Gas prices are climbing again across the United States — with little clarity on where prices are headed next — spurring proposals for state gas tax holidays in the hopes of offering drivers some relief.

The national average hit $3.96 per gallon Monday, up from $3.72 the week before, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. A month ago, the average price per gallon was $2.79.

Some analysts warn prices could continue climbing in the coming weeks, potentially pushing the national average above $4 per gallon for the first time since 2022.

Data from AAA, a national travel and motorist organization, shows a similar upward trend for both regular gas and diesel.

While the Energy Information Administration no longer publishes detailed data for every state, regional figures show increases across much of the country. The West Coast, Central Atlantic states and Rocky Mountain region are seeing some of the highest average prices, with California, Colorado and Washington among those experiencing the largest recent increases.

Rising gas prices are putting renewed pressure on household finances, especially for low- and middle-income Americans who have less flexibility to absorb higher transportation costs. The increases can ripple through daily life, influencing how much people drive, where they travel and how they spend money elsewhere.

Still, economists say the most significant factor right now is not just the price itself, but the uncertainty surrounding it. With national policy decisions and geopolitical developments in the Middle East shifting rapidly, there is little consensus on how long prices will remain elevated or how high they could climb.

“Gasoline prices don’t live in isolation,” said Steven Durlauf, an economist at the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy. Durlauf also is the director of the university’s Stone Center for Research on Wealth Inequality and Mobility. “Reductions in the supply of petroleum, oil-based products affect the entire economy.”

States weigh gas tax holidays

With prices rising, local leaders and state lawmakers in several states — including California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Maryland and Utah — have weighed gas tax holidays as a way to provide relief at the pump.

Georgia lawmakers have already enacted a temporary suspension, while officials in Florida and Maryland have expressed skepticism, citing budget constraints and questions about how much savings would actually reach consumers.

Gas prices have risen across all of these states, with some of the sharpest increases in the South.

Gas tax holidays, which temporarily suspend or reduce state fuel taxes, gained traction in 2022 when gas prices last topped $4 per gallon. Supporters say they can offer immediate, visible relief by lowering the per-gallon cost of fuel.

But researchers and some economists say the benefits are often limited and uneven. A new analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a left-leaning tax policy research group, estimates that the recent rise in gas prices is on pace to cost American drivers an additional $9.4 billion per month.

The researchers found that gas tax holidays may provide only minimal relief to those who need it most. For households earning less than $53,000 a year, a federal gas tax holiday would save about $5 per month on average.

Some research suggests that much of the benefit from such policies may not reach consumers at all. When fuel supply is constrained, a significant share of the savings can be absorbed within the oil and gas supply chain rather than passed on at the pump.

State-level examples reflect similar patterns. In Georgia, analysts from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found that the state’s newly enacted tax holiday is expected to cost the state about $196 million per month and disproportionately benefit wealthier households: The bottom 60% are expected to receive just 22% of the tax cuts — or roughly $13 per family, according to the ITEP analysis.

Utah lawmakers have spent a year planning for a 15% cut in the state’s gas tax from July through December. But some economists say any savings for consumers might be engulfed by higher prices.

“It’s still unclear the extent people will notice that tax cut,” Phil Dean, chief economist at the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute at the University of Utah, told the Utah News Dispatch.

There are also fiscal trade-offs. Gas taxes are a key source of revenue for transportation infrastructure, and suspending them — even temporarily — can strain state budgets, particularly in places where revenues have fallen in recent years.

Some experts say more targeted approaches, such as direct income rebates or assistance aimed at lower-income households, may be more effective in offsetting rising fuel costs without reducing transportation funding.

“A tax holiday is, I think, something most economists would be uncomfortable with,” said Durlauf, the University of Chicago economist.

If the consumer demand is still there, gasoline prices might still rise, he said. “It’s not obvious to me that the prices will not just adjust to (gas tax holidays) as well.”

Global tensions

Much of the recent volatility stems from the Trump administration’s war in Iran and uncertainty surrounding the Strait of Hormuz — a critical global oil transit route through which a significant share of the world’s oil supply passes. Iran has effectively restricted access to some vessels in the region, raising fears of supply disruptions that can quickly ripple through global markets.

Even the threat of disruption can send oil prices higher, as traders react to the possibility of reduced supply.

Though the United States produces substantial amounts of oil domestically, it remains part of a global market, meaning international developments still directly affect prices at the pump.

“Americans can’t fence themselves off from the impacts of global changes to supply and demand,” said Patrick De Haan, a petroleum analyst at GasBuddy, a fuel savings and price-tracking company. “Actions have consequences, and consumers are very much feeling that.”

Crude oil remains the single biggest driver of gasoline prices, accounting for about half of the cost of a gallon of regular gas, according to the Energy Information Administration. Refining makes up about 20%, while distribution and marketing account for 11%, and taxes roughly 18%.

Brent crude oil — the international benchmark — has surged in recent weeks, briefly reaching $119 per barrel last week. It settled around $100 per barrel on Monday, and rose again on Tuesday to about $113 per barrel.

Federal forecasts expect prices to remain elevated in the near term before easing later this year.

Seasonal factors are also contributing to the increase. As warmer weather approaches, refineries transition to producing summer-blend gasoline, which is more expensive to manufacture but designed to reduce evaporation and meet environmental standards.

Warmer weather also usually means more drivers will be on the road.

“The oil industry is volatile. It’s a global market, and that’s why we don’t predict what’s going to happen next because it’s impossible to,” said Aixa Diaz, a spokesperson for AAA. “This all coincided at a time when gas would normally be going up anyway for us.”

At its core, gasoline pricing reflects basic supply and demand dynamics. When supply tightens — or is expected to — prices rise. When demand falls, prices tend to drop, sometimes sharply.

“Whenever there’s a perceived shift in either supply or demand, there’s going to be an equal reaction,” De Haan said. “This is just one of the larger reactions, because it’s a larger impact.”

The recent spike has also been fueled by rapidly shifting political signals. President Donald Trump said Monday that the United States is in talks with Iran to resolve the conflict, helping to briefly push oil prices lower after they surged amid Trump’s threats to target Iran’s energy infrastructure. Iran denied there were ongoing talks.

Such volatility, economists say, adds another layer of uncertainty that can weigh on both consumers and the broader economy.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at ahernandez@stateline.org.

Criminal justice has emerged as one of the most wide-ranging and politically charged areas on lawmakers’ agendas in this year’s state legislative sessions. Across the country, legislators are weighing proposals that affect nearly every part of the criminal justice system, including policing, gun policy, solving crimes, sentencing, prison oversight and reentry support.

The breadth of legislation reflects how deeply crime policy intersects with daily life, shaping public safety, civil rights, state spending and the scope of law enforcement. It also comes amid a shifting national conversation about crime itself. While violent crime rose during the pandemic, recent data shows declines in many categories, despite continued public concern.

According to Gallup’s most recent annual crime poll, Americans’ perceptions of crime improved in 2025. Approximately 49% of adults now say crime is an “extremely” or “very” serious problem in the United States, and the same share believe crime has increased in the past year. Both figures are down significantly from 2024 and are at their lowest levels since at least 2018.

Still, crime remains a top political issue, particularly in statehouses where lawmakers may face pressure to respond to high-profile incidents and constituent fears.

Gun policy

Firearm-related legislation has moved quickly in several states, with lawmakers pursuing sharply different approaches that reflect regional politics and partisan control.

In Democratic-led states, lawmakers have advanced proposals aimed at tightening restrictions on firearms.

Virginia House Democrats approved a sweeping package of bills this month that would restrict access to assault-style weapons, tighten firearm storage and transfer rules, limit where guns can be carried in public and expand civil liability for the gun industry. The bills are now being considered in the Senate.

Maryland lawmakers are debating a measure that would prohibit the manufacture, sale, purchase or transfer of certain handguns that can be converted into automatic weapons using an illegal accessory known as a pistol converter.

The bill doesn’t name specific firearm models, but it would effectively ban secondhand sales of some popular discontinued guns. In urging its members to oppose the bill, the National Rifle Association’s legislative arm says on its website, “These conversion devices are already illegal, yet this proposal targets responsible firearm owners rather than criminals who ignore existing law.”

But sponsors noted that the measure would exempt current owners of the affected firearms and argued that it doesn’t punish responsible firearm owners. Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott led a rally last week in favor of the bill, saying it would reduce homicides. And a high school student testified to lawmakers about her fears of a school shooting.

Other states have focused on regulating firearm sales.

New Mexico senators passed legislation restricting certain firearm transactions, while lawmakers in New York and Washington state have proposed measures that would prohibit the production and possession of 3D-printing files used to manufacture gun parts to build so-called ghost guns.

Gun control advocates say 3D-printed guns are becoming more common, especially among young people. Just this week, a ghost gun was recovered after a student was shot inside a Maryland high school. The student’s injuries weren’t life threatening, and a suspect has been charged with attempted murder.

But some gun rights advocates say those measures go too far.

“We believe that making your own firearms, if you have the skills to do it, is an American tradition. It literally dates back to the founding of our country,” said Chris Stone, the director of state and local affairs for Gun Owners of America, one of the country’s largest gun advocacy groups. The group opposes bans on 3D-printing firearms.

Republican-led states are pushing in the opposite direction, removing specific firearm regulations, limiting local regulation, strengthening legal protections for gun shops and dismantling “gun-free” zones, such as areas near schools or inside government buildings.

South Dakota Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden signed a bill into law this week that deregulates gun silencers, or suppressors. These devices will be removed from the state’s definition of a controlled weapon.

In Georgia, lawmakers approved a ban that would keep local governments from adopting gun storage requirements. The bill has not yet been sent to Republican Gov. Brian Kemp for consideration.

In South Carolina, legislators have proposed a measure that would protect gun shops from being held liable in lawsuits when crimes are committed with products they sold, as long as the original sale was lawful. That bill remains in committee.

