DOJ presses states to probe a possible gasoline cartel

Introduction: a letter that speaks volumes about Washington's admitted limits

An unusual federal outreach to the states

On July 3, 2026, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission sent a joint letter to every state attorney general in the country, urging them to use every available tool to investigate potential illegal practices by oil companies in setting pump prices. The letter, signed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr., who oversees the antitrust division, and by FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, states that both agencies are closely monitoring oil markets for possible violations of federal antitrust laws, according to The Hill.

The move is telling: rather than announcing a robust federal investigation with dedicated resources, the Trump administration is delegating much of the work to the states, while implicitly acknowledging that the federal government lacks any specific authority to prosecute price gouging as such, only classic anticompetitive practices, as confirmed by CBS News.

The backdrop of an unfulfilled presidential promise

This July 3 letter comes more than a week after Donald Trump himself demanded, on June 24, 2026 on his Truth Social platform, that the DOJ immediately open an investigation into major oil companies he accused of "gouging," meaning keeping pump prices high even as the price of crude was falling fast, according to Politico and the New York Post. Trump did not name any specific company at the time, but later, speaking to reporters, cited Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, and Shell, according to Fortune.

Ten days passed, then, between the presidential order and this letter to the states, a gap that raises questions about the DOJ's real capacity to turn a social media outburst into swift, concrete legal action.

What exactly the DOJ and FTC letter says

Careful, almost defensive language

The text of the letter, reviewed by CBS News, insists that the recent volatility in crude oil prices "does not suspend antitrust laws or state consumer protection laws" and that it "does not authorize companies to manipulate retail prices or collude with competitors." The federal agencies state they intend to "use every available enforcement tool" against any illegal conduct found in oil markets.

The document also states plainly that neither the DOJ's antitrust division nor the FTC has specific legal authority to punish price gouging on its own, a gap they are asking the states to fill using their own, often broader, laws against price manipulation during market disruptions.

A nudge aimed at consumers

The two agencies also directly invite American consumers to report any suspected violation through DOJ and FTC complaint channels, a way of signaling a willingness to act without committing to specific prosecutions or a timeline, according to details reported by Politico.

This public invitation, which looks as much like a communications exercise as a legal one, illustrates how hard it is to turn presidential anger expressed on social media into a legally solid, court-ready investigation.

The origin of Trump's anger: prices that refuse to follow crude

A persistent gap between the barrel and the pump

Since the United States and Iran signed an agreement in late June that allowed the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the price of a barrel of crude has fallen to around 69 to 72 dollars, down from a peak of 118 dollars in April, according to Fortune and the New York Post. Yet the national average gasoline price in the United States did not track that drop at the same pace, standing at around 3.93 dollars a gallon on June 24 according to the American Automobile Association, before falling to about 3.82 dollars in early July, according to The Hill.

The New York Post notes that crude has fallen roughly 23% since May, while gasoline has only dropped about 14% over the same period, a gap that directly feeds the president's accusation of "gouging."

The "rockets and feathers" phenomenon

According to Politico, economic research has long documented this phenomenon known as "rockets and feathers": gasoline prices shoot up like a rocket when crude rises, but only drift down slowly, like a feather, when crude falls. This mechanism, well known among energy economists, does not necessarily imply illegal collusion, but rather reflects dynamics of margins, inventory, and local competition among gas stations.

Karen Young, a researcher at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, described the presidential move as "political theater," noting that this is "not really how gasoline prices work" in the United States, according to remarks reported by that research center.

A climate of suspicion documented well before Trump

The Pioneer Natural Resources and OPEC precedent

This investigation did not come out of nowhere. In 2024, the FTC had already uncovered, during its review of ExxonMobil's60-billion-dollar acquisition of Pioneer Natural Resources, evidence suggesting that Pioneer's former CEO, Scott Sheffield, had coordinated positions with members of OPEC and OPEC+ to cut production and inflate prices, according to a letter from Democratic senators reviewed by the Associated Press.

