Tag: donald trump
House Democratic leaders

To Restore Voter Confidence, Democrats Must Unite Behind Progressive Goals

The Democrats’ historic midterm landslide was a shattering rebuke to President Donald Trump and to the Congressional Republicans who embraced his cruelty.

Polls showed that Americans were angry about Trump’s corruption, money grabbing, tariffs, war in Iran, ties to Jeffrey Epstein, sexual abuses, and his misuse of ICE stormtroopers who detained, assaulted, and deported immigrants, terrorized cities, and killed at least nine people, while more than 50 have died in ICE custody since Trump’s second term began. Trump’s vanity projects, like adding his name to the Kennedy Center, erecting a Triumphal Arch, refurbishing the Reflecting Pool on the National Mall, and constructing a White House ballroom (after razing the East Wing) revealed that he was more interested in celebrating himself than addressing Americans’ economic hardships.

But the election outcome was not only an anti-Trump movement. “Affordability” is the catch-phrase used to signal that Americans are angry at corporate America’s greed and irresponsible practices, and the widening economic divide, that have made their lives much harder.

The victorious Democrats, progressives and centrists alike, ran on three core issues: “affordability” (the cost of health care, housing, food, and gas); the endless war in Iraq; and Trump’s corruption, self-enrichment, and special favors to his billionaire cronies.

Now voters want to know what Democrats are for, not just what and who they are against. Americans don't want to see battles between the different wings of the Democratic Party if it leads to stalemate and no major accomplishments.

“Democrats won this election by claiming we are on the side of working people, “ said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), “and working people are counting on us to deliver.”

But there’s a big obstacle in their way named Donald Trump. For the next two years, he’ll still be president and have the power to veto any bills that the Democrats put on his desk.

Despite this, the Democrats now have several big advantages. They can hold hearings and subpoena witnesses. It would be foolish for the Democrats to attempt a third impeachment, but they can use their power to investigate Trump’s corruption, misuse of government funds, and the incompetence of his Cabinet. They can hold hearings so they can hear from Trump’s accomplices.

Wouldn’t America love to see Elon Musk on the witness stand? And if he, and other Trump cronies and Cabinet officials refuse to testify, let Congress send them to prison.

The Democrats can also probe how Trump, his sons, and Jared Kushner enriched themselves with investments from foreign billionaires and Pentagon contractors, and the use of Trump’s hotels and golf courses for official government business. They can look deeper into the Epstein scandal and Trump’s consistent violations of the rule of law, such as ignoring court rulings. The incoming chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Robert Garcia, the incoming chair of the House Oversight Committee, sounded a warning to Trump’s advisors and cronies that they should “lawyer up.” Rep. Jamie Raskin, the likely chair of the House Judiciary Committee warned Trump that the new Congress will utilize its authority over declaring war, approving government spending, and regulating federal buildings..

The Democrats can also invite the victims and survivors of Trump’s policies to put human faces on his cruelty and show why we need a different approach. They can ask to hear from top military officials who were fired because they didn’t fit Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s absurd standards. They can ask to hear from scientists formerly employed in key federal agencies (EPA, NIH, OSHA, and others) who were fired because Trump doesn’t believe in science or expertise, and whose absence puts Americans at risk. They can invite the families of people who died at the hands of ICE, who died after they lost their health insurance, who suffered due to the closing of rural hospitals and Veterans Administration clinics, working families who were evicted from their apartments and made homeless because Trump cut their housing vouchers.

The Democrats have other tactics at their disposal. They can use their power over the budget to stop Trump from renaming the Kennedy Center, expanding ICE personnel and detainment centers, continuing the war in Iran, and withholding military aid to Ukraine to please his pal Vladimir Putin. The Senate can refuse to approve any of Trump’s nominees for federal judgeships or any ambassadorships for campaign donors and family friends like Charles Kushner, the current ambassador to France and father of Jared Kushner.

What should Democrats pursue as Congressional priorities?

