Published on: Tue, 06 Oct 2026 01:45:00 GMT
Original Story: Trump Signs Order to Ease Limits on Diesel Variety to Curb Costs – Bloomberg.com

Trump: Suddenly, Diesel Isn’t So Bad.

Ah, the halcyon days of, let’s see, late 2018. Remember that? Pre-pandemic, pre-whatever fresh hell we’re dealing with today. A simpler time, when the big news was still just a daily dose of “what now?” from the White House. Well, Bloomberg, bless their meticulous hearts, just reminded us of one such gem: the time the former guy signed an order to ease limits on a particular diesel variety, all in the noble pursuit of “curbing costs.” Because, apparently, nothing says “free market” like a presidential decree directly messing with fuel specifications to save a few pennies at the pump. Or, you know, maybe just for the optics.

Honestly, it’s like watching a rerun of a show you barely tolerated the first time, only now you’re older, more cynical, and the corporate burnout has really set in. This wasn’t some grand, sweeping policy shift. It was a precise, targeted intervention, wrapped in the familiar rhetoric of economic relief. And if you think that sounds suspiciously like something he’d bash opponents for, well, you’d be right. But we’ll get to that delicious bit of hypocrisy in a minute.

The Diesel Dilemma: What Exactly Was Eased?

So, what kind of diesel are we talking about here? This wasn’t just some blanket “let’s make all diesel cheaper” proclamation. The order specifically targeted ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) and other fuel standards, often linked to environmental regulations. See, when you mandate lower sulfur content or specific blends, it generally costs more to produce or refine. These regulations are usually put in place for, you know, public health and environmental reasons – cleaner air, fewer respiratory illnesses, that sort of boring stuff. But those pesky things come with a price tag, right?

By easing these limits, even temporarily or on a specific type, the idea is that manufacturers or refiners face fewer hurdles, potentially leading to a slight dip in production costs. That, in theory, translates to lower prices for consumers at the pump or for industries relying heavily on diesel, like trucking, agriculture, or construction. It’s a classic trade-off: environmental protection versus immediate economic relief. And guess which one usually wins when there’s an election cycle looming or a need to claim “economic victory”? Yeah, you know the answer. It’s not the polar bears, pal.

The Subtle Art of Regulatory Judo

Think about it. The administration, at the time, was all about “energy dominance” and “unleashing American energy.” Which, nine times out of ten, meant drilling more, pumping more, and generally giving the fossil fuel industry a giant, slobbery kiss. Easing limits on a diesel variety fits right into that narrative. It’s deregulation, plain and simple, framed as a heroic act to save the average American from the tyranny of high fuel prices. Never mind that fuel prices are a global commodity, influenced by about a thousand things well beyond the reach of a single executive order.

But that’s the magic, isn’t it? Pinpoint a problem – high costs – then offer a seemingly simple, decisive solution via executive action. It’s politically expedient, makes for a good soundbite, and allows you to sidestep the messy, drawn-out process of actually legislating. Because who has time for Congress when there are costs to be curbed and headlines to be made?

The “Pen and Phone” Problem: A Familiar Tune

Now, here’s where the Elder Millennial burnout really kicks in, because the irony here is so thick you could cut it with a dull butter knife. Remember 2016? Before the whole “grab ’em by the pussy” tape, before the Access Hollywood bus, before the endless rallies where red hats were still a novel accessory? Donald Trump, the candidate, spent a significant chunk of his campaign railing against President Barack Obama’s use of executive orders.

Oh, he hated them. He called them “unconstitutional,” an “abuse of power,” and a sign of a dictatorial presidency. He vowed to be different, to work with Congress, to restore the proper balance of power. He famously said things like, “The president is not supposed to be signing executive orders. He’s supposed to be working with Congress.” This was a consistent, loud, and very public criticism throughout his campaign. The “pen and phone” trope was practically a mantra for the anti-Obama crowd.

From Critic to Commander-in-Chief of Executive Orders

Fast forward to his own presidency, and what do we see? A president who embraced executive orders with the enthusiasm of a kid in a candy store. From immigration policies to trade tariffs, from national monuments to, yes, fuel regulations, the executive order became a go-to tool. This 2018 order easing diesel limits is a prime example. It’s a direct intervention, bypassing legislative debate, implemented with the stroke of a presidential pen. The very “pen and phone” he so vehemently condemned just a couple of years prior.

It’s a classic case of “rules for thee, but not for me.” When Obama did it, it was an egregious overreach. When Trump did it, it was “cutting red tape” and “saving American families money.” The rationale, of course, was always different. Obama was a tyrant; Trump was a savior. The underlying mechanism? Identical. Just another day in the political theater, folks, where principles are as fluid as crude oil prices.

Economic Wizardry or Just Another Loophole?

Did easing limits on a specific diesel variety actually “curb costs” in any meaningful, long-term way? Probably not enough to write home about. Fuel prices are a notoriously complex beast, influenced by global supply and demand, geopolitical events, OPEC decisions, refinery capacity, and even the literal weather. A small adjustment to a specific fuel’s regulatory standard, while it might offer a marginal advantage to certain refiners or industries, is unlikely to move the needle on a macroeconomic scale.

What it does do, however, is allow a president to claim credit. “See? I’m fighting for you! I’m cutting regulations! I’m making things cheaper!” It’s a symbolic gesture, a performative act of economic intervention designed to create a perception of action and efficacy, irrespective of the actual, measurable impact. It’s the political equivalent of putting a band-aid on a gaping wound and then declaring the patient cured.

The Environmental Elephant in the Room

Of course, any discussion of easing limits on fuel varieties, especially ones tied to sulfur content or emissions, inevitably brings up the environmental angle. While the stated goal was economic, the unspoken consequence is often a slight, or sometimes not-so-slight, increase in pollutants. But, let’s be real, environmental concerns weren’t exactly front-and-center for that administration. The overarching philosophy was always that environmental regulations were job killers and economic impediments, rather than safeguards for public health and planetary well-being. So, a measure that might make the air a *little* less clean in exchange for *potentially* cheaper fuel? That was a trade-off they were more than happy to make.

It’s all part of the grand tapestry of “America First” energy, which often seemed to mean “extract everything, regulate nothing, and blame everyone else for the consequences.” This diesel order fits neatly into that worldview, a small but telling piece of a much larger puzzle.