According to that same letter, signed by then-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and 22 other Democratic senators, this alleged collusion could have cost American households up to 500 dollars per vehicle per year in extra fuel costs, an amount described as an "unwanted tax" falling especially hard on lower-income families.

A bipartisan concern, but different solutions

Democratic Senator Ed Markey had also, ahead of the Trump episode, written to FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson demanding an investigation into possible market manipulation and anticompetitive price fixing, according to USA Today. This shared ground between Democrats and the Trump administration shows that distrust of big oil companies crosses party lines, even if the motivations and proposed remedies differ sharply.

Where Democrats call for robust federal action grounded in the Sherman antitrust law, the Trump administration is opting for delegation to the states, a notably less binding approach for the companies targeted.

The gray areas this investigation doesn't yet resolve

No company named, no timeline set

Neither the July 3 letter nor the presidential statements of June 24 name any specific company suspected of collusion or price manipulation, according to Politico. Trump did name Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, and Shell at a press briefing, but none of these companies is formally targeted by any proceeding in the document sent to state attorneys general.

No timeline has been given either for any findings, prosecutions, or sanctions, leaving uncertainty about the seriousness and actual reach of this initiative beyond its announcement effect.

An industry that otherwise benefits greatly from Trump

Fortune notes the irony: the major oil companies targeted by this presidential broadside had collectively spent nearly 100 million dollars supporting Donald Trump's election, and he has since returning to office pursued policies highly favorable to the fossil fuel industry, including environmental deregulation and the opening of new drilling leases. This one-off turn against his own donors raises questions about his political consistency and about whether this move is less a genuine push for structural reform of the oil market than a way of managing the anger of American drivers.

This contradiction between the financial support received from the industry and the public attack against it once again illustrates the transactional, ever-shifting nature of the relationship between Trump and the major economic interests that helped put him in power.

What this affair reveals about how the administration operates internally

A DOJ acting on presidential orders via Truth Social

The fact that this investigation originated in a Truth Social post from the president rather than an internal initiative of the Department of Justice once again illustrates how Trump directly steers the federal justice apparatus, often without apparent prior consultation with the prosecutors involved. This pattern, already seen in other matters touching the justice system and the Senate, raises recurring questions about the DOJ's real independence under this administration.

The ten-day gap between the presidential order and the actual letter sent to the states could also reflect the DOJ's internal struggle to build, in such a short time, a legally defensible case on a subject as complex as nationwide gasoline pricing.

A delegation that could let the federal government off the hook

By shifting the main responsibility for the investigation onto the states, the federal administration protects itself against a highly publicized failure to produce concrete results, while still claiming political credit for having "acted" in response to drivers' anger. This strategy, politically astute, nonetheless leaves consumers uncertain about the real likelihood of sanctions against the oil companies in question.

Some states, particularly those with strong price gouging laws for periods of market disruption, could genuinely take up this call, while others, less legally equipped or less politically motivated, may let the DOJ's letter go nowhere.

Gas prices, a high-stakes political issue for Trump

Public pressure that's hard to ignore

Pump prices remain one of the most visible and politically sensitive economic indicators for American voters, a fact Trump knows well and has himself used extensively in his campaigns against the previous administration. With a gallon still selling for about 60 cents more than a year ago according to USA Today, pressure on the White House to show tangible results remains considerable, all the more so ahead of upcoming electoral deadlines.

Some states on the West Coast and Hawaii still pay more than 5 dollars a gallon, according to The Hill, a regional gap that fuels a sense of geographic injustice on top of general frustration over the cost of living.

Between communication and substance, a still-uncertain balance

Industry analysts, such as Patrick De Haan of GasBuddy, expect prices to keep falling in the coming months, driven by the combined effects of de-escalation with Iran and the usual seasonal decline after the peak summer demand period, according to USA Today. This natural downward trend will make it difficult, in a few months, to separate the real effect of this federal investigation from the simple normal evolution of the global oil market.

