Trump may see high gas prices as 'peanuts,' but they are squeezing lower-income Americans the most

Photo by Yassine Khalfalli, Unsplash

In a frustrated remark, President Donald Trump referred to surging gas prices across the U.S. as "peanuts" compared to the threat of Iran producing a nuclear warhead.

And while many Americans might agree that wallet-draining gas prices are preferable to horrific global outcomes, the war is costing poorer Americans a higher percentage of their income than it is wealthier Americans.

"For households in the bottom quarter of the income distribution — those earning roughly $40,000 a year or less — commuting fuel costs now consume an average of about 4% of their income," report Julie Z. Weil and Federica Cocco of The Washington Post. "For households in the top quarter, earning $100,000 or more, the same costs amount to less than 1%."

Lower-income workers get squeezed from all sides when gas prices increase. "They tend to live farther from their jobs, in areas with little or no public transit, and are more likely to drive older, less fuel-efficient vehicles," the Post reports. For most, working from home is not an option, leaving them unable to escape the need to buy gas — no matter the price. The only other option is to skip work, doctor's appointments or social outings that require a car fueled by gas.

The more than 40% increase in gas prices from May 2025 to the present has left some lower-income Americans facing tough choices. Debbie Zambrana, who lives on a fixed disability income, used to help her son out by driving his children to school events. Weil and Cocco write, "For the first time, she recently told him that she could only drive them if he covered the fuel."

With gas prices recently reaching $4.50 a gallon, there is little low-income workers can do to help themselves — even when they budget carefully. "Personal finance experts commonly advise that people shouldn’t spend more than 10% of their after-tax income on commuting expenses," Weil and Cocco add. "Spending 4% of income on gas alone can quickly throw everything out of whack."

Oppenheimer film becomes toehold for residents downwind from test site to be added to federal compensation program

The 1945 explosion at the Trinity test site in New Mexico
(Associated Press photo via The Washington Post)

The summer movie blockbuster Oppenheimer doesn't mention the first atomic bomb's profound health effects on residents, animals and soil close to and downwind from the test site in southern New Mexico. Residents known as "downwinders" are using the film to boost their last-ditch efforts for coverage by the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990, a which "compensates people sickened by presumed exposure to radiation from aboveground nuclear tests," report Karin Brulliard and Samuel Gilbert of The Washington Post. "The Senate wants to compensate them, but the House is reluctant."

The Trinity site sits bout 60 miles northwest of Tularosa, N.M., pop. 2,600. "It was chosen in part for its supposed isolation. Nearly half a million people lived within a 150-mile radius," Brulliard and Gilbert write. "Manhattan Project leaders knew a nuclear test would put them at risk, but with the nation at war, secrecy was the priority. Evacuation plans were never acted upon. The military concocted a cover story: The boom was an explosion of an ammunition magazine. . . . Surviving downwinders and their relatives say, there is a legacy of serious health consequences that have gone unacknowledged for 78 years."

Downwinders have formed consortiums to advocate for compensation. "Locals hope that the Hollywood glow may elevate their long quest to be added," the Post reports. The Manhattan Project had numerous test sites, and RECA has paid more than $2.5 billion to some downwinders and "on-site participants," but New Mexico residents have never been included. New Mexico Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D) and Sen. Mike Crapo (R) of Idaho "have pressed for years to expand RECA to include people who lived in their and other states during test periods. The Senate took up the amendment for the first time and passed it. Approval by the House remains uncertain, with some members contending the cost is too high. The program will expire next May without further action."

Fallout from the testing's massive blast "fell for days, on areas where people grew their own food, drank rainwater collected in cisterns and cooled off in irrigation canals that made the arid region fertile," the Post adds. According to a new study, "The fallout floated to 46 states, Mexico and Canada within 10 days. In 28 of 33 New Mexico counties, it estimates the accumulation of radioactive material was higher than required under the federal compensation program."

"RECA does not require claimants to establish causation, only to show that they or a relative had a qualifying disease after working or living in certain locations during specific time frames," the Post reports. "Bernice Gutierrez, who was born eight days after the test, and lived in Carrizozo, directly east of the Trinity site said she, her eldest son and daughter and 20 other family members have battled cancer." Gutierrez asked: "What has made us different than the other people given compensation?"