The Trump administration is facing internal pushback over a proposed plan to impose a 90-day ban on diesel exports, a decision that critics call a “terrible idea.” As the midterm elections loom, the White House is weighing the controversial move despite pushback from both energy sector insiders and some members of its own cabinet.

A Wednesday report from Politico revealed that discussions around the temporary ban are taking place amid rising diesel prices, currently averaging $6.52 a gallon nationwide. This marks a 91-cent increase just since last month and is significantly up from a year ago, as geopolitical tensions have driven fuel costs to an all-time high.

According to five anonymous sources within the administration, the proposed ban reflects a desperate attempt by President Trump to address voter concerns about rising fuel prices ahead of the November elections. Various cabinet members, including Energy Secretary Chris Wright, have expressed concerns about the potential consequences of such a decision.

“It’s a terrible idea,” one Trump energy adviser told Politico, highlighting fears that the ban would disrupt the market rather than stabilize it. This adviser suggested that the plan is still fluid and subject to change as internal discussions continue.

Energy Secretary Wright reportedly reached out to oil executives on Tuesday night, indicating that the ban may soon be announced. Following the call, several executives called the White House to voice their objections, concerned about the ripple effects of limiting exports.

Historically, the United States has been the world’s largest exporter of diesel fuel. A temporary ban would change a long-standing trend that started after the Obama administration lifted a decades-long prohibition on oil exports in 2015.

Tensions have escalated lately due to the ongoing conflict with Iran and Ukrainian military strikes on Russian energy assets. These developments have exacerbated an already strained global energy market, pushing diesel prices higher and impacting American consumers.

Political observers suggest that the urgency behind this fuel export ban is tied directly to the upcoming midterm elections. With less than seven weeks to go, Trump seems prepared to commit to an unpopular decision, interpreting any resulting fallout as a challenge for after the elections.

“That camp has been swept aside by the political camp, which says, ‘dammit, something has to happen,'” explained one oil industry executive familiar with the internal discussions. This highlights a divide between advisors focused on energy markets and those emphasizing electoral politics.

Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum have also reportedly raised concerns regarding an outright ban and its broader implications for the U.S. economy.

During a panel at Climate Week in New York on Wednesday, Energy Secretary Wright further articulated his opposition. “The blunt tool of banning diesel exports definitely doesn’t work because the U.S. exports a lot of diesel,” he said. He further noted that refineries producing diesel also manufacture gasoline and jet fuel, indicating that a blanket ban could have wider repercussions across energy markets.

Despite the internal dissent, the White House is moving forward with the plan, dismissing the reports as “fake news.” A spokesperson insisted that the administration is committed to working towards solutions that will stabilize fuel prices.

As pressure mounts on the Trump administration, the unfolding situation presents a significant political challenge. The announcement of a ban could catalyze further unrest among industry stakeholders already grappling with rising costs and supply chain disruptions.

With the political landscape rapidly evolving, Trump’s strategy in handling fuel prices could shape his party’s fortunes in the midterms and beyond. Addressing rising fuel costs remains critical for swing voters, specifically in battleground states where the cost of living is a growing concern.

As the administration prepares to make a final decision, the implications of either supporting or opposing the export ban set the stage for a contentious few months in U.S. energy policy.

Energy industry experts and political analysts alike will be watching closely, as the balance between political expediency and economic prudence hangs in the balance.