Exxon and Chevron Report $26.5 Billion in Combined Second-Quarter Profit as Oil Trades Near $100
The two U.S. oil majors posted sharply higher earnings after a Middle East supply shock lifted crude prices, reviving a congressional push for a windfall profits tax.
Two Companies, One War, and a Number Nobody Fully Agrees On
Exxon Mobil and Chevron told the world Friday morning that they made a combined $26.5 billion in the second quarter of 2026[1]. The report went out before markets opened, with Exxon's numbers hitting the wire at 5:30 a.m. Central Time, followed by a call with analysts three hours later[8]. Within hours, lawmakers who want to tax that profit were putting out statements of their own[1][2].
Here is the part almost nobody disputes. Crude oil spiked because of a war, not because of anything Exxon or Chevron did. In late February, the U.S. and Israel launched a military operation against Iran, and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz got disrupted[3][5]. Middle Eastern producers were forced to shut in more than 11 million barrels a day of output[3]. Brent crude, the global price benchmark, shot up to $118 a barrel by April 29, then slid back to $72 by June 26 as supply returned[3]. For most of the quarter, oil sat at or above $100 a barrel. Exxon and Chevron sell into that world price. They didn't set it, and they didn't cause the war that moved it[3][9].
So the two profit numbers next to each other, the war and the $26.5 billion, are both true. What's actually in dispute is what should happen because of that.
Why a Price Spike Turns Into a Profit Spike
To understand the fight, it helps to know how an oil company actually makes money. Most of Exxon and Chevron's profit comes from "upstream" operations, meaning pumping crude out of the ground. The costs of running a well are largely fixed, set months or years in advance. So when the sale price doubles, almost none of that extra revenue gets eaten by extra costs. It just falls straight to profit.
That's the mechanical reason a war on the other side of the world can hand a Texas-based company a record quarter. It cuts both ways, too. Three months earlier, in the first quarter of 2026, Exxon's net income had fallen 45% and Chevron's had dropped 37%, largely because of "timing effects" on hedging contracts, financial bets that lost value when prices spiked faster than the physical oil could be delivered and sold[11][12]. The same business that looked like it was struggling in the spring looked spectacular by summer. Nothing about the underlying operation changed. The price did.
Refining added to the windfall too. The "crack spread," the margin between what a refiner pays for crude and what it can sell the finished gasoline for, was up 60% from a year earlier[3]. That's a second layer of profit sitting on top of the first, and it's one reason the number came in as large as it did.
The Argument Everyone Sort of Agrees On, Until They Don't
Analysts had expected a big quarter well before the results came out. Forecasts called for Chevron's earnings per share to jump to about $5.57 from $1.77 a year earlier, and Exxon's to hit roughly $3.63, up 121.3%[7]. Nobody in that world was surprised by the size of the number. The surprise, if there is one, is what Washington wants to do about it.
In March 2026, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and Rep. Ro Khanna introduced companion bills for a windfall profits tax. The design is specific: a per-barrel excise tax on companies that produced or imported at least 300,000 barrels a day in 2025, with the money rebated back to consumers[2]. The logic is that the profit came from a shock nobody in the industry created, so it should flow back to the people who paid for it at the pump. The national average gas price hit $4.56 a gallon in mid-May 2026, the highest since 2022[15]. That's the number the tax's backers point to.
Exxon and Chevron's executives have publicly opposed the idea[4]. Their argument isn't just "we didn't do anything wrong." It's forward-looking: a tax on every barrel produced makes the next barrel less profitable to drill, so fewer wells get built, so supply stays tighter the next time a war or a chokepoint disruption hits. Chevron CEO Mike Wirth has said it makes no sense to change long-term spending plans while the war-driven uncertainty is still playing out[6][11].
The Twist: Nobody Actually Drilled More
Here's where the story gets more interesting than a straight profit-versus-tax fight. The Trump administration, separately from the tax debate, has been pushing Exxon and Chevron to raise output and bring prices down that way[6]. Both companies said no. Neither one has raised its planned drilling or spending beyond what was already scheduled[6].
That refusal undercuts the "drill, baby, drill" answer to high prices just as much as it undercuts the windfall tax as a threat to future supply. If more oil at the wellhead were really the fix, the world's two biggest western oil majors, sitting on record profits and facing direct political pressure, would have the clearest possible reason to pump more. They chose not to.
