COLUMN: Trump is attacking the oil industry that got him elected—and it’s all political theater

A historically fragile independence, now eroded

What stands out in this episode, beyond the oil issue itself, is the way Trump publicly orders the DOJ to launch an investigation without waiting for any preliminary internal analysis. According to Politico, this move “illustrates Trump’s tendency to publicly direct the Department of Justice to launch investigations, a departure from the long-standing principle of the agency’s independence.”

The DOJ spokesperson was cautious, stating that “gas prices are not just a national security concern; they affect the finances of every American.” This response confirms the investigation without specifying its scope, timeline, or methodology.

An escalation confirmed a week later

The case has gained momentum: according to Politico, on July 3, the DOJ sent a letter asking states to join the federal investigation into oil companies. “Past increases in crude oil prices—which are now falling—do not justify misconduct,” the DOJ wrote in its letter. Lawmakers from both parties in Congress have called on the administration to crack down on the oil industry, giving this case bipartisan political legitimacy despite its erratic origins.

That an issue legitimate in and of itself—transparency in gas prices—arose from an outburst on social media rather than from a rigorous investigative process is indicative of governance driven by impulse rather than method.

A Story of Red Herring

This isn’t the first time a U.S. administration has accused oil companies of “price gouging”—exorbitant pricing—during periods of geopolitical tension or rising costs. According to analysts cited by Politico, “historically, we’ve seen political responses to high gas prices that accuse the industry of price gouging. Numerous investigations have been conducted, and none have uncovered collusion or anti-competitive behavior.”

This observation is significant: it suggests that Trump’s announcement, as dramatic as it may be, fits into a recurring pattern in which public outrage rarely precedes concrete and successful legal action.

The Treasury Secretary’s Role in the Equation

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had already warned in April, during a CNBC summit, that the administration would monitor gas stations that did not lower their prices quickly: “You’re doing this on the upside; you’d better do it on the downside.” This earlier statement shows that political pressure on the oil industry had already begun even before Trump’s outburst on Truth Social.

Threatening local gas stations—which often have no control over the price of crude oil—is to confuse the symptom with the cause—a convenient confusion when looking for a visible scapegoat.

Who are Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and BP in this story?

ExxonMobil and Chevron, the two largest U.S. oil companies, were explicitly named by Trump during an exchange with reporters, according to a second Reuters report. He then added Shell and BP, two European multinationals, to the list of companies targeted by this informal investigation.

Trump even cited a specific figure during that exchange: “In my opinion, we should be at $2.25 a gallon right now. And we’re higher than that.” This estimate was not supported by any publicly available technical data, which has fueled criticism of the ad hoc nature of the approach.

The Strategic Silence of the Targeted Companies

None of the four companies named had publicly responded in any substantive way to the president’s accusations at the time of this article’s publication. This silence is consistent with the major oil companies’ usual strategy when facing political attacks: avoid fueling media controversy while letting their lawyers and lobbyists handle the matter behind the scenes.

The oil companies’ silence is not a sign of innocence, but of calculation: they know that responding to a presidential tweet amplifies a controversy they would rather see die down on its own.

Trump’s Ideological Split on Energy

The paradox is striking: Trump built much of his campaign platform around the slogan “drill, baby, drill,” promising to free the U.S. oil industry from environmental regulations. Today, that same president is positioning himself as a defender of consumers who have been cheated by those very same companies.

This flip-flop isn’t necessarily pure hypocrisy: a populist president may very well want to deregulate production while publicly punishing profit margins perceived as excessive. But the result, to an outside observer, remains an erratic energy policy, driven by polls and media cycles rather than by a coherent vision.

The Midterms as a Backdrop

This outburst must be viewed within its electoral context: with midterm elections scheduled for November 2026, every rise in gas prices is a political liability for the ruling party. By publicly attacking oil companies, Trump is attempting to divert voters’ anger from his own economic record toward a convenient target: the major energy corporations.

Accusing “big oil” of price gouging six months before a close election is a tactic for managing public anger as old as American politics itself—but it rarely works in the long run.

