President Donald Trump falsely claimed Thursday that some states saw gas prices fall to just $1.98 on Wednesday. Trump was responding to a journalist who asked him at the White House how long Americans can expect to experience higher prices because of his trade policies.Trump claimed Americans have already seen the situation “get much better,” alleged the reporter is not “truthful,” then added, “You have gasoline that hit $1.98 yesterday in a couple of states.” That’s not true. No state had an average gas price even close to $1.98 per gallon on Wednesday. The two states that were tied with the lowest average gas price on Wednesday, Mississippi and Tennessee, were both at $2.70 per gallon, according to data provided by AAA. The national average was about $3.17 per gallon on Wednesday, per the AAA data. And Wednesday drivers were unlikely to find even an individual gas station selling a gallon for $1.98 or less. GasBuddy, a firm that tracks prices at tens of thousands of gas stations around the country, found zero stations selling for under $2 on Wednesday, said Patrick De Haan, GasBuddy’s head of petroleum analysis. The lowest price GasBuddy found on Wednesday was $2.19 per gallon at a station in Texas. Of more than 500 metro areas whose prices are tracked by AAA, the one with the lowest average price, Abilene, Texas, was at about $2.57 per gallon. Trump has repeatedly made false claims about prices as he attempts to defend his tariff plans, which Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell warned Wednesday are likely to lead to both higher prices and slower economic growth. Trump wrongly asserted in his Thursday comments at the White House that “the price of groceries is substantially down,” a claim CNN debunked after he delivered a version of it on social media earlier in the day. The White House responds with another false claim CNN asked the White House on Thursday to explain what Trump was referring to when he claimed that a couple of states’ gas prices hit $1.98 on Wednesday. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields emailed a response that did not attempt to substantiate the claim – and instead added another false claim. Fields correctly noted that gas prices are more than 50 cents lower today than they were at roughly the same time last year, when Joe Biden was president. But Fields also said reporters stuck in a “big city bubble” should go “visit the Middle America, where gas prices are at record lows.” Fields didn’t define the term “the Middle America,” but his assertion is wrong regardless: today’s gas prices across the country are significantly higher than in various past years even when adjusted for inflation. To cite just two examples, average gas prices are higher today (about $3.17 nationally, per AAA) than they were at various points of Trump’s first term and at various points of the 1990s, when the national average spent some time below $1 per gallon; $1 in March 1999 had the buying power of $1.94 in March 2025. “Gas prices aren’t near record lows in a single state. Current prices are far above record lows,” De Haan of GasBuddy said in an email. Fields didn’t immediately respond to a follow-up request to explain this false claim.
Fact check: Trump falsely claims gas prices hit $1.98 in some states
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Trump's Claim of $1.98 Gas Prices in Some States Proven False"
CNN
8.5
TruthLens AI Summary
On Thursday, President Donald Trump made a false claim regarding gas prices during a press interaction at the White House, stating that some states had seen prices drop to $1.98 per gallon. This assertion came in response to a journalist's question about the impact of his trade policies on American consumers. However, data from the American Automobile Association (AAA) revealed that no state had an average gas price even close to $1.98. In fact, Mississippi and Tennessee, which had the lowest average prices, were recorded at $2.70 per gallon, while the national average stood at approximately $3.17. Additionally, GasBuddy, a gas price tracking service, reported that not a single gas station in the country was selling fuel for under $2 on that day. The lowest price they found was $2.19 in Texas, highlighting the inaccuracy of Trump's claim about gas prices hitting $1.98.
