As 2026 begins, fuel taxes are shifting across the country — and many drivers won’t notice until they fill up. Some states are adjusting rates by a cent or less, while others are imposing major increases or overhauling how fuel is taxed altogether. Much of it is happening quietly through automatic systems that rarely make headlines.

Fuel taxes rarely dominate headlines, but they remain one of the most direct ways government policy intersects with everyday life. Unlike income or property taxes, fuel taxes are paid in small increments, embedded into a necessity for most Americans. That makes them politically sensitive, economically significant, and easy to overlook — until prices jump.

The broader question is whether fuel taxes remain a sustainable way to fund transportation in an era of increasing vehicle efficiency.

Over the past year, more than a dozen states adjusted their fuel tax systems. Some increased rates to shore up transportation budgets strained by inflation and aging infrastructure. Others reduced taxes to ease costs for consumers and commercial operators. As 2026 begins, another wave of changes is rolling out, driven largely by automatic formulas rather than new legislative votes.

The result is a patchwork of increases, decreases, pauses, and structural overhauls that reflect broader debates about infrastructure, accountability, and the future of road funding.

Small changes — for now

Several states are seeing modest adjustments as of January 1. Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, and North Carolina are implementing small increases of about 1 cent or less per gallon. New York, Utah, and Vermont are seeing slight decreases, also under a penny.

These changes are not the product of last-minute political deals. Instead, they stem from automatic adjustment mechanisms written into state law, often tied to inflation, fuel prices, or construction costs.

Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia also allow automatic adjustments, but their fuel tax rates remain unchanged at the start of 2026. That stability does not mean those states are immune from future increases — only that the formulas did not trigger a change this cycle.

Automatic adjustments are becoming more common because they provide predictable revenue without forcing lawmakers to cast politically risky votes. Critics argue they reduce accountability and disconnect tax increases from voter oversight. Supporters counter that they keep transportation funding aligned with real-world costs, especially as materials and labor become more expensive.

While these small changes may barely register for individual drivers, larger shifts in several states deserve closer attention.

Michigan’s major overhaul

Michigan is implementing the most significant fuel tax change taking effect this year. Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) signed a nearly $2 billion transportation funding package into law that fundamentally changes how fuel is taxed in the state.

Currently, Michigan drivers pay a 31-cent-per-gallon state excise tax on fuel, along with a 6% state sales tax on gasoline and diesel. The problem with that structure is where the money goes. Much of the sales tax revenue flows into the state’s general fund rather than being dedicated to roads and bridges.

Under the new law, the sales tax on fuel is eliminated and replaced with a higher fuel excise tax. The goal is to ensure that all fuel tax revenue is dedicated to transportation projects, aligning with Michigan’s constitutional requirement that fuel taxes be used for infrastructure.

The tradeoff is cost. As of January 1, the fuel excise tax jumps from 31 cents to 52.4 cents per gallon. For drivers, that represents a substantial increase at the pump, even as state leaders argue the new system is more transparent and constitutionally sound.

Supporters say the change corrects a long-standing mismatch between how fuel is taxed and how the money is spent. Critics counter that drivers are still paying significantly more, regardless of how the tax is labeled, at a time when vehicle ownership costs are already rising.

RELATED: America First energy policy is paying off at the pump

New Jersey’s variable approach

New Jersey is also raising fuel taxes under a law passed in 2024 that allows annual increases through 2029 to meet transportation funding targets. The state uses a layered tax structure that combines a petroleum products gross receipts tax with a fixed motor fuels excise tax.

As of January 1, the petroleum tax on gasoline rises by 4.2 cents, from 34.4 cents to 38.6 cents per gallon. When combined with the fixed 10.5-cent motor fuels tax, the total state gasoline tax reaches 49.1 cents per gallon. Diesel taxes rise by the same amount on the petroleum side, bringing the total diesel tax to 56.1 cents per gallon when paired with its fixed excise tax.