The Legal Limits of an Antitrust Investigation

For an antitrust or “price gouging” investigation to result in penalties, the DOJ would have to demonstrate explicit collusion among oil companies—a tacit or explicit agreement to keep prices artificially high. Historically, however, this type of evidence has been extremely difficult to establish in a market as fragmented and globalized as that of gasoline refining and distribution.

Analysts cited by several U.S. media outlets point out that price discrepancies between crude oil and gasoline at the pump are generally due to structural factors—refining costs, local taxes, distribution margins, and logistical delays—not necessarily to a fraudulent agreement.

The Risk of a Case with No Consequences

If history repeats itself, this investigation could follow the same path as its predecessors: a lot of media hype, extensive coverage for a few weeks, then a quiet burial due to insufficient evidence. The political risk for Trump is creating expectations he cannot meet, which would further fuel the perception of governance by sensationalism rather than concrete results.

An investigation that kicks off with great fanfare on social media only to fizzle out six months later amid general indifference is a scenario we’ve seen all too often in Washington to take at face value.

A DOJ That Follows the President’s Public Orders

The fact that the Department of Justice acted within hours of a post on Truth Social—rather than on the basis of a preexisting internal investigation—raises a fundamental institutional question: Does the DOJ still retain the capacity to act independently of the executive branch, or has it become merely an executor of the president’s whims?

This dynamic is not an isolated incident. It is part of a broader series of cases—some of which will be discussed later in this text—in which the Trump administration has been accused of exploiting institutions that are supposed to be neutral for political or personal gain.

A Comparison with Other Democratic Countries

In most Western democracies, competition authorities operate with a degree of formal independence from the executive branch, precisely to prevent economic investigations from becoming tools for political score-settling. The U.S. situation under Trump deviates significantly from this model, a fact that worries some legal observers.

A DOJ that moves in step with posts on Truth Social is no longer quite an institution of justice—it is a public relations department with subpoena power.

An Industry Accustomed to Political Roller Coasters

Major U.S. and European oil companies are accustomed to navigating political cycles, whether they are favorable or hostile to their interests. The financial markets’ reaction to Trump’s announcement was relatively muted, with no significant drop in the stock prices of Exxon, Chevron, Shell, or BP reported in the days following the announcement.

This lack of a marked market reaction reinforces the assumption that investors themselves do not view this investigation as a serious and immediate threat to the sector’s profitability.

The Influence of the Oil Lobby in Washington

The energy sector has one of the most powerful and well-funded lobbies in the U.S. capital. Its ability to influence, delay, or water down regulatory investigations has been well documented for decades, fueling skepticism about the actual outcome of this new presidential offensive.

The oil lobby has survived presidents far more determined than this one; it will likely survive this fleeting outburst on social media as well.

A Ceasefire That Changes the Energy Landscape

The drop in crude oil prices mentioned by Trump is directly linked to the ceasefire agreement reached with Iran, which has eased tensions in global energy markets and led to a decline in oil prices. This geopolitical development, which is largely positive for regional stability, has paradoxically backfired on the administration domestically, as American consumers expected an immediate and proportional reduction in prices at the pump.

This disconnect between political expectations and the reality of market mechanisms illustrates a recurring challenge for governments: communicating the benefits of geopolitical de-escalation without promising instant economic results that are impossible to deliver.

An Administration in Need of Visible Victories

After negotiating an end to hostilities with Iran, the Trump administration is clearly seeking to capitalize on this diplomatic success by translating it into tangible benefits for American voters—hence the increased pressure on oil companies to pass on the lower costs.

Attempting to turn a diplomatic success into an immediate electoral victory at the gas pump underestimates the structural slowness of the markets—and sets the stage for inevitable public disappointment.

An administration marked by similar tensions

This oil issue is part of a broader pattern observed under the Trump presidency: direct public interventions in matters that, historically, were handled through discreet administrative processes. Whether in the areas of immigration, criminal justice, or economic regulation, this administration’s hallmark remains the dramatic announcement followed by implementation that is often vague.

This style of governance—based on public statements rather than rigorous institutional processes—raises questions about the predictability and stability of U.S. regulatory policy, an issue of concern to both businesses and citizens.

The Role of Donors in Policy Decisions

The fact that Trump is now targeting companies that heavily funded his campaign raises a broader question: To what extent are presidential decisions guided by a genuine sense of economic justice, rather than by a calculation of political expediency aimed at publicly distancing himself from donors who have become a liability?