Why not? Since the industry crash of 2020, investors have rewarded Exxon and Chevron for capital discipline, meaning returning cash to shareholders rather than plowing it back into new wells. Exxon has kept a $20 billion annual buyback program running and just extended 43 straight years of dividend growth[8][12]. In the first quarter alone, Exxon returned $9.2 billion to shareholders, split between dividends and buybacks[12]. A stock buyback shrinks the number of shares outstanding, which mechanically lifts earnings per share and helps the stock price. Exxon shares were up about 31% for the year and Chevron about 29%[10]. That's the reward management is actually being judged against, and it's a bigger pull than either the tax threat or the political pressure to drill.
Who Actually Won the War's Price Spike
Widen the lens past Washington, and the story looks different again. Al Jazeera has covered the earnings as part of a broader war-profiteering frame that includes defense contractors and banks alongside energy firms, describing it as "the war on Iran"[5]. That framing assigns responsibility for the conflict to the U.S. and Israel in the outlet's own voice, a perspective not shared by American coverage of the same numbers.
More striking is who the outlet says actually gained the most. Citing modeling from Rystad Energy, Al Jazeera reports that Saudi Aramco, not Exxon or Chevron, stood to benefit most from the price move, as crude went from under $65 a barrel before the war to around $100 during it[5]. And OPEC+ producers took a real hit on volume even as prices rose: the group's total output fell from 42.77 million barrels a day in February 2026 to 33.13 million in May, as members physically couldn't ship oil through a closed Strait of Hormuz[9]. OPEC+ approved quota increases of 206,000 barrels a day for May and 188,000 for August, but those increases meant little when the shipping lanes themselves were the bottleneck[9]. From that vantage point, the U.S. congressional fight over Exxon and Chevron's profits is aimed at the wrong target, since Gulf state producers with no U.S. tax exposure captured more of the windfall.
What the Clock Is Actually Measuring
Coverage of the same $26.5 billion number split along familiar lines. The Washington Post headlined the profit figure alongside lawmakers "taking aim," pairing the number with the political backlash before laying out any evidence of cause[1]. NPR built its story around the growing movement to tax the windfall, though it also stated plainly that oil prices are driven by supply, demand, and what buyers are willing to pay[2]. The Washington Examiner, on the right, led instead with the companies "resisting" Trump's call to boost output, framing it as corporate discipline against political pressure, with no mention of consumer gas prices at all[6]. The U.S. Energy Information Administration's own account is the driest of the bunch: prices, dates, and shut-in barrels, with no side credited or blamed[3].
None of that coverage split changes the arithmetic underneath it. Brent crude had already fallen back under $70 by mid-June as Middle East supply came back online[3][13]. The windfall tax bills gain political force only while pump prices actively hurt voters, and that pain is already fading as prices retreat[2][3]. Whether Congress moves on the Whitehouse-Khanna bills likely depends less on the size of this quarter's profit than on where oil prices sit the next time voters fill up, and on what the next chokepoint disruption, wherever it happens, does to a global market that no single country's tax code reaches[3][9].
Summary
Exxon Mobil and Chevron reported second-quarter 2026 results on Friday, July 31, showing a combined $26.5 billion in profit[1]. Both companies benefited from a crude oil price shock that started with the U.S.–Israel military operation against Iran in late February[3][5]. Brent crude, the main global benchmark, ran from a high of $118 a barrel on April 29 to a low of $72 on June 26, and spent most of the quarter at or above $100[3]. Ahead of the release, analysts had forecast the strongest revenue in roughly 15 quarters for both firms[7].
The profits are large because of how an integrated oil company makes money. Most of it comes from the 'upstream' business — pulling oil out of the ground. Those costs are largely fixed, so when the sale price jumps, almost all of the extra money falls to the bottom line. Analysts expected Chevron's earnings per share to rise to about $5.57 from $1.77 a year earlier, and Exxon's to roughly $3.63, up 121.3%[7].
The dispute is over what should happen next. Democrats in Congress, led by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and Rep. Ro Khanna, introduced bills in March that would put a per-barrel excise tax on companies that produced or imported at least 300,000 barrels a day in 2025, and send the money back to consumers[2]. Executives at both companies have publicly opposed a windfall tax, arguing it would discourage the investment that adds supply[4]. Both firms have also declined to raise their drilling plans despite White House pressure to pump more[6].