New Jersey’s approach reflects a broader trend toward variable fuel taxes designed to stabilize transportation funding. By tying part of the tax to revenue targets or fuel prices, the state aims to avoid sudden funding shortfalls. The downside, particularly for commuters and commercial operators, is reduced predictability at the pump.

Oregon hits pause

Oregon tells a different story. A scheduled 6-cent gas tax increase set to take effect January 1 has been put on hold.

Lawmakers approved the increase during a special session, raising the gas tax from 40 cents to 46 cents per gallon as part of a broader transportation funding package. After Governor Tina Kotek (D) signed the bill into law, opponents launched a statewide petition drive to delay the increase until voters could weigh in.

Organizers gathered nearly 200,000 signatures — enough to force the state to pause the tax hike until the November 2026 election. As a result, the gas tax increase is suspended, along with planned hikes to passenger vehicle registration and title fees. Other elements of the transportation package will still move forward, including a change that applies the motor vehicle fuel tax to diesel.

Oregon’s situation highlights the growing tension between legislative action and direct democracy when it comes to fuel taxes. Even when increases are framed as infrastructure investments, fuel costs remain politically sensitive, and voters are increasingly willing to push back.

The rise of automatic fuel taxes

Behind these headline changes lies a complex web of automatic adjustment systems that now shape fuel taxes in roughly half the country. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 25 states use some form of variable fuel tax rate.

These systems vary widely. Some states set fuel taxes as a percentage of the wholesale price. Others combine a flat excise tax with a price-based component. Many tie adjustments to inflation, using measures such as the Consumer Price Index or highway construction cost indexes.

Timing also varies. Indiana updates its fuel sales tax monthly. Vermont adjusts quarterly. Nebraska recalculates every six months. Several states, including Alabama and Rhode Island, make changes every two years.

Annual updates are the most common and occur in states such as California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

For policymakers, these mechanisms offer a way to keep transportation funding solvent without reopening contentious debates year after year. For drivers, they can feel like stealth tax increases — predictable, recurring, and largely disconnected from economic conditions at the household level.

Are fuel taxes still sustainable?

The broader question is whether fuel taxes remain a sustainable way to fund transportation in an era of increasing vehicle efficiency. As cars travel farther on less fuel, states collect less revenue per mile driven, even as infrastructure costs continue to rise.

That gap is driving experimentation with mileage-based user fees, higher registration costs, and targeted fees for specific vehicle types. Despite those efforts, fuel taxes remain the backbone of transportation funding — and recent changes suggest states are not ready to let go of them.

For consumers, the short-term impact is straightforward. In some states, filling up will cost a bit more. In others, it may cost slightly less or stay the same. Over time, however, the cumulative effect of these policies reaches far beyond individual drivers, influencing shipping costs, retail prices, and household budgets.

Fuel taxes may be collected a few cents at a time, but they represent billions of dollars and fundamental choices about how roads are built, maintained, and paid for. As 2026 begins, drivers would be wise to pay attention. What looks like a small adjustment today often signals a much larger shift tomorrow.

​Fuel tax, Gas tax, Lifestyle, Auto industry, State taxes, Government funding, Michigan, Gretchen whitmer, New jersey, Align cars 

The brutal murder of a family by a teenager in 1988 led to his being sentenced to die in prison, but new Democratic policies have led to the murderer being set free.

David Francis Brom, now 54 years old, used an axe to kill his 41-year-old mother, 41-year-old father, 13-year-old sister, and 11-year-old brother when he was only 16 years old.

‘Some crimes are so horrific that real accountability, serving the entire sentence, should be the only option. Early release after four brutal murders is not justice.’

Although Brom was given three consecutive life sentences in 1989, he has been paroled after serving only 36 years.

Republican Minnesota House Speaker Lisa Demuth excoriated Democrats for passing legislation in 2023 that led to Brom’s early release. The law signed by Democratic Gov. Tim Walz eased sentences for those convicted of crimes committed while they were minors.