Turning against one’s own donors when the political winds shift is a clever maneuver to throw people off the trail—but it doesn’t fool the most attentive voters for long.

Justice as a Communication Tool

This episode illustrates a consistent feature of Trump’s second term: the use of federal institutions—the DOJ, the FBI, regulatory agencies—as extensions of his public communication strategy, rather than as independent bodies enforcing the law according to established procedures.

Whether or not the investigation into the oil companies yields concrete results, it will have already served an immediate political purpose: diverting public attention from rising prices toward an identifiable and unpopular scapegoat.

A Necessary Evil in the Face of Domestic Excesses

Let’s be clear: on the geopolitical and military fronts, Trump’s firm stance—particularly toward Iran—may have contributed to a de-escalation that has benefited the West. But this firmness on the international stage must not serve as an excuse to turn a blind eye to troubling domestic excesses: the instrumentalization of the DOJ, governance by impulse, and a lack of institutional rigor. A “necessary evil” abroad does not justify democratic laxity at home.

One can applaud robust diplomacy while firmly denouncing a domestic justice system that has been turned into a weapon of political retaliation—the two positions are not mutually exclusive; they complement each other.

A sense of unease that some conservatives don’t dare voice aloud

While public criticism of this maneuver comes mainly from economic commentators and progressive media outlets, a sense of unease also exists—albeit more discreetly—among certain conservatives committed to the principle of separation between the executive branch and the judiciary. This unease remains largely unspoken in public, whether out of partisan loyalty or fear of internal political reprisals.

This reluctance to openly criticize an institutional abuse of power—even when it is acknowledged in private—illustrates the extreme polarization that characterizes the current American political landscape.

The Silence of Republican Members of Congress

No prominent Republican senator or representative has publicly questioned the legitimacy of this direct presidential intervention in the affairs of the DOJ, which stands in contrast to the bipartisan calls for an investigation into gas prices mentioned above.

The complicit silence of a party that, in private, is concerned about the concentration of executive power but refuses to say so publicly speaks volumes about the state of American domestic democracy.

Fragmented Media Coverage

Coverage of this issue varies widely depending on the political leanings of U.S. media outlets. Networks and websites aligned with the Republican Party, such as Newsmax, portrayed Trump’s announcement as a victory for American consumers, without questioning the legal soundness of the case. Conversely, media outlets such as Politico and The Guardian were quick to highlight the paradox of oil industry donors being targeted by their own political ally.

This polarization in media coverage reflects, once again, the American public’s difficulty in obtaining a factual and depoliticized assessment of a presidential decision with concrete economic implications for millions of drivers.

Public Opinion in the Face of Rising Prices

For the average voter, exasperated by the cost at the pump, it ultimately doesn’t matter whether the investigation is motivated by electoral calculations or by a genuine desire for economic justice: what matters is a visible gesture from the executive branch. It is precisely this psychological lever that Trump, a skilled communicator, has consistently exploited since the start of his second term.

But this strategy carries a real political risk: if the investigation does not result in any visible sanctions before the November midterms, the publicity stunt could backfire on the administration, fueling a growing sense of cynicism among voters already weary of broken promises.

Promising dramatic economic justice without delivering concrete results before the election is the riskiest gamble a president can make in the run-up to a close race.

Between Populism and True Justice

The investigation ordered by Trump against Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and BP could, in theory, reveal abusive business practices warranting sanctions. But its origin—an impulsive social media post, with no prior data made public—and the electoral context in which it is taking place call for the utmost caution.

The escalation on July 3, with the call for states to join the federal investigation, shows that the case is taking on real institutional significance. It remains to be seen whether this effort will lead to concrete sanctions or whether it will fizzle out, like so many others before it, in the silence of the courts.

Necessary Journalistic Vigilance

This case deserves close attention, not to defend the oil companies—whose business practices do indeed warrant rigorous scrutiny—but to ensure that the U.S. justice system continues to operate according to predictable rules of law, rather than according to the whims of its commander-in-chief.

Ultimately, this case will be judged not on its stated intentions, but on whether or not it results in genuine accountability for American motorists.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist