Democrat Ro Khanna Introduces Bill to Halt US Gasoline Exports During Price Spikes
Amid historic surges in gasoline prices triggered by the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, California Congressman Ro Khanna is set to introduce legislation on Tuesday that would ban the export of gasoline during periods of significant price increases. The proposed bill comes as Americans face mounting costs at the pump, with prices exceeding $4 per gallon nationally.
Legislation Details and Rationale
Khanna's legislation would automatically stop US shipments of refined gasoline to other countries whenever national gas prices average $3.12 per gallon or higher. The congressman argues that keeping domestic gasoline supplies within the United States could substantially lower costs for American consumers who are struggling with inflationary pressures.
"The country is crying out for a new energy policy," Khanna told the Guardian in an exclusive interview. "One that doesn't have us subject to the whims of the profits of big oil companies."
The Iran conflict has created the largest-ever disruption to global fuel supply according to the International Energy Agency, with crude oil costs surpassing $100 per barrel this week. This dramatic increase in crude prices has directly translated to higher gasoline costs, as crude serves as the primary input for gasoline production.
Historical Context and Political Challenges
The United States transformed into a net exporter of gasoline during the 2010s and became the world's largest exporter of motor gasoline in 2024. This export capacity now faces potential restrictions under Khanna's proposal, though the legislation faces significant political hurdles.
Khanna acknowledged that his proposal is unlikely to pass Congress, noting that Republicans are unlikely to "contradict the big oil companies." However, the introduction of the bill represents a strategic effort by Democrats and progressives to highlight how the Iran conflict affects American consumers directly through economic channels.
"The war in Iran has really created an energy shock in America," Khanna explained. "This is the time for us to point out why wars of choice are morally bad, but also why they hurt Americans who are struggling to pay the bills."
Corporate Profits and Additional Policy Proposals
While American consumers bear the brunt of fuel price increases, major oil companies have experienced significant financial gains since the conflict began. According to analysis from market research firm Rystad Energy, domestic fossil fuel producers could see an additional $63 billion in profits directly attributable to the war.
Khanna, who accused oil companies of "profiteering," last month introduced separate legislation with Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse that would impose a windfall tax on the largest fossil fuel companies during periods of surging oil profits. The excise tax would fund rebates distributed directly to US taxpayers, helping offset high gasoline costs.
"The refund checks can go to Americans who are paying over four bucks at the gas pump," said Khanna, noting that gasoline prices had exceeded $6.50 in his home state of California.
Broader Energy Policy Implications
This isn't the first time Khanna has proposed such measures. During the 2022 energy crisis following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, he advocated for both a gasoline export ban and a windfall tax on oil companies.
Beyond these immediate policy proposals, Khanna called for increased emphasis on renewable energy development. He argued that transitioning to clean energy sources that don't require constant fuel inputs would protect Americans from geopolitical oil shocks while simultaneously reducing planet-warming pollution.
"We need to use this moment to call for renewable energy as energy security," Khanna emphasized. "This shows why we need to invest in solar and wind and geothermal and battery storage and electric vehicles."
Global Competition and Public Sentiment
As fuel disruptions accelerate some countries' transition away from fossil fuels, energy experts note that China stands to benefit significantly from the Iran conflict due to its dominant position as a supplier of clean energy technologies. By maintaining a fossil fuel-dependent economy during this crisis, critics argue that political figures like Donald Trump are effectively ceding "the energy revolution race for the 21st century to China."
Khanna also addressed broader public sentiment regarding the conflict, noting that the war remains broadly unpopular among Americans.
"Americans don't want another costly war. They want good jobs at home and peace abroad," he stated. "Gas prices are going up and companies are driving up costs. We should be focused on competing with China and investing in American manufacturing, not spending $1 billion per day on this war."
The proposed legislation represents a multifaceted approach to addressing energy security, economic fairness, and geopolitical strategy as the United States navigates complex global energy markets amid ongoing international conflict.