Florida lawmakers advanced legislation last month to lower the age to purchase long guns to 18. The West Virginia Senate also passed a bill that would allow 18- to 20-year-olds to carry concealed weapons without a permit, removing current training and licensing requirements for that age group.

New Hampshire and Wyoming legislators are considering proposals that would prohibit public colleges and universities from regulating whether students, faculty or visitors are able to carry concealed firearms and nonlethal weapons on campus.

Immigration and policing

Questions about the role of law enforcement — particularly in immigration enforcement — have become a flashpoint in state legislatures, as lawmakers debate how closely local and state agencies should cooperate with federal authorities.

In some states, lawmakers are moving to require or expand cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Bills in Alabama, Arizona, Iowa and Kentucky would encourage or mandate that state or local law enforcement agencies collaborate with ICE or expand officers’ authority to question or detain people over their immigration status. Supporters argue the measures are necessary to enforce federal law and improve public safety.

Other states are taking the opposite approach. In Virginia this month, Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger ended a 287(g) agreement with ICE that allowed state police and corrections officers to assist the agency with certain federal immigration enforcement functions. Spanberger, who has a background in law enforcement, had promised in her campaign to end the agreement, saying she wants policing agencies to focus on their core duties.

The move drew sharp criticism from state Republican leaders, with GOP lawmakers arguing that the decision prioritizes politics over public safety and could expose the state to retaliation from the Trump administration.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, introduced a similar proposal last month that appears to be gaining more support from police and elected officials.

The Maryland House and Senate this month also overwhelmingly approved bills that would prohibit 287(g) agreements between local police and federal immigration agencies. Democratic Gov. Wes Moore is expected to sign them. Several local law enforcement officials across the state have urged the governor to veto the measures, arguing that ending the agreements would lead to more federal immigration enforcement activity and higher crime rates.

Beyond immigration, legislatures also are grappling with broader questions about policing authority and accountability.

In Indiana, lawmakers approved legislation expanding the role of the National Guard’s military police in certain law enforcement functions, giving the governor authority that some Democrats say could be abused.

Iowa lawmakers are considering a proposal that would eliminate affirmative action and anti-bias training requirements for police officers.

A bill in Utah would create the Violent Crime Clearance Rate Fund, which would provide grants to law enforcement agencies to support efforts to improve the rate at which violent crimes are solved.

Sentencing and prison conditions

State legislatures also are revisiting what happens after arrest, with several states considering tougher penalties for certain crimes.

Iowa Republicans have proposed a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence for some repeat offenders.

Alabama lawmakers are considering a bill that would raise the base penalty for fleeing from police from a misdemeanor to a felony, with harsher penalties for repeat offenses and other aggravating factors.

The Kentucky House advanced a bill aimed at cracking down on street racing. It would impose penalties of up to 30 days in jail and $1,000 in fines, and allow vehicles used in the offense to be destroyed or auctioned to support the state’s crime victims compensation fund.

Other states are pursuing more rehabilitative approaches.

Lawmakers in Washington state are considering legislation that would give people serving long sentences a new pathway to release.

Oklahoma lawmakers have proposed a measure that would eliminate the requirement that a prison inmate serve a set amount of time before becoming eligible for good-time credits, which would also allow people awaiting transfer to prison to earn these credits sooner.

Last month, Illinois Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker signed the Clean Slate Act into law, paving the way for an estimated 1.7 million adults with nonviolent criminal records to have them automatically sealed beginning in 2029.

Juvenile justice debates also have been unfolding alongside these efforts.

States including Colorado, Utah, Missouri, Maryland and Kansas are reconsidering when young people can be charged as adults, how long they can be detained and what role rehabilitation should play.

In Kansas, for example, lawmakers are considering expanding judges’ authority to send youths to juvenile prison and increasing detention limits, moves that opponents say would reverse a decade of changes designed to keep low-risk youths out of custody.

In recent years, poor prison conditions and lax oversight have emerged as a bipartisan concern, driven in part by staffing shortages and the rising costs associated with incarceration.

Florida legislators are considering proposals that would create an independent ombudsman to monitor prison conditions. Alabama and Arizona lawmakers have filed measures that would address oversight of food services in prisons and fund the state’s independent prison oversight office, respectively.

Several states are working to expand death penalty options, both for crimes and for execution methods.

Alabama legislators passed a measure this month that would expand the death penalty to include child sex crimes. The bill is now awaiting the signature of Republican Gov. Kay Ivey, who expressed her support for the proposal last month.

In Indiana, lawmakers considered a proposal that would add firing squad and gas as execution methods.

In New Hampshire, lawmakers are considering two Republican-backed bills that would reinstate the death penalty — nearly seven years after the state voted to abolish it. One bill would bring it back for homicide or sexual assault offenses against children under 13, while the other proposal would reinstate it for capital murder, which would combine the murder with aggravating circumstances.

Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte told reporters last fall she would like to see capital punishment restored in the state.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at ahernandez@stateline.org.