The genuine factual disagreement is narrower than the rhetoric. Almost nobody claims Exxon and Chevron caused the price spike; the war and the Strait of Hormuz did. What is contested is whether taxing the resulting profit would lower prices for Americans or raise them by shrinking future supply. That question is unresolved and both sides have real evidence.
The Event
On Friday, July 31, 2026, Exxon Mobil and Chevron released second-quarter 2026 financial results before U.S. markets opened, reporting a combined profit of $26.5 billion[1]. Exxon's release went out via Business Wire at 5:30 a.m. Central Time, followed by a management conference call at 8:30 a.m. Central Time[8]. The results covered April through June 2026, a quarter in which Brent crude ranged from $118 a barrel on April 29 to $72 on June 26[3]. Members of Congress who have sponsored windfall profits tax legislation issued statements the same day[1][2].
Undisputed Facts
- Exxon Mobil and Chevron reported a combined $26.5 billion in profit for the second quarter of 2026 on July 31, 2026[1].
- The front-month Brent crude price hit a quarterly high of $118 a barrel on April 29, 2026 and a low of $72 a barrel on June 26, 2026[3].
- Crude oil traded at or above $100 a barrel for most of the second quarter, following the start of the U.S.–Israel military operation against Iran in late February 2026[3].
- Disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz cut off crude flows and led Middle Eastern producers to shut in more than 11 million barrels a day of output[3].
- Total OPEC+ production fell to 33.13 million barrels a day in May 2026, down from 42.77 million in February 2026[9].
- The quarterly average U.S. gasoline crack spread — the refining margin between crude cost and fuel value — was up 60% from a year earlier[3].
- In March 2026, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and Rep. Ro Khanna introduced companion bills to impose a per-barrel excise tax on companies producing or importing at least 300,000 barrels a day in 2025, with proceeds rebated to consumers[2].
- Exxon and Chevron executives have publicly opposed a windfall profits tax, and neither company raised its planned drilling or spending in response to higher prices[4][6].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Capital discipline beats volume
- Since the 2020 crash, both majors have been rewarded by investors for returning cash rather than growing output. Exxon's $20 billion buyback program and 43 straight years of dividend growth are the promises management is actually judged on[8][12]. That is why a price spike did not trigger more drilling — and it is why the political demand to 'pump more' and the political demand to 'tax the windfall' both run into the same wall[6].
- Price takers in a world market
- Neither company sets the Brent or WTI benchmark. During this quarter the marginal barrel was set by whether tankers could clear the Strait of Hormuz, not by any U.S. producer's decision[3][9]. This is the strongest structural fact in the companies' favor, and it is largely conceded even by critics.
- The windfall is mechanical, not strategic
- In upstream oil, most costs are sunk before the barrel is sold. When the price roughly doubles, revenue rises far faster than cost, so profit rises fastest of all. The same mechanism runs in reverse: Exxon's net income fell 45% and Chevron's 37% in the first quarter of 2026 on derivative timing losses[11][12]. The quarter being celebrated and the quarter being mourned are the same business.
- Elections set the clock
- The windfall tax bills were introduced in March 2026 and gain force only while pump prices hurt[2]. Brent had already fallen back under $70 in mid-June as Hormuz reopened[3][13]. Falling prices remove the political fuel faster than any argument does.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asThe companies argue they are price takers, not price setters. Crude sells at a world benchmark price set by supply, demand and what traders will pay — no single producer sets it[2]. Their second argument is about the shape of the cycle: three quarters ago the same assets were losing money on paper. In the first quarter of 2026, Exxon's net income fell 45% and Chevron's fell 37%, largely because of derivative 'timing effects' — hedging contracts that lost value when prices spiked before the physical oil was delivered[11][12]. A business that must absorb those swings, they say, has to be allowed to keep the upside. Their third argument is the one a windfall tax directly attacks: a new tax on each barrel produced makes the marginal barrel less profitable, so fewer wells get drilled, so supply is tighter the next time a war starts. Chevron CEO Mike Wirth has said it makes no sense to change long-term spending while war-related uncertainty persists[6][11].