When it comes to legislation to ease Americans’ economic and health hardships, the Democrats, on their own, don’t have enough votes to override a Trump veto and aren’t likely to persuade more than handful of Republicans, if that many, to join them. So, what to do? Democrats need to give Americans a positive policy agenda if they want to maintain their electoral momentum in 2028.

In his second term, Trump hit the ground running, well-prepared with executive orders and legal maneuvers outlined in Project 2025, a detailed blueprint for destroying effective government, written by right-wing think tank experts, many of them with experience in government.

Between now and January, the Democrats should laser focus on developing a legislative package that can unify most Democrats and address Americans’ core concerns about the economy, corruption, and war. They should file their legislative package soon after taking office in January. They should hold hearings, not only in the Capital building but on the road in key swing areas around the county, especially where they put pressure on Republicans.

Polls already show that a majority of Americans embrace a liberal and progressive policy agenda. The Democrats should invest in fresh polling to figure out how to sell their package. (Democrats have a lousy track record of getting credit for their own accomplishments). After the hearings, they need to move the legislation quickly through committees and bring bills up for a floor vote. The Democratic House speaker and Senate majority leader can force a roll call vote. They can compel the Republicans in both chambers to vote for or against each popular proposal.

Can the Democrats get their act together to advance a unifying legislative package that is bold and progressive, not centrist and corporate? One by-product of the Democratic landslide is that there will be both more progressives and more centrists in the Democrats’ caucus. There remain differences among Democrats over how bold they should be. But most Democratic winners this year ran on platforms that included a focus on the outsized influence of the super-rich and big corporations.

The Democrats now have an overwhelming mandate. They have big majorities in both the House (likely 258 seats) and Senate (at least 54 and potentially 56 seats) to allow a few corporate or erratic Democrats to oppose or abstain. They don’t have to worry about Senators like Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema (who killed much of Biden’s bold legislation) and John Fetterman today).

The Democrats could pass a comprehensive package of reforms or roll out one each week next year and in 2028. Once the Democrats pass these bills (perhaps with a few Republican votes), put them on Trump’s desk and dare him to veto it. If he does, the Democrats should try to override his veto. They won’t have the votes, but it will provide another opportunity to force the Republicans in Congress to reveal what and who they stand for as they seek re-election in 2028. These bills would form the basis of the Democrats’ policy agenda for the 2028 elections, with the promise that a Democratic president would sign them into law.

