🔗 Share this article

Throughout the previous race for the White House, the former president wooed voters with promises to reduce prices immediately upon taking office. But, after he assumed office, he seemed to pay minimal focus to affordability issues. This shifted after price-fatigued citizens expressed dissatisfaction at the ballot box. Shortly thereafter, his team launched a slapdash campaign to tackle living costs. Regrettably, the drive has proven a hot mess—filled with absurdity, inconsistencies, magical thinking, blame-shifting, and misleading statements.

Detached Claims and Supermarket Reality

Merely 48 hours post-election, the president began his affordability drive with a disastrous remark: “Our groceries are way down. All items is way down… So I don’t want to hear about the cost of living.” These words from the wealthy leader—who frequently associates with fellow billionaires—revealed a lack of empathy for everyday citizens facing difficulties when visiting supermarkets. In effect, he ignored their concerns as unimportant, implying they had it wrong about actual costs.

His assertion about declining prices was highly misleading and inaccurate. In what way could all costs be falling when his cherished tariffs were pushing up costs? Official statistics indicate the cost of bananas increased 6.9% over the past year, the price of beef went up 14.7%, and coffee prices surged 18.9%—partly because of import taxes on Brazil’s coffee and beef. Between January and September, costs increased in five of the six main grocery groups tracked by the government’s price index, including animal proteins (rising over 4%), non-alcoholic beverages (increasing nearly 3%), and produce (up 1.3%).

Contradictions and Inaccuracies in Economic Claims

Despite the evidence, the president persists in repeating his big lie about affordability. Since election day, he has stated there is “virtually no inflation,” declared “prices are way down,” and asserted “it is far less expensive under Trump than it was under sleepy Joe Biden.” These statements ignore the reality that prices overall have clearly increased after the previous administration. At present, price growth is running at a 3% annual rate, that’s half again as much than the central bank’s 2% goal. Adding to the inaccuracies, Trump boasted that gas prices had fallen to nearly $2 a gallon, even though official data show they average $3.19.

Faced with reality and declining opinion polls, some Trump aides evidently warned that his “costs are falling” rhetoric portrayed him as disconnected from ordinary people. A lot of citizens are frustrated about rising costs after assurances of decreases. As a result, aides suggested one quick fix: reduce some of Trump’s beloved tariffs. The logical move clashed with the president’s unrealistic claim that additional taxes wouldn’t raise prices for American shoppers.

Proposed Fixes and Their Potential Impact

As some tariffs being rolled back on several food items, Trump will likely announce that he has lowered costs once those foods start declining in price. This would be similar to a firestarter boasting for extinguishing a fire that he had started. On another occasion, while speaking fast-food leaders, he stated that “this is the golden age of America” and assured the audience that “prices are coming down and all of that stuff.” These comments come naturally for a wealthy individual to make, but seem insincere to countless households who are struggling—especially when millions face losing food stamps or rising insurance costs.

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

Economic Truth and Suggested Measures

Scott Bessent, Trump’s chief financial officer, recently disputed assertions of a golden age. He noted that far from booming, some parts of the American economy “have contracted.” Industrial production—a priority for the administration—appears to have contracted for eight months in a row and lost approximately 33,000 jobs this year. Pointing to these challenges, the secretary urged the central bank to reduce borrowing costs—a move that could ease financial pressure.

In response to widespread concern about affordability, the president suggested a direct payment of “a dividend of at least $2,000 a person” excluding “high income people.” For many struggling Americans, this sounds like manna from heaven, but it is unlikely that lawmakers—concerned about large shortfalls—will approve the proposal. This idea could increase federal spending, push up borrowing costs, and potentially fuel inflation by putting more money into the economy.

A further supposed fix for affordability involved introducing half-century home loans, based on the idea that this would lower housing costs. However, reality is that 50-year mortgages would do little to lower monthly payments—often reducing them by a small amount per month. The downside is that these loans could significantly increase the total interest homeowners pay and hinder their accumulation of equity.

Blaming the Previous Administration and Economic Outlook

As part of their affordability campaign, the administration have once more blamed Biden for economic problems, such as rising prices. Spokespeople claimed they “inherited a disaster from Joe Biden” and were “addressing the prior administration’s price hikes.” This is absurd and untruthful claims. In reality, Biden handed over a strong economy, with inflation way down, solid expansion, and minimal joblessness. But, the current administration’s actions—especially import taxes—have created an difficult situation, driving costs higher and slowing GDP growth.

Per an economist, lead analyst at Moody’s Analytics, 22 states are experiencing economic decline, with their conditions worsened by the administration’s trade policies. He worries that if large states such as California and New York enter a downturn, the US could slide into a widespread recession. In downturns, consumers typically have reduced funds to spend, and price increases usually declines. Sadly, with the highly-touted cost initiative probably ineffective to control costs, his primary method for achieving increased affordability might prove to be triggering an economic contraction—a scenario that hard-pressed households really can’t afford.