How did Donald Trump's deregulation of environmental rules affect gasoline prices between 2017 and 2020?
Executive summary
Donald Trump’s deregulatory policies aimed to speed domestic oil and gas production and reduce energy costs, but their measurable effect on retail gasoline prices between 2017 and 2020 was small compared with market forces such as global oil supply, demand cycles and the COVID‑19 demand shock [1] [2] [3]. Analyses by energy policy researchers find that changes to vehicle fuel‑economy rules and other rollbacks would have only modest near‑term effects on gasoline consumption and thus prices through 2020, with larger impacts showing up only over years or decades [4] [2].
1. Deregulation intended to increase supply — the mechanism promised
The Trump administration pursued wide deregulatory measures designed to accelerate drilling, permitting and export approvals with the explicit claim that lower regulatory barriers would lower energy costs for consumers by increasing domestic supply [1] [5]. Scholars and policy trackers cataloged a broad roll‑back of Obama‑era environmental rules and expedited approvals for infrastructure and leases—moves meant to unclog projects and bring more crude and refined product to market over time [2] [6].
2. Prices didn’t move in a straight line from policy to pump between 2017–2020
Retail gasoline prices rose during Trump’s first two years in office and then softened in 2019 before collapsing in 2020 as the COVID‑19 pandemic slashed global demand, a sequence that predates any immediate, large supply response to deregulation and underscores the dominant role of markets and demand shocks [3]. Experts emphasize that policies which alter production and fleet fuel consumption typically take years to materially change supply‑demand balances; therefore deregulatory moves enacted in 2017–2020 would be unlikely to explain short‑term price swings during that window [4] [3].
3. Quantitative studies and official analyses point to modest near‑term impacts
Technical analyses of fuel‑economy rollbacks and EPA regulatory changes indicate that relaxing standards would have only a small effect on gasoline consumption through 2025, and thus only limited near‑term downward pressure on pump prices, with larger cumulative effects emerging over decades as vehicle fleets turn over [4]. Brookings and other policy observers documented the scale and persistence of the administration’s deregulatory agenda but cautioned that the environmental rule changes’ marketplace effects unfold slowly and are entangled with global crude markets [2].
4. The administration’s narrative and political framing
The White House framed deregulatory gains as delivering lower costs and faster projects for American consumers, and public statements tied permit approvals and “energy dominance” to cheaper gasoline [1]. Fact‑checking organizations note that campaign promises to slashing energy bills dramatically misstate the timing and drivers of past lows—some of the cheapest pump prices occurred during the pandemic demand collapse in 2020, not as a direct, immediate product of regulatory rollbacks [5] [3].
5. Countervailing factors: exports, infrastructure and global markets
Even as U.S. production increased, rising LNG and petroleum exports, refinery configurations, and global OPEC+ supply decisions shaped domestic availability and prices; accelerating approvals or permits does not automatically translate into domestic price relief when product flows cross borders or when global demand shifts [6] [7]. Public interest critics argue that expedited export approvals and removal of environmental reviews risked prioritizing industry throughput over domestic affordability, a contention present in advocacy analyses [7].
6. Bottom line: deregulatory influence was real but not the dominant short‑term driver
Between 2017 and 2020 the Trump Administration’s deregulatory agenda likely contributed to increased U.S. oil and gas activity and reduced long‑run costs, but its effect on retail gasoline prices during that specific interval was limited compared with commodity price cycles, global supply decisions and the exceptional demand collapse in 2020; rigorous policy analyses find only modest near‑term consumption and price impacts from the regulatory rollbacks in that timeframe [4] [2] [3]. Sources differ on emphasis—administration releases stress consumer savings [1], while independent analysts and fact‑checkers stress market dynamics and delayed policy effects [4] [5].