WhyReturn cash to shareholders and protect the multi-year investment case. Exxon has kept a $20 billion annual buyback program and returned $9.2 billion to shareholders in the first quarter alone — $4.3 billion in dividends and $4.9 billion in buybacks[12]. A buyback shrinks the share count, which lifts earnings per share and the stock price. Exxon shares were up about 31% for 2026 and Chevron about 29%[10].
Impact on themDirectly and heavily. Higher crude prices flow almost entirely to the bottom line in the upstream business, and refining margins rose too, with the gasoline crack spread up 60% year over year[3]. Both firms also faced disruption to their own Middle East operations during the quarter[11]. Politically, a $26.5 billion headline number is the single most effective piece of evidence for the tax they oppose.
Frames it asTheir case is that the profit is a transfer, not a reward. The companies did nothing new — they did not find more oil or cut costs — and the extra money came from a war-driven price spike that American drivers paid for at the pump[2]. The national average pump price climbed to $4.56 a gallon in mid-May 2026, the highest level since 2022[15]. The proposed remedy is deliberately narrow: an excise tax per barrel on the largest producers, with the revenue rebated to households, so the money follows the same path back that it took out. Advocates point to precedent — the U.K. and the EU imposed windfall levies after Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and the U.K. levy is still in force[2]. On the supply objection, they answer with the companies' own behavior: Exxon and Chevron declined to increase drilling even at $100 oil, which they say shows output is driven by capital discipline and shareholder returns, not by the tax rate[6].
WhyDeliver visible relief to voters on fuel costs, and establish that extraordinary profits from a wartime shock are legitimately taxable. There is also a straightforward political benefit in an election-year contrast.
Impact on themTheir leverage depends on how long prices stay high. Prices had already retreated once the Strait of Hormuz reopened, falling under $70 a barrel in mid-June, which weakens the urgency argument[3][13]. Passing the bill through Congress remains unlikely without sustained pump-price pain.
Frames it asThe administration's position is that the answer to high prices is more American barrels, not a new tax. It has pressed Exxon and Chevron publicly to raise output[6]. A windfall tax, in this view, is exactly backwards: it punishes the domestic supply that would bring prices down and hands market share to state producers who face no such levy. There is friction here that both left- and right-leaning coverage tends to skip — the companies said no. Exxon and Chevron have declined to lift spending or drilling plans beyond what was already scheduled[6]. That refusal complicates the 'drill more' remedy just as much as it complicates the tax remedy.
WhyLower pump prices before the midterm elections, and defend a deregulatory energy agenda. It also has an interest in not appearing to have caused the price spike through the Iran operation.
Impact on themPolitically exposed on both ends. It is blamed for the war that raised prices and cannot compel private firms to pump more. Its main remaining lever is releasing reserves or easing permitting, neither of which moves a world benchmark price quickly.
Frames it asGulf producers argue they are the victims of the disruption, not its beneficiaries. Their exports were physically blocked. OPEC+ agreed to raise quotas by 206,000 barrels a day for May and by 188,000 barrels a day from August, but those increases were largely symbolic, because key members — Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait and Iraq — could not physically ship through a closed Strait of Hormuz[9]. From this vantage, Western complaints about oil-major profits miss where the money actually went. Rystad Energy analysis cited by Al Jazeera concluded Saudi Aramco stood to gain the most from the move from under $65 a barrel before the war to about $100 during it[5].
WhyRestore export volumes and defend the group's credibility as a supply manager, while avoiding blame for a price spike its members did not choose.
