At the foundation of what many now describe as the contemporary American dream lies not the pursuit of abstract ideals like liberty or self-actualization, but rather the tangible availability of inexpensive consumer goods. Contrary to the president’s earlier assertion that Americans—especially children—should manage with less, the appetite for affordability reveals a cultural truth: it’s not that every little girl logically needs thirty dolls, but their families still cherish the ability to purchase them without financial strain. These families, emblematic of the larger consuming public, resent being told by Washington that their expectations of abundance should diminish.
During the early months of President Trump’s second term, his administration’s economic message could be summed up as a brusque directive to endure temporary hardship for long-term gain. Officials acknowledged that safeguarding domestic manufacturing, imposing tariffs, and tightening immigration might generate disruption. Yet they maintained that these measures were noble sacrifices, necessary steps toward what they believed would be a more self-reliant America. Thus Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s claim that access to low-cost imports does not define the American dream, and Trump’s own suggestion that students make do with fewer pencils, served as philosophical encapsulations of a broader policy stance favoring endurance over ease.
However, this appeal to collective sacrifice has landed poorly among consumers steeped in a decades-long set of expectations that prosperity and affordability are inseparable. The promise of “it will all be worth it” feels hollow when grocery bills, rent, and childcare costs climb relentlessly. Inflation may no longer be galloping, but prices remain stubbornly high, leaving “affordability” as the charged buzzword dominating dinner-table debates and political town halls alike.
Mike Konczal, senior director of policy and research at the Economic Policy Institute, notes that the administration began 2025 armed with a theory—one that envisioned deportations freeing up domestic jobs, government austerity pushing workers toward private industry, and tariffs reviving industrial employment. Yet outcomes have severely underperformed expectations. Even apolitical observers, Konczal remarks, can sense that the plan is faltering. The president, once lauded for his pledge to make everyday life cost less, now finds himself scrambling to contain public frustration. His efforts—asserting that prices are already falling, floating untested ideas, and publicly venting irritation—have appeared reactive rather than strategic.
This public unease recalls a painful political lesson: a president cannot simply declare economic success into existence. Both Trump and his predecessor have learned that perception weighs as heavily as macroeconomic data. Conservatives, despite their ideological resistance, have found themselves studying the campaign of New York City’s mayor-elect Zohran Mandami, whose uncompromising rallying cry for affordability resonated far beyond the city’s borders. Even those who reject his socialist methods acknowledge the power of his message—that rent, groceries, and utilities have reached intolerable heights.
The economic context fueling this frustration is clear. Consumer prices, up roughly 25 percent since 2020, have eroded household purchasing power. Inflation slowed briefly mid-decade, but momentum has again accelerated toward roughly 3 percent annual growth. The compounding effect of years of rising prices breeds fatigue, what economist Claudia Sahm describes as a cumulative exhaustion: even nominally stable prices feel oppressive after years of steady increases.
Certain goods have seen modest reprieves—gasoline and eggs dipped from their peaks—but others, like coffee, beef, and bananas, have taken the opposite trajectory. Analyst Ernie Tedeschi from Yale’s Budget Lab observes that durable goods—items meant to last, such as home appliances and furniture—saw an unexpected uptick of 1.5 percent during the first eight months of the year, reversing last year’s decline. Consumers had been anticipating continued drops in these categories; the reversal magnifies irritation. Meanwhile, the cost of services, from entertainment outings to public transportation, persists at above-average growth rates, ensuring that even leisure feels financial pressure.
More daunting still are the essentials: healthcare, childcare, and housing. The median American home now surpasses $400,000, up from roughly $300,000 just five years prior. Childcare costs drain thousands annually from household budgets, and medical expenses are poised to rise further, amplifying anxiety about next year’s finances. For many, progress feels illusory; official data suggesting moderation do little to offset lived experiences of price shock.
Joanne Hsu of the University of Michigan underscores an important psychological dynamic—consumers comprehend that inflation rates have slowed, but they remain vividly aware of old prices and cannot unsee the difference. Combined with tariffs that may herald additional cost pressures, confidence remains fragile. Hsu also highlights a second variable often overlooked: weakening income growth. Survey data reveal a notable increase—nearly one-third of respondents—citing stagnant or shrinking income as a personal financial setback. Although wages in aggregate still edge out inflation, the once-booming labor market has cooled, with hiring sluggish and opportunities scarce.
