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."

Federal and state cuts to child care subsidies leave lower-income Americans with few options

Child care centers can be high-labor, low-profit businesses.
(Photo by McKinley Hess via Hechinger Report)

To prepare for federal budget cuts, some states have opted to slash their early learning programs. The overall reductions to child care subsidies have left lower-income parents struggling with higher co-payments and fewer slots, while child care providers face unexpected pay reductions and delayed payments.

"Colorado, Maryland and New Jersey recently stopped accepting new families into their child care assistance programs," reports Jackie Mader of The Hechinger Report, which covers education. Indiana and Arkansas announced lower reimbursement rates for child care providers serving lower-income households.

Many U.S. parents with infants and preschoolers already contend with the scarcity and high cost of child care nationwide, but the difficulties are harder on poorer Americans. Mader explains, "Experts warn this trend in some states of scaling back early childhood investments is widening an existing nationwide disparity in the availability of affordable, high-quality child care."

Reduced and delayed payments to child care providers could further shrink the number of child care slots, which already don't meet current needs. Mader reports, "Child care programs are expensive to run and, with limited public support, providers rely heavily on tuition from parents to pay their bills."

Daniel Hains, the chief policy officer at the D.C.-based National Association for the Education of Young Children, told Mader, "Almost every state is facing a very, very, very significant pullback of federal dollars. . . . It’s going to result in lower quality care for children, or it’s going to result in families pulling back from the workforce and facing greater economic insecurity."

Policy director for Rural Democracy Initiative warns of budget bill’s ‘devastating’ impacts

Members of the 119th House applaud the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. (The Hill video reel photo)

After weeks of wrangling, the U.S. House of Representatives passed President Donald Trump's "one big, beautiful bill" on May 22. The bill, which has moved to the U.S. Senate, includes massive spending cuts to support tax cut extensions and additional tax cuts.

Michael Chameides, the communications and policy director for the Rural Democracy Initiative, in an opinion piece published in Iowa's Times-Republican, points out six ways the bill could hurt rural residents. He writes, "I’ve been hearing from rural leaders across the country about the devastating impacts this bill would have. . . .The good news is it’s not too late. But there’s little time to spare." 

Here are the six concerns Chameides cited:

1. The bill "guts" rural health care. "It would take health care away from 13.8 million Americans and increase the cost for millions more. In some states, 50% of rural children get healthcare from Medicaid. Millions more rely on access to clinics and hospitals that would likely close because of these cuts."

2. It cuts federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program spending. "More than 15% of families in small towns and rural areas rely on this support to feed their families."

(The Department of Agriculture canceled "about $660 million in funding this year for the Local Food for Schools program, which is active in 40 U.S. states," reports Aimee Picchi of CBS News. The cuts were announced in March and have left schools and farmers scrambling.)

3. The bill shifts more costs onto state and local governments. "Slashing federal funding to states would create new burdens for rural states that are already struggling to provide critical public services like health care, transportation, and emergency response services to local communities."

4. It takes away local land control. "Landowners have fought to stop the use of eminent domain for carbon pipelines by passing bans and moratoria. . . .This bill would overrule state and local laws and ordinances. . . and deprive residents of a fair opportunity to evaluate the adverse impacts of pipelines."

5. The bill phases out clean energy and infrastructure spending, including tax credits. "It would also take away $262 million in funding for energy efficiency and conservation grants as well as transportation infrastructure. . . .Ending these tax credits will increase household energy costs, which are already higher in many rural communities."

6. The bill favors bigger agribusiness companies and mega-farms. "Leaders in Congress are using the budget reconciliation process to give big farms a $50 billion windfall. Add the heightened pressures and instability caused by the Trump administration’s erratic trade policy and more family farmers would lose their farms — while Big Ag consolidates more of the market."

Chameides calls on rural residents and businesses to speak up: “Lawmakers have already heard from the giant corporations who helped write the bill. Now they need to hear from the rest of us. It’s up to us to alert our communities and tell our lawmakers: Don’t sell rural America out to big corporations and the wealthy.”

A longer version of the Times-Republican op-ed was originally published by Barn Raiser. To learn more about what could happen to the bill in the Senate, click here. 

Defying the odds, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez appears close to 2nd term in the House; she wants Democrats to change

Perez helped her constituents recover more than $3 million from federal agencies.

U.S. Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez would like Democrats to take a long look in the mirror and reconsider who they're villainizing and how that tactic has alienated voters. "For two years, Representative Perez, a Democrat from a rural, red district in Washington State, has been criticizing her party for being too dismissive of working-class voters," reports Annie Karni of The New York Times. "[She] says her party needs to stop demonizing others and change the candidates it supports."

Perez is a young, plain-spoken Democrat who is close to winning her second term in Congress after a neck-and-neck race. "Long considered perhaps the most vulnerable Democrat in the House, [Perez] defied the odds. . . . Even with President-elect Donald J. Trump at the top of the ticket and winning her district for the third cycle in a row . . . ," Karni writes. "She declared victory in a statement after a newspaper in her district called the election for her, although The Associated Press had yet to do so."

In the Q&A below, Perez shares some of her thoughts on her election and where she thinks Democrats should go from here. For the full interview, click here.

Karni: How did [you win], and what can Democrats learn from you?
Perez: I just refused to let this race be nationalized. It’s not about the message. It’s about my loyalty to my community. The fundamental mistake people make is condescension. A lot of elected officials get calloused to the ways that they’re disrespecting people.

Karni: How do you feel about the re-election of Donald J. Trump?
Perez: I guess I’m still wrapping my head around where to go and what to do. But even when the national current changes, we still have all the same issues here.

Karni: What were your thoughts about Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign?
Perez: When Harris first came out, I was open to talking with her. I know she called a lot of my colleagues; she never called me. I’ve had one interaction with Harris, at her Naval Observatory Christmas party. . . . I noticed that almost all of the garlands were plastic. My district grows a hell of a lot of Christmas trees. I was strong-armed into taking a picture. I said, 'Madam Vice President, we grow those where I live. ' She just walked away from me. There was kind of an eye roll, maybe. My thinking was, it does matter to people where I live. It’s the respect, the cultural regard for farmers."

Karni: Do you think the Democratic Party will be forced to change after this crushing election cycle?
Perez: It’s a lot easier to look outward, to blame and demonize other people, instead of looking in the mirror and seeing what we can do. It is not fun to feel accountability. It requires a mental flexibility that’s painful. So who knows?