January 20 marked the first anniversary of President Donald Trump’s second inauguration. Like previous presidents, the Trump White House will be measured by how well the president has fulfilled his campaign promises. We’ve already seen headlines that so far the president has failed to cut our grocery bills, one of candidate Trump’s earliest promises. Now, there is another campaign promise that he has missed by a wide mark.
Here’s Trump in his own words: “I will cut the price of energy and electricity in half,” he said at one rally in Detroit in October 2024. “12 months from January 20, your electric bill, including cars, air conditioning, heaters, everything, the total electric bill will be 50, 5-0 per cent, less.” Trump told voters at a separate event that “your energy bill within 12 months will be cut in half. That’s my pledge, all over the country.”
Instead, prices have continued upward. Federal data show U.S. electricity prices increased by 11% from January through September 2025, with the average household electricity bill in the U.S. 6.7% more expensive for all of 2025. This has placed additional strain on Americans’ personal finances.
Since 2020, electricity prices have risen by over 30%, outpacing the general rate of inflation. So it’s not just under Donald Trump that utility prices have soared, it happened also under his predecessor, President Joe Biden. But Trump was the one who promised us the moon and left us with a grain of sand. And prices are projected to continue their upward trajectory through 2026.
Different locations hit harder than others
The utility rates have increased more in some parts of the country than others. Washington D.C. has experienced the biggest increase, a 23% jump in electricity costs, followed by Indiana with a 17% increase, and then Illinois, a 15% rise. For more than a third of all Americans, electricity bills are now a “major” source of stress, polling has found, with colder-than-expected temperatures this winter pushing up heating bills by 9.2% on average last year. The average household will pay $995 on heating this winter, as families struggle with electricity prices that are the highest in a decade, according to the National Energy Assistance Directors Association (NEADA).
On top of soaring electricity bills, U.S. households have also been confronted by rising home gas heating prices, which have jumped 5.2% on average in the past year, according to the Energy Information Administration. That has resulted in a surge in utility disconnections for unpaid bills across many states, with some households going without other essentials in order to keep the lights on. In New York, the rate of disconnections rose fivefold from the previous year.
Not surprisingly, energy affordability has become a top concern for American families and businesses, replacing groceries as the number one household worry. A recent poll conducted by Ipsos found that 73% of U.S. residents were concerned about their electricity and gas bills rising this year, and 80% of Americans admitted they feel powerless over how much they are charged by the utility companies. Now wonder some 68% of American adults describe the U.S. economy these days as “poor,” while 32% say it’s “good.”
Trump makes it harder for poor and working class Americans
While energy bills keep climbing, more lower and middle-income Americans have been hit with a double whammy: the Trump White House has slashed federal assistance and eliminated tax credits to help needy Americans with their energy essentials. That includes killing programs for home energy efficiency upgrades, and also attempting to scrap the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) that helps more than six million low-income households pay their energy bills. LIHEAP still survives (for now), but it has been significantly obstructed after the Trump administration laid off the entire LIHEAP staff. The cuts have caused unprecedented delays in getting energy assistance aid to low-income households.
Meanwhile, Trump has claimed that his seizing of Venezuela’s oilfields will help drive down the cost of gas and electricity for U.S. consumers. Instead of “drill, baby, drill,” this is “take, baby, take.” But that doesn’t make sense, the U.S. already is the world's largest producer of oil by a significant margin. This is not a “more oil will solve it” type of problem. Trump has also killed programs designed to increase the use of renewable energy and reduce America’s use of oil, including killing funding for research and halting construction of five windfarms and other renewable projects that were set to provide electricity for tens of millions of American homes.
Trump is also aggressively supporting the rise of the artificial intelligence industry for national security reasons in America’s ongoing competition with China. But AI uses huge amounts of electricity for all the gargantuan data centers and server farms, which is having the effect of raising U.S. electricity demand for the first time in decades. Recently, PJM, the grid operator covering 13 mid-Atlantic and midwest states as well as the District of Columbia, called data centers the “primary reason” for the increased price of power.
Does Trump deserve all the blame?
No question, Donald Trump broke his campaign promise and has not come anywhere close to reducing utility bills by 50%. But the story gets more complex and interesting, the deeper you dig. That’s because electricity prices are especially high in traditionally Democratic/Blue states.
According to the business-friendly Institute for Energy Research, 86% of states with electricity prices above the national average are blue-voting states. In contrast, 80% of the 10 states with the lowest electricity prices are reliably red GOP states. In California, for example, electricity rates are the highest in the nation among the Lower 48. The Golden State’s rates are more than double the national average.
Governor Gavin Newsom and California’s state legislature have embraced numerous policies that have increased electricity rates. These include renewable mandates, cost-shifting for homeowners with solar panels (net metering), and electric car charging subsidies. But another giant cost has resulted from damage from wildfires. Some of the most dangerous fires were caused by corrupt and incompetent utilities like PG&E, yet the state has allowed these utilities to jack up power rates to avoid bankruptcy from liability lawsuits. California ratepayers are covering for PG&E’s massive blunders, which has resulted in many deaths and billions in property damage, even as PG&E has made record profits of $2.5 billion for the last two years. In 2024 alone, California state regulators agreed to six separate rate increases.
On the one hand, you could say that California’s climate policies have allowed it to be a national leader, second in the nation in total electricity generation from renewable resources and leading the country in solar generation from utilities, with solar energy providing 32% of the state's total electricity generation. On the other hand, while originally this looked like climate leadership, as the federal government under Trump abandons renewables and climate change mitigation, and more states follow the federal lead, California ratepayers are increasingly paying a high price for shouldering more than their share of climate change mitigation. California ratepayers are understandably feeling abandoned by Governor Newsom.
With Donald Trump marking Year One of his second administration, many Americans are feeling frustrated and deserted by his policies. But with the next November election for picking the U.S. Congress fast approaching, will voters see the Democrats as enough of an alternative?
Steven Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote, and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.




















image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.