Impact on themSevere on volume, mixed on revenue. Cutting more than 11 million barrels a day of output means selling far less oil, even at a much higher price[3]. Prices returned to pre-war levels in late June as Middle East supply came back[13].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 3.7
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. Energy Information Administration | U.S. federal statistical agency, non-advocacy | 1 | "Petroleum markets responded to disruptions in the Middle East in the second quarter" — mechanism first, no actors blamed or credited. | Almost no framing: it gives price ranges, dates, shut-in volumes and crack spreads without characterizing anyone's conduct. The one limitation is scope — it describes markets, not who benefited, so it cannot settle the political question on its own. |
| Benzinga | U.S. financial trade press, investor-facing | 2 | "Chevron, ExxonMobil Earnings Preview: Higher Oil Prices Have Analysts Predicting Best Results in 15 Quarters" — pure trading frame. | Every number is presented as a reason to buy or sell. Consumers, gas prices and policy do not appear. Not distorted, but the audience assumption — you own the stock — silently sets what counts as good news. |
| The Washington Post | U.S. center-left | 4 | "ExxonMobil and Chevron report $26.5 billion in profits, as lawmakers take aim" — the profit figure and the political backlash are welded into one sentence. | The URL slug uses "windfall profits" as a description rather than a quoted claim. Structuring the story as profit-plus-lawmakers implies the profit is the thing needing justification, before any evidence about cause is presented. |
| NPR | U.S. center-left public radio | 4 | "Oil companies are making billions. In the U.S., calls to tax their windfall are growing" — two flat sentences that place the tax as the natural response. | "Making billions" is vague where a specific margin figure would be more informative, and the piece leads with the growth of the tax movement rather than with the supply shock that produced the earnings. To its credit, it does state plainly that prices are driven by supply, demand and what buyers will pay. |
| Washington Examiner | U.S. right | 5 | "Exxon Mobil and Chevron resist Trump call to boost output" — the conflict is framed as industry discipline versus political pressure, with no mention of profit totals. | The word "resist" casts the companies as principled rather than opportunistic. Consumer fuel costs and the windfall tax debate are absent from the frame entirely — an omission that makes the story about corporate strategy instead of household bills. |
| Al Jazeera | Qatari state-funded | 6 | "Who has profited most from the war on Iran?" — the earnings are folded into a broader war-profiteering frame covering arms makers, energy firms and banks. | "The war on Iran" assigns agency to the U.S. and Israel in the outlet's own voice. Qatar is itself a major gas exporter with a stake in Gulf shipping, which is not disclosed. Offsetting this, the reporting carries specific third-party modeling (Rystad) showing Saudi Aramco gained more than the U.S. majors — a fact that cuts against the simplest anti-Western reading. |
References
- ExxonMobil and Chevron report $26.5 billion in profits, as lawmakers take aim — The Washington Post · U.S. center-left national daily, owned by Jeff Bezos
- Oil companies are making billions. In the U.S., calls to tax their windfall are growing — NPR · U.S. public radio; mix of federal, member-station and philanthropic funding; center-left editorially
- Petroleum markets responded to disruptions in the Middle East in the second quarter — U.S. Energy Information Administration · U.S. federal statistical agency; statutorily independent of policy advocacy
- Exxon, Chevron CEOs Shun Windfall Tax As Profits Surge — Law360 · U.S. legal trade publication owned by LexisNexis; practitioner-facing, low political valence
- Who has profited most from the war on Iran? — Al Jazeera · Qatari state-funded international broadcaster
- Exxon Mobil and Chevron resist Trump call to boost output — Washington Examiner · U.S. conservative outlet owned by Philip Anschutz
- Chevron, ExxonMobil Earnings Preview: Higher Oil Prices Have Analysts Predicting Best Results in 15 Quarters — Benzinga · U.S. financial media, retail-investor oriented, advertising and data-subscription funded
- ExxonMobil to Release Second Quarter 2026 Financial Results — Exxon Mobil Corporation · Primary source — company investor-relations release
- OPEC+ agrees to hike oil output, warns of slow recovery after attacks — Al Jazeera · Qatari state-funded international broadcaster
- At $100 Per Barrel, Which Oil Stock Has Dominated in 2026: ExxonMobil, Chevron, or BP? — 24/7 Wall St. · U.S. investor-facing financial site, ad-supported
- Exxon Mobil CEO sees "more to come" on price spikes from Iran war as Exxon, Chevron beat on earnings despite plunging profits — Fortune · U.S. business magazine, executive-audience, centrist-corporate
- Exxon (XOM), Chevron (CVX) Q1 2026 earnings — CNBC · U.S. business network owned by Comcast/NBCUniversal; market-oriented, low partisan valence
- Oil prices back to pre-war levels on rising Middle East supply — Al Jazeera · Qatari state-funded international broadcaster
- Big Oil set to double profits as their emissions fuel deadly heatwaves — Oxfam International · Anti-poverty advocacy NGO; campaigns for wealth and windfall taxation — an interested party, not a neutral analyst
- Gas prices top $4 a gallon again as U.S.-Iran conflict escalates, AAA data shows — CBS News · U.S. broadcast network news division, owned by Paramount; center, market-oriented reporting