🔗 Share this article

During the previous race for the White House, Donald Trump wooed voters with promises to lower costs immediately upon taking office. But, once he assumed office, he seemed to pay minimal focus to the cost of living. All that changed after inflation-weary voters expressed dissatisfaction at the polls. Shortly thereafter, the Trump administration launched a slapdash effort to address affordability. Unfortunately, the drive is a hot mess—characterized by absurdity, contradictions, unrealistic expectations, blame-shifting, and misleading statements.

Detached Claims and Grocery Store Reality

Merely 48 hours post-election, the president kicked off his affordability drive with a disastrous statement: “Food prices are way down. Everything is way down… So I don’t want to hear about affordability.” These words from billionaire Trump—who frequently mingles with other ultra-rich individuals—revealed utter contempt for everyday citizens who struggle every time they go supermarkets. Essentially, he dismissed their concerns as trivial, implying they had it wrong about price levels.

His assertion about declining prices was highly misleading and dishonest. How could all costs be falling when the taxes he imposed were pushing up prices? Official statistics show banana prices rose nearly 7% in the last twelve months, beef prices went up 14.7%, and the cost of coffee surged by nearly 19%—partly because of punitive tariffs on Brazil’s coffee and beef. Between January and September, costs increased in five of the six main grocery groups monitored by the government’s price index, such as meats, poultry, and fish (rising over 4%), drinks (up 2.8%), and produce (rising slightly).

Inconsistencies and Inaccuracies in Financial Claims

Despite these numbers, Trump continues to push his misleading narrative about lower costs. Since election day, he has claimed there is “almost no price increases,” declared “costs have fallen significantly,” and argued “it is far less expensive under Trump than it was under his predecessor.” Such remarks ignore the reality that general costs have unarguably risen since Biden left office. Currently, inflation is at a 3 percent per year, that’s 50% higher than the central bank’s target of 2 percent. Adding to the inaccuracies, Trump boasted that gas prices had fallen to around two dollars, even though government figures indicate they are $3.19.

Faced with reality and lower approval ratings, advisers evidently cautioned that his “costs are falling” rhetoric portrayed him as disconnected from ordinary people. Many voters are frustrated about prices continuing to climb following promises of decreases. As a result, advisers suggested one quick fix: reduce some of Trump’s beloved tariffs. The logical move contradicted the president’s unrealistic claim that new tariffs would not increase costs for US consumers.

Suggested Fixes and Their Possible Effects

As certain taxes being rolled back on several food items, Trump will probably claim that he has lowered costs once those foods begin to fall in price. This would be similar to a firestarter taking credit for putting out a fire that he had started. In another instance, when addressing fast-food leaders, he stated that “this is the golden age of America” and assured listeners that “costs are decreasing and all of that stuff.” Such statements are easy for a wealthy individual to make, but they ring hollow to millions of Americans facing hardships—particularly when many face losing food stamps or rising insurance costs.

Per a survey conducted last fall, 74% of Americans believe the state of the economy are mediocre or bad, while just a quarter rate them positive. A separate survey showed that a majority of citizens say Trump’s policies have “made the economy worse” in the country.

Financial Truth and Proposed Measures

Scott Bessent, the president’s top economic official, recently contradicted assertions of a golden age. He stated that instead of thriving, certain sectors of the American economy “have contracted.” Industrial production—a priority for the administration—appears to have contracted for multiple consecutive months and shed approximately 33,000 jobs this year. Pointing to this weakness, Bessent called on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates—an action that could ease financial pressure.

In response to widespread concern about affordability, Trump suggested a direct payment of “a dividend of at least $2,000 a person” not for “high income people.” For many struggling Americans, this sounds like a financial lifeline, but the prospects are dim that Congress—concerned about huge budget deficits—will enact the proposal. This idea would likely raise government expenditure, push up borrowing costs, and potentially drive prices higher by injecting cash into the economy.

A further supposed fix for affordability centered on introducing 50-year mortgages, based on the idea that this would reduce monthly mortgage payments. But, reality is that such lengthy loans would do little to lower monthly payments—often cutting them by a small amount each month. The drawback is that these loans could significantly increase the total interest borrowers pay and hinder building home value.

Blaming the Previous Administration and Financial Prospects

In their affordability campaign, the administration have again pointed fingers at the previous president for economic problems, such as increasing costs. Spokespeople claimed they “inherited a disaster from Joe Biden” and were “addressing Biden’s inflation.” These are absurd and untruthful claims. In reality, the former president handed over a strong economy, with inflation way down, economic growth strong, and minimal joblessness. However, Trump’s policies—particularly his tariffs—have resulted in an difficult situation, pushing up prices and slowing GDP growth.

According to Mark Zandi, chief economist at a research firm, 22 states are already in recession, with their conditions worsened by the administration’s trade policies. Zandi fears that if key regions like California and New York tumble into recession, the nation could face a broad economic slump. In downturns, consumers typically have reduced funds to spend, and price increases often falls. Sadly, given the highly-touted cost initiative likely to do little to control costs, his primary method for achieving increased affordability might prove to be triggering an economic contraction—a scenario that struggling Americans really can’t afford.