If prices keep falling in the coming weeks, the Trump administration could claim credit for this letter to the states, even though the structural causes of the decline, particularly geopolitical ones, objectively have nothing to do with the DOJ's action.

The pandemic precedent and lessons for American consumers

A distrust dating back to the Biden era

According to USA Today, the Biden administration had also, in the past, threatened to investigate possible price gouging practices during the inflationary surge that followed the pandemic, without ever securing significant prosecutions against major oil companies. This continuity between two administrations with very different orientations shows that the difficulty of legally proving collusion over gasoline prices goes well beyond Washington's usual partisan divides.

This finding reinforces the idea that the problem is not so much a lack of political will, real or displayed, but a structural limit of the federal legal framework in the face of a globalized, complex energy market dominated by pricing mechanisms that largely escape Washington's direct control.

What American drivers can realistically expect

For the average American consumer, this political and legal sequence changes, in the short term, absolutely nothing about the price they'll pay at the pump next week. The gradual decline already underway since the de-escalation with Iran will keep following its own logic, independent of the administrative fate of this letter sent to state attorneys general.

The real value of this move, if it has any, will be measured in the months ahead, through the number of states that actually open concrete investigations and, eventually, the tangible legal outcomes they manage to produce against specific companies.

Conclusion: a move worth watching, not applauding too soon

What can be said today

This investigation reveals a Trump administration responding to drivers' anger with a public, symbolic gesture rather than immediate, binding federal action, shifting onto the states the main responsibility for producing concrete results against possible anticompetitive practices by oil companies. The Pioneer Natural Resources precedent shows that distrust of the industry isn't baseless, but nothing at this stage guarantees that this July 3, 2026 letter will lead to actual prosecutions.

It would be premature and misleading to present this letter as proof of confirmed collusion among major oil companies: no charges have been filed, no company is formally named in the document, and the federal agencies themselves acknowledge they lack the authority to act alone against price gouging.

Journalistic vigilance that must continue

The coming weeks will tell whether state attorneys general actually take up this call from the DOJ and the FTC, and whether concrete investigations, with named companies and documented evidence, actually materialize. Until then, this story deserves to be followed with the rigor it demands, without giving in to either total cynicism or premature enthusiasm toward an administration that has repeatedly shown a significant gap between its spectacular announcements and its measurable results.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

Who I am and my acknowledged biases

I sign this investigation under the name Maxime Marquette. I rely exclusively on publicly verifiable journalistic and institutional sources, including The Hill, Politico, CBS News, Fortune, and the New York Post. I hold an acknowledged critical view of Donald Trump's domestic governance, while recognizing that I have no access to any internal DOJ or FTC documents beyond what has already been made public by these outlets.

I have no ties to the oil industry, to the Department of Justice, or to the American administration, and I never claim to have publicly unverifiable confidential information.

What I don't know yet

I do not know whether this investigation will lead to concrete prosecutions against named oil companies, nor which states will actually take up the DOJ and FTC's call. I have no direct evidence of ongoing collusion among the major oil companies referenced in Trump's remarks, and I report this story based on the information available at the time of writing.

Sources

Primary sources

Politico, Justice Department calls on states to join investigation into oil companies — July 3, 2026

The Hill, Justice Department urges states to investigate possible gas price gouging — July 3, 2026

CBS News, United States says it is monitoring oil markets for price fixing — July 3, 2026

Secondary sources

Washington Examiner, DOJ investigates oil companies suspected of manipulating gas prices — July 2026

Newsmax, Trump and the pressure on gas prices — July 3, 2026

Fortune, Trump turns against Big Oil donors who spent nearly 100 million dollars on his election — June 25, 2026

TIME, Trump denounces price gouging and demands a DOJ investigation — June 24, 2026