  • •Restore the Child Tax Credit (which the Republicans refused to continue), which reduced child poverty by more than one-third.
  • •Restore the Republicans’ cuts to Medicaid and Obamacare
  • •Lower the Medicare eligibility age to 50, a stepping stone toward Medicare for All.
  • •Reduce the price of more prescription medications, expanding on what Biden accomplished.
  • •Adopt a $20 federal minimum wage, automatically adjusted for inflation. Congress has failed to increase the wage, now stuck at $7.25, since 2009, while prices have skyrocketed. (Even centrist Rahm Emanuel, a former Obama aide who has presidential ambitions, has embraced the $20 threshold.)
  • •Reduce or eliminate tuition at public universities and community colleges.
  • •Design a major jobs-creating “green” jobs program to put people to work at good wages – a downpayment on Green New Deal.
  • •Create a large-scale human services jobs program to train and employ more teachers and school counselors, day care workers, nurses, public health experts, and other helping professionals.
  • •Dramatically reduce the budget for ICE and adopt strict standards for the conduct of ICE agents, including limits on use of force and prohibiting agents from wearing masks.
  • •Use the savings from cutting the ICE budget to restore the scientific expertise in NIH, the CDC, EPA, OSHA, and other agencies that Trump gutted.
  • •End Trump's tariffs
  • •Adopt tough standards for the construction of data centers for AI companies. Polls show significant opposition to them by Republicans, Democrats, and independents like. According to a recent Pew Research Center poll, more than half of Americans (54 percent) now say data centers are mostly bad for the environment, up from 39 percent in January. Half say they are mostly bad for home energy costs, up from 38 percent. And 49 percent say they are mostly bad for people’s quality of life nearby, up from 30 percent. Just four percent of Americans think data centers have a mostly good impact in each of these areas.
  • •End the war in Iran and expand funding for the Veterans Administration
  • •Dramatically expand housing vouchers. Less than one-third of all households eligible for vouchers receive them because there isn’t enough federal funding. Increase funding so that, like SNAP (food stamps), all families who are eligible can get a voucher to help them pay rent.
  • •Expand funding to catalyze new housing construction, including permanently affordable social housing sponsored by nonprofit developers, unions, and religious groups.
  • •Eliminate the Social Security payroll tax cap, so that high-earning workers to pay the 6.2 percent FICA tax on all of their wage income rather than stopping once their earnings pass an annual limit (currently $184,500). Why should millionaires pay the same FICA tax as nurses, school teachers, and janitors?
  • •Restore U.S. AID to help people around the world suffering from malnutrition and disease.
  • •Pass the Protect the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, a reform of labor laws that will increase the proportion of unionized workers and help elect progressive candidates.
  • •Adopt voting rights legislation, including the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, that includes same-day and automatic voter registration, expanded early and mail-in voting, making Election Day a national holiday, and ending gerrymandering, voter intimidation, voter-roll purges, and polling place closures.
  • •Reduce the role of corporate money, including dark money, in elections. We don’t have to wait to overturn Citizens United. Federal laws can encourage states to rewrite corporate laws to stipulate that they don’t have the legal capacity to spend money on elections. Cities, counties, and states can adopt matching programs that amplify small donations. New laws can also require Super PACs and 501(c)(4) groups to disclose their ultimate donors.
  • •Strengthen anti-trust laws and enforcement to break up corporate conglomerates and restore competition (which will reduce prices).
  • •Adopt immigration reform that provides a path to citizenship for immigrants who are living in the U.S., including those whose work is crucial for key economic sectors, such as agriculture, construction, health care, and leisure and hospitality.
  • •Provide more funds to Ukraine to stop Putin’s imperial war.
  • •Pass a progressive wealth tax, like Elizabeth Warren’s Ultra-Millionaire Tax, starting with a two percent annual tax on every dollar of net worth between $50 million and $1 billion, rising to three percent to six percent total annual tax on a net worth above $1 billion, and exempting anyone with a household net worth before $50 million

What to expect from lame duck Trump

Democrats need to demonstrate that they hear the concerns of everyday Americans. To win the presidency in 2028, they need to unfold a popular program that moves the country in an entirely different direction from Trumpism. If they keep reminding voters that Trump and the Congressional Republicans refused to embrace a reform agenda, Americans will forgive them for not passing bills and reward them in 2028.

In his interview with the New York Times after the election, Trump sounded conciliatory, claiming that he wanted to work with Democrats to pass legislation. The Democrats should take Trump up on his offer. But that interview may be the calm before the storm. Trump is driven by ego, vindictiveness, racism, bullying, and lust for money and power. He typically can’t keep his cool or swallow his pride and agree to compromises. He is more likely to go ballistic and continue his efforts to destroy American democracy and use the White House as a subsidiary of his business activities.

It will be hard for Trump to call off the Department of Justice from going after the people on his personal enemies list. The fact that he promoted his hardcore extremist adviser Stephen Miller to replace Susan Wiles as chief of staff suggests that Trump isn’t in the mood for compromise.

Will Trump continue to encourage organized hate groups and MAGA cult members to take matters into their own violent hands? Will he continue to use ICE storm troopers to invade cities and arrest, detain and deport immigrants, triggering violence? Will he invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 to send active-duty military troops and federalized National Guard units into American cities to restore domestic “law and order?” Will he continue to defy the courts?