“The parole of a convicted murderer, who committed a crime so brutal that he received three consecutive life sentences as punishment, is absolutely unacceptable, and it is the direct result of a law passed by Democrats and signed by Governor Walz in 2023,” she wrote.

“The early release of violent offenders makes our communities less safe, and insults the memory of their victims,” Demuth added. “Some crimes are so horrific that real accountability, serving the entire sentence, should be the only option. Early release after four brutal murders is not justice.”

The Minnesota Supervised Release Board voted 5 to 1 to grant him parole on Tuesday, but he has been on work release since last year.

“This case is especially painful for our community, which still remembers the trauma of those horrific events. I’ve heard from constituents who are shocked that such a brutal act no longer warrants permanent removal from society under current law,” Republican state Rep. Duane Quam said.

“Minnesota must revisit this misguided policy. Public safety and justice for victims must remain the foundation of our legal system,” he continued.

RELATED: 23-year-old stripper decapitated 55-year-old boyfriend and immediately fled to Mexico, police say

Police said they found the bodies at the Rochester home with gashes to their heads and upper bodies, and they found a bloody axe in the basement of the home. They initially believed David Brom had been abducted before learning from a witness that he had confessed to killing his family over an argument with his father.

Brom told a parole board that he had a job waiting for him once released from prison.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Teen kills family with an axe, David brom murderer, Axe murderer paroled, Tim walz releases ax murderer, Politics 

The America First movement and its realignment of the Republican Party around common-sense governance hangs in the balance. The organized left — politicians, media, and militia-style street actors — has now gone public with an alliance with lukewarm, establishment Republicans, especially in the U.S. Senate.

Their goal is obvious: Preserve the gains of mass illegal and legal immigration by shutting down deportations at any meaningful scale.

This coordinated campaign has now expanded into a political operation designed to force Donald Trump and his team into a public humiliation ritual.

The left wants that outcome because its political future depends on it. Establishment Republicans want it to protect their corporate donors’ access to cheap labor and, to some extent, to keep their standing with the New York Times cocktail-party set and similar elite networks.

To advance those aims, this alliance has seized on the shooting of Alex Pretti by United States Border Patrol officers in Minneapolis. Reports describe Pretti as part of an online group involved in doxxing, harassment, and physical obstruction of immigration enforcement operations. Officers shot him after he interfered with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations while armed and carrying two extra 21-round extended magazines.

News reports also indicate Pretti physically engaged federal law enforcement in a separate incident a week before his fatal encounter. If those reports hold — the FBI is investigating — they reinforce the threat posed by anti-ICE activists willing to escalate from propaganda to physical obstruction and violence.

The left’s framing collapses under the publicly available evidence. Our team of seasoned, independent law enforcement experts at the Oversight Project released an analysis clearing Border Patrol in the shooting based on that record. We expect the announced federal investigation to reach the same conclusion and to focus on the illegal conduct that led to Pretti’s death.

Our team also uncovered Signal chat messages that shed light on the riots in Minneapolis and appear to include Pretti.

First, those chats bolster federal warnings that violence against immigration enforcement has taken on the characteristics of domestic terrorism. One agitator urged fellow rioters to don “suicide vests.” That language speaks for itself.

Second, we located what may be Pretti’s final Signal messages. They show an active participant in a militarized, organized group engaged in unlawful activity, including doxxing and obstruction. That record shreds the propaganda portraying Pretti as a peaceful observer rather than someone who joined a broader effort to disrupt federal law enforcement and died as a result.

This coordinated campaign has now expanded into a political operation designed to force Donald Trump and his team into a public humiliation ritual.

At first, the president offered token separation from the actions of his own officials — either as a cautious gesture or a fig leaf meant to highlight the opposition’s radicalism. He pulled back some federal presence in Minneapolis, and some reports indicate officials were told to narrow operations temporarily to a limited subset of illegal aliens who have committed violent crimes in addition to immigration violations.