Trump's remarks were part of a broader defense of his tariff policies, which have been criticized for potentially leading to increased prices and slower economic growth, as noted by Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. In his comments, Trump also incorrectly stated that grocery prices were significantly lower, a claim that CNN had previously debunked. When the White House was asked to clarify Trump's statements about gas prices, a spokesperson provided an unrelated claim about current prices being lower than a year ago without substantiating the $1.98 figure. The spokesperson suggested that reporters should explore areas outside of major cities to see lower prices, yet their assertion was misleading, as current national averages are higher than during various points in the past, including during Trump's presidency and even in the 1990s, when gas prices occasionally fell below $1 per gallon. Experts have confirmed that no state is currently experiencing record low gas prices, contradicting the administration's narrative.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article addresses a statement made by former President Donald Trump regarding gas prices, which has been identified as false. This fact-checking report is crucial in the current political climate, where misinformation can significantly influence public opinion and policy discussions. By highlighting Trump's inaccurate claims, the article aims to clarify the reality of gas prices and hold public figures accountable for their statements.
Purpose of the Publication
The primary goal of the article is to debunk a specific claim made by Trump regarding gas prices. By providing accurate data from credible sources like AAA and GasBuddy, the article seeks to ensure that the public is informed about the actual state of gas prices, countering any misleading narratives that could arise from Trump's statements. This fact-checking serves to maintain journalistic integrity and promote transparency in political discourse.
Public Perception and Trust
This article likely aims to foster skepticism towards Trump's statements among readers. By presenting concrete data that contradicts his claims, it may influence public perception, particularly among those who are already critical of his administration's policies. The article's focus on fact-checking can enhance trust in the media for audiences who value accurate reporting, while potentially alienating those who support Trump and are more inclined to dismiss such critiques.
Potential Omissions or Bias
While the article effectively debunks Trump's claims about gas prices, one could argue that it may not fully address the broader context of his trade policies and their impact on the economy. By concentrating on a single statement, it might overlook the complexities surrounding gas prices and inflation, which could lead to a simplified understanding of the issue among readers.
Manipulative Elements
The article is primarily factual and serves to correct misinformation rather than manipulate the audience. However, the choice of language and emphasis on Trump's repeated falsehoods could evoke a negative perception of him, which may be viewed as a form of manipulation by his supporters. The framing of Trump's claims as "false" and the use of counter-evidence could be perceived as biased, depending on the reader's viewpoint.
Comparison to Other News
In the current media landscape, this fact-check aligns with a trend of rigorous scrutiny of political figures, particularly those with a history of making misleading statements. It reflects a broader commitment within some news outlets to counter misinformation, especially in light of recent electoral cycles where disinformation has played a significant role.
Impact on Society and Economy
Inaccurate statements from political leaders can have real-world consequences, particularly in economic contexts. If the public believes in misleading claims about gas prices, it could influence their consumer behavior and expectations, affecting market dynamics. This kind of misinformation can also complicate discussions around economic policy and trade, particularly if people become more polarized in their views.
Supporters and Audience Engagement
The article is likely to resonate more with audiences critical of Trump and those who prioritize factual reporting. It may appeal to individuals who value accountability in leadership and are concerned about the implications of false information on public policy and economic conditions.
Market Reactions
While this specific article may not have a direct impact on stock prices, the broader implications of economic policy discussions, including tariffs and trade, could influence market sentiment. Investors typically react to political stability and accurate economic forecasts, meaning that misleading claims could indirectly affect market confidence.
Global Context
In the context of global power dynamics, the discussion about gas prices and economic policy is relevant, particularly in a time of fluctuating energy markets and international trade tensions. This article contributes to ongoing dialogues about the effectiveness of U.S. economic policies and their implications for both domestic and international stakeholders.
Use of AI in Reporting
There is no explicit indication that AI was used in the writing of this article. However, AI tools could assist in data analysis and fact-checking processes, allowing journalists to present accurate information more efficiently. The clear and concise presentation of facts suggests a structured approach that may benefit from AI-assisted research.
In conclusion, the article effectively serves its purpose of fact-checking a misleading statement by Trump, emphasizing the importance of accurate information in political discourse. It highlights the need for accountability among public figures and aims to inform the public about the realities of gas prices, while also reflecting broader themes of misinformation in the current media environment.