Trump is now the lamest of ducks. Will Republicans in Congress and on the Supreme Court continue to bow to him, or has his ability to intimidate them been so eroded that they will act even slightly less sycophantic? In the midst of the Watergate scandal in 1974, top Republicans went to visit President Richard Nixon and told him that he had to resign or be impeached. It is a symbol of how far the Republicans have fallen that we can’t even imagine today’s GOP leaders doing that. But perhaps some will summon the courage to put nation over party.


Progressives have won the war of ideas

Meanwhile, progressives have won the war of ideas. Public opinion polls reveal that on most major issues, the vast majority of Americans embrace policies that challenge corporate greed and predatory practices, raise the standard of living for working families, support labor unions, raise taxes on the super-rich and big corporations, and improve social and public services. Most Americans, in other words, embrace some version of what other countries call social democracy.

At the same time, the vast majority of Americans do not identify themselves as democratic socialists, although their numbers are growing. A Gallup survey released September 23 found that 43% of Americans now view socialism positively, the highest level recorded since Gallup began measuring attitudes toward the economic system in 2010. Among Americans ages 18 to 34, socialism receives more favorable ratings than capitalism, 57 percent to 43 percent. Among political independents, favorable views of socialism increased from 37 percent in 2025 to 45 percent this year. Exit polls from last week’s election reveal that people who identify themselves as democratic socialists comprised 18 percent of all voters. (Self-identified MAGA supporters accounted for 24 percent of voters).

But Democratic Socialists of America-affiliated candidates cannot win elections only by relying on self-identified socialists. They need to appeal to a wider constituency and, once in office, embrace policies that make America a more humane and fair country. In the past few years, candidates with ties to DSA have won a growing number of electoral victories in blue and purple areas, from school boards to mayors of big cities, to Congress, and almost one governor’s race (in Wisconsin). DSA candidates won more races on November 3. As of January, over 300 DSA members will be serving in various public offices across the country.

Starting in January, there will be at least eight democratic socialists in the House (the most in history) as well as Bernie Sanders in the Senate. They include Rashida Tlaib and Donavan McKenney of Michigan, Melat Kiros from Colorado, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez of New York, Chris Rabb of Pennsylvania, and Angela Gonzales-Torres of Los Angeles.

Several new members of Congress are not DSA members but will be close allies. These include Adam Hamawy, an Army veteran and medical doctor who won his race in New Jersey’s CD-12; Brad Lander of New York, a former DSA member, who was an effective Comptroller and City Council member in New York Manny Rutinel of Colorado, and William Lawrence in Michigan, both former DSAers.

They will join other progressive House and Senate members who may not call themselves democratic socialists or pay DSA dues, but who are aligned with DSA on most (but not all) issues. These include Greg Casar of Texas, Analilia Mejia and LaMonica McIver of New Jersey, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Pramila Jayapal of Washington, Ro Khanna, Judy Chu, Mark Takano, Aisha Wahab, Robert Garcia, and Laura Friedman of California, Summer Lee of Pennsylvania, Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Maxwell Frost of Florida, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Delia Ramirez of Illinois, Becca Balint from Vermont, Everton Blair from Georgia, and Adelita Grijalva from Arizona,

Progressives in the incoming Senate will include Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden of Oregon, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware, Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Ron Wyden, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Jon Ossoff, of Georgia, and newly-elected Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Troy Jackson of Maine, and Abdul El-Sayed of Michigan. (There are at least 100 Democrats in the Congressional Progressive Caucus, but these are the most left-leaning).

The new DSA-affiliated House members, and DSA's 120,000 members, need to learn from Ocasio-Cortez and Warren about working with people who don’t pass DSA’s ideological litmus tests, but are principled and pragmatic.

To consolidate or even expand their victories, Democrats and their allies need a permanent ground game, not just for elections but to build leadership and coalitions in-between election cycles. The media has barely acknowledged that the strong turnout for Sen. Jon Ossoff and Gov.-elect Keisha Lance Bottoms in Georgia is the byproduct of very intentional grassroots organizing over the past decade, particularly among African Americans, led by Stacy Abrams. Similarly, Scott Colom’s likely victory in Mississippi is due in large measure to grassroots groups in that state. Years of organizing work led by Rev. William Barber in North Carolina played a major role in Democrats flipping that state’s Senate and congressional delegation this year.

