President Donald Trump has endorsed a temporary suspension of the federal gas tax, citing relief for Americans grappling with rising fuel costs amid ongoing conflict in Iran. The proposal, announced Monday during an interview with CBS News, envisions eliminating the 18-cent-per-gallon tax for a limited period and gradually reinstating it as gas prices decrease.

Implementing such a measure would require Congressional approval, prompting swift reactions from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Some Democrats, particularly those in competitive races, have seized on the president’s endorsement to push Republicans to support the tax holiday. Texas Senate candidate James Talarico criticized Sen. John Cornyn (R) for dismissing the idea as “short-sighted” and urged him to align with both the president and himself in backing the proposal.

Several other Democrats have already expressed support for suspending the federal fuel tax. Senators Mark Kelly (Arizona) and Representative Chris Pappas (New Hampshire) have publicly endorsed the concept, while Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner recently unveiled an energy plan that includes rolling back the tax.

Gasoline prices have climbed significantly since the Iran conflict began in February, with the national average now standing at $4.52 per gallon, up from $2.98. The federal gas tax generates revenue for the Highway Trust Fund, a critical source of funding for road maintenance and public transit projects nationwide. Opposition voices warn that suspending the tax could jeopardize infrastructure spending at a time when many projects require continued investment.

Critics also highlight potential unintended consequences of the proposal. By removing the tax, the government could essentially be subsidizing fuel consumption, potentially encouraging drivers to maintain or increase their gasoline use rather than conserving it. This could undermine efforts to reduce demand and address broader environmental and economic concerns.

Despite its bipartisan appeal, the gas tax holiday has been characterized by some policymakers and analysts as a political maneuver lacking substantive long-term benefits. Its proponents argue it provides immediate financial relief to consumers burdened by high prices, while detractors caution that it risks fiscal strain and counterproductive outcomes for transportation infrastructure.