🔗 Share this article

Throughout the previous presidential campaign, Donald Trump wooed voters with pledges to reduce prices starting on day one. But, once he assumed office, there was precious little attention to affordability issues. All that changed after inflation-weary voters expressed dissatisfaction at the polls. Within days, the Trump administration launched a slapdash effort to tackle affordability. Unfortunately, the drive is a disorganized endeavor—filled with illogical claims, contradictions, magical thinking, blame-shifting, and Trumpian dishonesty.

Out-of-Touch Assertions and Supermarket Reality

Merely 48 hours after the 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.” This comment from billionaire Trump—who frequently mingles with other ultra-rich individuals—demonstrated a lack of empathy for millions of Americans who struggle every time they go supermarkets. In effect, he dismissed their concerns as unimportant, suggesting they had it wrong about actual costs.

His assertion about declining prices was absurdly obtuse and inaccurate. How could all costs be falling when the taxes he imposed were increasing costs? Official statistics indicate banana prices rose nearly 7% in the last twelve months, the price of beef went up almost 15%, and the cost of coffee jumped 18.9%—in part due to import taxes applied to Brazilian products. Between January and September, costs increased in the majority of main grocery groups monitored by the government’s price index, such as animal proteins (rising over 4%), non-alcoholic beverages (up 2.8%), and fruits and vegetables (up 1.3%).

Contradictions and Falsehoods in Financial Statements

Despite these numbers, the president continues to push his misleading narrative about lower costs. Since election day, he has stated there is “virtually no inflation,” declared “costs have fallen significantly,” and asserted “it is far less expensive under Trump than it was under his predecessor.” These statements ignore the reality that general costs have clearly increased since Biden left office. Currently, price growth is running at a 3 percent per year, which is 50% higher than the central bank’s target of 2 percent. In another falsehood, he boasted that gas prices had fallen to nearly $2 a gallon, despite official data indicate they are over three dollars.

Confronted by actual conditions and declining opinion polls, some Trump aides evidently warned that his “costs are falling” rhetoric portrayed him as disconnected from ordinary people. Many voters are angry about rising costs following promises of decreases. In response, aides suggested one quick fix: roll back some of Trump’s beloved tariffs. This sensible idea contradicted Trump’s absurd assertion that new tariffs wouldn’t raise prices for US consumers.

Proposed Fixes and Their Possible Effects

As certain taxes being rolled back on several food items, the administration will likely claim that he has lowered costs once those foods begin to fall in price. That would be like an arsonist boasting for putting out a fire that he ignited. In another instance, when addressing McDonald’s executives, he stated that “this is the peak period of America” and told the audience that “prices are coming down and all of that stuff.” These comments come naturally for a wealthy individual to make, but they ring hollow to countless households who are struggling—especially when millions face losing food stamps or skyrocketing health premiums.

According to a recent poll from October, 74% of Americans believe the state of the economy are fair or poor, while just a quarter consider them positive. A separate survey showed that a majority of citizens say Trump’s policies have “worsened economic conditions” in the country.

Financial Truth and Suggested Steps

Scott Bessent, the president’s chief financial officer, recently contradicted claims of a prosperous era. He stated that instead of thriving, some parts of the American economy “are in recession.” Industrial production—a priority for the administration—appears to have contracted for eight months in a row and shed approximately 33,000 jobs this year. Citing this weakness, Bessent called on the Federal Reserve to reduce borrowing costs—a move that could help affordability.

In response to widespread concern about affordability, the president suggested a direct payment of “a dividend of at least $2,000 a person” excluding “the wealthy.” For many struggling Americans, this sounds like manna from heaven, but it is unlikely that Congress—concerned about large shortfalls—will approve the proposal. This idea would likely raise government expenditure, push up borrowing costs, and possibly drive prices higher by injecting cash into the economy.

A further proposed solution for affordability centered on introducing 50-year mortgages, with the notion that this would reduce monthly mortgage payments. However, the truth is that 50-year mortgages would do little to lower monthly payments—often cutting them by just $100 or $200 per month. The downside is that these loans could significantly increase the total interest homeowners pay and slow building home value.

Faulting the Past Government and Economic Prospects

As part of their affordability campaign, Trump and his team have once more pointed fingers at Biden for financial challenges, including rising prices. Spokespeople claimed they “inherited a disaster from Joe Biden” and were “cleaning up Biden’s inflation.” These are unfounded and untruthful allegations. In reality, the former president handed over a strong economy, with inflation way down, economic growth strong, and minimal joblessness. But, Trump’s policies—particularly his tariffs—have resulted in an difficult situation, pushing up prices and reducing economic output.

According to Mark Zandi, chief economist at a research firm, numerous regions are experiencing economic decline, with their economies damaged by the administration’s trade policies. Zandi worries that if key regions like California and New York enter a downturn, the US could face a broad economic slump. In downturns, people typically have reduced funds to spend, and price increases usually declines. Unfortunately, given 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—something that hard-pressed households cannot handle.