Establishment Republicans have moved in parallel. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) has launched a major amnesty push, announced — predictably — in the New York Times. Senate Democrats caused a partial government shutdown over ICE funding and say they won’t relent unless Republicans accept permanent de facto amnesty by crippling enforcement. They want new barriers, including judicial warrants for each operation, even for millions who have already exhausted years of due process they did not deserve in the first place.

That plan relies on narrative, not facts.

ICE received a considerable funding boost in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The funding bill headed for passage this week funds the rest of the DHS, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which is responding to a major storm affecting large swaths of the country. Democrats and some Senate Republicans won’t let facts interfere with a useful storyline, and the corporate left-wing media will amplify it.

RELATED: The left is at war in Minnesota. America is watching football.

Blaze Media Illustration

The squeeze continues. They want Trump trapped in a corner. Under pressure in the streets and in the press — and on Capitol Hill — Trump sent border czar Tom Homan to Minneapolis to negotiate some sort of settlement with local and state authorities.

The response came fast. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey (D) and Gov. Tim Walz (D) made clear they would not change anything material about how their governments shield illegal aliens. They won’t even allow ICE into jails to pick up criminal illegal aliens. They understand their leverage against this White House: friendly media and weak Republicans. They plan to keep playing that hand instead of bargaining with Homan.

That leaves one prudent course for the president: Deport more illegal aliens.

The country decided this question through law when it barred illegal entry and unlawful presence in the first place. Voters decided it again in 2024 when Trump campaigned on the largest deportation operation in American history. That mandate matters more than any cable-news frenzy.

This fight won’t stay confined to Minneapolis. It forms part of a coordinated attempt by people who never supported Trump to cut his knees out from under him — through intimidation, propaganda, and political sabotage. He should treat them as adversaries, not good-faith partners. He can break out of this trap by enforcing the mandate.

​Trump, Minneapolis, Ice, Border patrol, Alex pretti, Gop, Democrats, Media narrative, Tom homan, Opinion & analysis 

Investigative journalist Peter Schweizer, author of “The Invisible Coup: How American Elites and Foreign Powers Use Immigration as a Weapon,” knows the real cost of immigration — and just how China and other world powers are using it to subvert the United States.

“We’ve had this great debate in our country — an important one — about immigration as it relates to jobs, violence in our streets, American culture — hugely important, but I think we’re missing the larger picture, which is the weaponization of immigration,” Schweizer tells BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler on “The Liz Wheeler Show.”

“And what do I mean by that? Foreign actors — that includes the government of China, the government of Mexico, the Muslim Brotherhood — see immigration as a weapon that they can deploy against the United States,” he says.

“And so when people come from overseas, they certainly bring themselves, their family, they bring their culture, but they also often bring political networks. And these are political networks that are antithetical to the United States. So these foreign powers view immigration very differently than we do,” he continues.

While China, Mexico, and the Muslim Brotherhood are all vastly different in their beliefs and culture, Schweizer explains that they all have one thing in common.

“They’re all united in this sense that immigration is a means to subvert the United States. Those are not my words. I actually quote these people as saying that themselves,” Schweizer tells Wheeler.

And China’s plan to subvert the United States is one of the most insidious.

“The Chinese government says that every year for the past 13 years, every single year, roughly 100,000 Chinese babies have been born in the United States. That’s the Chinese government estimate,” he explains.

“So do the math. That’s 1 million Chinese babies that were born in the United States, who are taken back to China by their parents, raised in the CCP system. And by the way, when they turn 18, they’re going to be able to vote in our elections. They’re U.S. citizens. They’re going to be able to donate to political campaigns. They’re going to be able to apply for sensitive government jobs,” he continues.

“And let’s remember that 2016 presidential election — Trump, Hillary Clinton — it was settled by like 72,000 votes,” he says. “So this is a massive … vulnerability.”

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Sharing, Free, Video phone, Camera phone, Upload, Video, Youtube.com, The liz wheeler show, Liz wheeler, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Ccp, Chinese communist party, Peter schweizer, The invisible coup, Mexico, China, The muslim brotherhood, Legal immigration 

Barack Obama used the same U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement tactics as Donald Trump. During his eight years in the White House, his administration deported more illegal aliens than Trump has.

