Donald Trump promised to cut energy prices by 50%. Instead, average electricity prices over the past year have risen by about 6.7%, while natural gas prices have increased by 10.8%. Energy prices are influenced by many factors beyond any president’s direct control, including market conditions, weather-driven demand, regional infrastructure constraints and the rapid growth of energy-intensive datacenters that are driving new system costs. Policy choices do not determine prices on their own, but they do shape market outcomes, and the direction of this administration’s energy policy has been clear.
From his first days in office, President Trump made clear that his energy agenda would prioritize fossil fuel producers over consumers. His administration moved to expand US liquefied natural gas exports, increasing exposure to volatile global markets. At the same time, it froze wind power projects that provide some of the cheapest new electricity, intervened to keep costly coal plants running, and backed the elimination of energy-efficiency tax credits that lower household energy bills.
The administration also proposed cutting the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and the Weatherization Assistance Program, the federal government’s primary tools for protecting low-income households from rising energy costs even as electricity and gas prices were climbing. Congress ultimately blocked those cuts, sparing millions of families from immediate harm.
Supporters claim these policies promote “energy independence”, but increasing reliance on global fuel markets while dismantling the lowest-cost sources of new domestic power and demand reduction does the opposite. The outcome is predictable: higher prices, greater volatility and protected fossil fuel profits, with households – especially low- and moderate-income families – left to pay the price.
The result is that energy is becoming increasingly unaffordable. For example, we are projecting that home heating costs will increase by 9.2% this winter, more than three times the rate of inflation, driven by higher electricity and natural gas prices and colder-than-average weather.
These increases may be an inconvenience for higher-income households, but for low- and middle-income families they are devastating. Millions of households that were getting by are now being driven into utility debt and toward shutoffs because they cannot afford to keep their homes warm. Polling confirms the reality on the ground: nearly one in four households now say their energy bills are unaffordable.
Energy use does not rise in proportion to income, meaning energy costs take up a far larger share of household budgets at the bottom than at the top. As prices increased between 2024 and 2025, that imbalance widened: for lowest income households (less than $30,000), the share of income spent on home energy rose from 9.4% to 9.9%, while moderate-income households saw a smaller increase, from 4.9% to 5.1% ($30,000 to $58,000). For the highest-income households ($156,000 plus), the change was barely perceptible, edging from 1.2% to 1.3%.
These outcomes are not inevitable features of energy markets. They reflect policy choices that raise system costs, weaken efficiency and affordability programs, and shift risk on to households least able to absorb it. As a result, utility arrears have climbed sharply alongside higher energy prices, rising from $15.4bn at the end of 2021 to an estimated $23bn in 2025, largely driven by increasing electricity bills. If current trends continue, arrears could reach roughly $28bn in 2026, as higher energy costs compound broader inflation in essentials such as rent, food and medical care.
The solution is neither complicated nor ideological. If the goal is lower energy bills, policy must focus on lowering system costs and reducing household exposure to price volatility. That means prioritizing the cheapest resources available: energy efficiency, weatherization, and renewable power that lowers demand and stabilizes prices. It means expanding existing tax credits that help families improve the efficiency of their homes and install rooftop solar, permanently reducing electricity and natural gas use. And it means protecting households from short-term price spikes through targeted bill assistance, rather than forcing families to absorb the shock.
These are not untested ideas. States and countries that have leaned into efficiency, renewables, and consumer protections have achieved lower long-term costs and greater price stability. The tools exist, and the economics are well understood.
What is missing is political will. An administration that claims to stand with consumers cannot continue to write energy policy for fossil-fuel producers and expect a different outcome. Lower energy prices will not come from propping up high-cost power plants, dismantling clean energy, or exposing households to volatile global fuel markets. They will come from policies that reduce demand, increase competition, and put consumers first.
-
Mark Wolfe is executive director of National Energy Assistance Directors Association, co-director of the Center on Energy Poverty and Climate and adjunct faculty at the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy at George Washington University