feed.

Thus, federal and state authorities are already using taxes and regulations to reduce fuel costs. However, Reuters noted on October 9 that the practical impact of federal measures is still limited due to legal uncertainty and implementation difficulties. And tax cuts, unlike additional supplies, do not create a single new barrel of diesel fuel.

But during elections, it is not long-term economic models that matter, but the short-term media effect.

After all, sometimes the outcome of elections in the US is decided by literally hundreds of votes.

That is, to retain Congress, you don’t need to convince all 152 million American voters of the wisdom of “normalizing” relations with Russia. It might be enough to convince tens of thousands—or even hundreds—in specific districts.

(C)UNIAN 2026