Yet the Obama years did not feature mass protests over deportations. No governors or mayors compared ICE to the Gestapo, a comparison so obscene it should end careers. No district attorneys vowed to “hunt down” ICE agents for doing their jobs. No late-night comedians insisted that ICE agents ranked “worse than Nazis.”

Democrats once drove the country into a civil war to protect slavery. Today they court conflict to protect power.

That backlash became routine only after Trump. Two factors explain why.

First, the left hates Trump to the core. Not as a political rival, but as a personal and moral affront. This visceral, uncontrolled hatred has swallowed identities and replaced judgment. It fuels social media tantrums, office politics, family feuds, and the constant need to punish dissent. Among allies, people congratulate each other for hating the right man. For everyone else, they virtue-signal.

This hatred will not fade with time. It will persist after Trump leaves office, and it may even outlive him. Ronald Reagan hate still lingers decades after his death. Trump hate runs hotter, deeper, and more irrational. It will not burn out on schedule.

Second, the immigration fight has turned strategic.

During the Obama years, the left had not yet internalized two tactics that now help it hold power.

Once Democrats win office, many push policy as far left as state and federal constitutions allow: higher taxes, soft-on-crime governance, heavier regulation, and soaring costs that punish families. That agenda drives productive citizens out of blue cities and blue states and into red states. Conservatives hold few truly red cities now; the activist class has captured many local institutions.

Red states gain taxpayers and workers. Blue states lose them.

Democrat leaders have chosen to replace the citizens who leave, but not with similarly productive citizens. They replace them with illegal aliens.

That strategy helps explain Joe Biden’s first-day border reversals and the torrent of executive actions that followed. The signal was plain: Enforcement would relax, entry would rise, and the federal government would look away. Millions came, many without legal status. Many settled in blue jurisdictions that offer sanctuary policies and advertise benefits.

Politicians sell those benefits as “free”: child care, health care, schooling, housing programs. Taxpayers pay the bills. Debt fills the rest.

California offers the clearest example. The state has lost large numbers of residents to Texas and Florida. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) does not treat the exodus as a crisis. He treats it as ideological sorting. If taxpayers leave, he can replace the head count with people who will not challenge his machine at the ballot box.

Illegal aliens are not allowed to vote. They still count. Biden made sure of that.

The census counts residents, and those numbers drive seats in the United States House of Representatives and votes in the Electoral College. Add population, gain power. Lose population, lose power. Democrats understand the arithmetic, which is why they fight enforcement as fiercely as they fight elections.

RELATED: ‘This isn’t organic’: Joe Rogan says Minnesota’s anti-ICE protests are ‘coordinated’ to induce chaos

Photo by Geoff Stellfox/Getty Images

Then comes the long game. Children born here can vote. Democrats assume those children will vote Democrat for life. They are building a future electorate while padding current representation.

Trump’s deportation strategy threatens that structure. Democrats have already watched citizens flee Illinois, New York, California, and other strongholds. If deportations also shrink the illegal-alien population those states have absorbed, Democrats lose House seats, Electoral College strength, and national leverage.

So they raise the temperature. They smear ICE as “secret police” and dare Trump to enforce the law anyway. They bait confrontation because chaos can create a veto: If streets burn long enough, Washington may flinch.

If Trump refuses to flinch, they reach for the next weapon: the camera. A clash becomes a “crackdown.” An arrest becomes “political persecution.” A dead protester becomes a martyr, and the headlines write themselves. The moral damage does not scare them; it serves them.

Democrats once drove the country into a civil war to protect slavery. Today they court conflict to protect power. They do not need tanks to do it. They need prosecutors, mayors, and media partners willing to treat law enforcement as evil and disorder as virtue.

​Civil war, Ice, Dhs, Gop, Democrats, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Voter fraud, Biden, Obama, Opinion & analysis