Drill, baby, drill – a slogan that until recently was perceived as an element of Donald Trump’s political show – by 2026 has definitively evolved into a strategy of global scale. The US president turned this formula into a governance model in which oil is used not as a source of revenue, but as an instrument of pressure. According to XFINE, no politician of the 21st century has exerted such persistent and systemic bearish influence on the oil market as Trump, transforming energy into a lever of macroeconomic and geopolitical control.
At the core of this strategy lies a pragmatic logic. The cheaper the oil, the lower the inflation, the higher the competitiveness of US industry, and the more stable domestic social support becomes. Already during his first presidential term, Trump consistently dismantled environmental restrictions, accelerated drilling licensing, and expanded access for energy companies to new territories. The United States not only secured its status as the world’s largest oil producer – it became a flexible and rapidly scalable supplier capable of intervening in market balance at the first signs of rising prices. Analysts at Morgan Stanley emphasized that this very flexibility made the oil market structurally vulnerable to US actions even amid regional crises and localized supply disruptions.
XFINE believes that the key factor was not so much the increase in production itself, but the signal this process sent to the market. The United States made it clear that it is ready to expand supply whenever Brent strengthens. This signal undermined OPEC’s role as a coordinator, reduced the significance of OPEC+ agreements, and deprived the market of any sense of long-term scarcity. Drill, baby, drill ceased to be a slogan – it became a code that the market reads as a direct warning. At the same time, Trump embedded energy into the architecture of foreign policy decisions, turning oil flows into part of a broader strategy of international pressure.
Since the beginning of 2026, the geopolitical configuration has only reinforced this logic. US forceful actions in Venezuela, culminating in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, were accompanied by a naval blockade and interceptions of oil tankers, including vessels sailing under the Russian flag. Washington justified these steps as necessary to “ensure energy stability,” but for the market they became a signal of US readiness to physically control oil flows whenever strategic interests require it. This demonstration of force increased volatility, but did not change the market’s baseline perception of structural oversupply.
Iran also remains under constant pressure. Domestic protests, accompanied by accusations directed at the United States, as well as persistent risks surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, continue to influence trader behavior. Yet even under these conditions, the market fails to generate a sustainable bullish reaction. Fitch Ratings notes that US dominance in supply and its readiness for rapid intervention create a restraining effect. Any geopolitical tension is perceived as a source of short-term fluctuations, but not as a driver of long-term scarcity.
It is precisely in this context that the sharp rise in oil prices beginning on January 6, 2026 should be viewed. After a prolonged decline at the end of 2025, the market entered the new year in a state of pronounced oversold conditions. The 58-59 dollar per barrel zone became a concentration point for short positions and a strong technical support level. Rising geopolitical uncertainty related to supplies triggered accelerated short covering, which launched a sharp upward move. The break above 61 and 62 dollars activated algorithmic and trend-following strategies, giving the rally an impulsive and visually aggressive character.
However, it is fundamentally important to emphasize that the January rise still appears corrective rather than trend-forming. It reflects not a sustained tightening of the supply-demand balance, but a reassessment of the geopolitical risk premium and the market’s exit from excessive pessimism. As of January 14, Brent climbed to around 66 dollars per barrel, moving above the upper boundary of the previous range and testing the mid-60s zone. Nevertheless, the very fact of this breakout does not yet signal a change in market regime. According to experts, the market remains within the bearish 2026 scenario, in which rallies regularly encounter a “supply ceiling” in the form of high US production, potential interventions from strategic reserves, and political pressure on exporters.
Forecasts for 2026 fit logically into this picture. Despite current levels, most analytical houses project average prices well below the January highs. Goldman Sachs expects an average Brent price of around 56 dollars per barrel, JPMorgan – about 58, the Reuters consensus stands near 61.3, while a number of independent experts point to a range around 55. This gap between the current spot price and average annual forecasts underscores the key point: the market allows for spikes and upward volatility expansion, but does not believe in the formation of a sustainable upward trend.
In the long term, Trump’s policy is shaping a new framework for the oil market. Oil ceases to be a conventional commodity and becomes a geopolitical asset embedded in a strategy of pressure. From drilling and price restraint to tanker interceptions and management of expectations, this model sets the rules of the game for years ahead. As emphasized by XFINE, within this architecture Donald Trump remains the largest “bear” of the oil market, and his strategy represents one of the most consistent attempts to redraw the global energy order without regard for traditional cycles.