Economist Michael Madowitz of the Roosevelt Institute characterizes this new environment as a “low-hire, low-fire” equilibrium. Entry-level job seekers, after thousands of fruitless applications, articulate despair. Meanwhile, the mid-level employees who had relied on job-hopping to achieve pay raises no longer find that strategy viable. The stagnation, he notes, benefits neither workers nor employers.
Public sentiment, summarized bluntly, is one of exhaustion and aggravation: people are weary of being perpetually surprised by how expensive ordinary life has become. Surveys consistently confirm the dissonance between official optimism and public experience. A Washington Post–ABC News–Pisos poll reports that seven in ten Americans are spending more on groceries than a year earlier. Many cling to the hope of outright price declines, not realizing that stability—merely an end to relentless increases—may be the best attainable outcome.
When citizens grow resentful, political accountability follows. The majority of respondents blame Trump for inflation’s persistence, and recent polling places his economic approval near historic lows. Policy experts like Konczal point out that the administration appears to have deprioritized affordability despite its centrality to voters’ concerns. Trump’s public reassurances, such as pointing to a cheaper Thanksgiving basket at Walmart, ignore nuances like fewer items per bundle. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Bessent’s optimistic projections of imminent price relief ring hollow amid day-to-day hardships.
In the aftermath of Mandami’s electoral rise, the White House has rushed to propose relief measures. Ideas include $2,000 tariff-rebate checks to low- and middle-income households and the introduction of 50-year mortgages to ease monthly payments. Economists, however, caution that these are fiscally strained concepts; congressional approval remains uncertain, tariff revenues would scarcely fund such rebates, and ultra-long mortgages would inflate total interest costs while intensifying housing demand, thereby worsening shortages.
Even conservative media allies have grown candid. Fox anchors Laura Ingraham and Brett Baier have pressed Trump directly on persistent affordability issues, while Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has publicly cited her own higher electricity and grocery costs as evidence that the problem transcends politics. The presidency, after all, entails dual ownership: credit for prosperity and blame for hardship.
The administration counters this narrative through spokesperson Kush Desai, asserting that dismantling “Biden’s economic disaster” has been the central mission since day one. He touts selective improvements—cheaper fuel, lower egg prices, and agreements curbing drug costs—while promising continued investments to rebuild manufacturing and bolster wages. Yet these assurances face an electorate unconvinced by rhetoric. Consumers intuit that their weekly spending stretches thinner, an unmistakable signal regardless of policy claims.
Households, adapting out of necessity, are buying smaller quantities, switching to cheaper brands, or resorting to credit cards to bridge gaps. In a paradoxical twist, Americans are indeed practicing the restraint the White House advocates, though not out of shared policy conviction but because dwindling affordability leaves no choice.
As economists such as Claudia Sahm observe, there is no simple lever to address this multifaceted crisis. Housing, especially, remains largely governed at state and local levels, limiting federal intervention. Broader price corrections demand deliberate, targeted strategies, not quick fixes or political theatrics. Trump has pressured the Federal Reserve to slash interest rates—a move that could marginally ease borrowing costs but risks conflicting with his tariff agenda. As Sahm wryly notes, “They would have lowered rates already if tariffs hadn’t complicated the picture.”
Ultimately, the presidency’s burden endures: taking ownership of national sentiment, for better or worse. Whether the fault lies in global supply chains, domestic policy, or sheer exhaustion from economic turbulence, Americans perceive their economy as faltering. The administration must now translate promises into tangible relief or face the enduring truth of democratic accountability—that public patience, like purchasing power, can erode swiftly.
Emily Stewart, senior correspondent at Business Insider, offers this analysis within the broader context of the publication’s ongoing Discourse series, which seeks to unpack pressing national issues through careful reporting, nuanced perspective, and sustained economic inquiry.
Sourse: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-biggest-economic-mistake-prices-affordability-2025-11