What’s needed now is a coalition of the labor movement, the civil rights and immigrant rights movements, the LBGTQ and women's movements, the environmental justice movement, the tenants rights and community organizing movement, civic groups like Indivisible, and DSA, who must work together to build an activist infrastructure that targets races and works on local issues to keep people "in motion" between election cycles. Liberal donors need to invest in this movement-building project over the long haul. The Movement Voter Project is a small version of what's needed. Liberals, progressives, and Democrats are understandably feeling high right now, but moving forward, they need a major investment in building the base that can win elections and give people a sense of their own power.

Peter Dreier is the E.P. Clapp Distinguished Professor of Politics at Occidental College. He is the author of six books, most recently Baseball Rebels: The Players, People, and Social Movements That Shook Up the Game and Changed America (University of Nebraska Press, 2022.)

Darline Graham

Lindsey Graham's Most Famous Quote Returns To Haunt His Sister

“If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed … and we will deserve it.”

Reflecting on Tuesday’s midterm election results, a shellacking by Democrats that served as a rebuke to President Donald Trump, this quote deserves another look.

In 2016, in the midst of a heated Republican primary race, with assorted candidates jockeying to be the party’s presidential nominee, those words were posted by what now seems a surprising source: the late South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham.

Of course, Graham himself had been one of the candidates in that bitter contest. Insults like “lightweight” and “jackass” were tossed back and forth, and Trump publicly shared Graham’s cellphone number. (Trump finally apologized for that stunt — at Graham’s funeral this past July. Better late than never, I suppose.)

By the time of Graham’s death this year, though, his earlier self would not have recognized the senator from South Carolina who had transformed himself into one of the president’s golfing buddies and closest allies.

In May of this year, after Sen. Bill Cassidy lost his Louisiana primary to a Trump-backed opponent, Graham reasoned on NBC News that Cassidy lost because he “tried to destroy” the president, and warned the same fate would befall any Republican who crossed Trump. “This is the party of Donald Trump.”

Why the switch? “He allowed me into his world. That’s great,” he told The New York Times.

Lindsey Graham stayed relevant, with a desired seat at the table — at a cost to his political reputation and legacy.

After he died, Graham’s sister was appointed to complete his Senate term and was then pushed to run for a full term by her brother’s onetime nemesis Donald Trump. The president’s endorsement pushed Darline Graham past a more experienced Republican, Rep. Ralph Norman, in the Senate primary.

That she played a part in the Republicans’ historic midterm loss is a full-circle moment that Shakespeare would relish.

Et tu, South Carolina?

Graham lost to Dr. Annie Andrews, as the state elected a Democratic senator for the first time in decades. It came as a big surprise, especially to those Republicans who, like Lindsey Graham, started out as skeptics of the inexperienced, cruel president before making peace with the man, his policies, and his power.

MAGA swallowed the GOP, and voters who elected Trump in 2016 and 2024 followed.

Until they didn’t.

What was the breaking point for the people who ignored millions of dollars in attack ads on their way to the polls?

In Ohio, was it the Vivek Ramaswamy ad that dredged up opponent Amy Acton’s childhood trauma, supported by Trump and Vice President JD Vance?

In the South, was it the seeming glee of Republican state legislatures as they gerrymandered districts with substantial African American constituencies, all with the blessing of a Supreme Court-weakened Voting Rights Act?

In Texas, did Hispanic voters who swung to Trump in 2024 realize that ICE’s definition of “the worst of the worst” included business owners, grandmoms, and schoolchildren?

Did tariffs turn off farmers as it affected expenses and bottom lines?

Did Americans rebel when they saw their dollars buy less while the president gushed over gold trinkets, a ballroom and a reflecting pool his hand-picked contractors couldn’t fix, and made billions for himself and his family?

Did the Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, the racism and homophobia in the name of Jesus leave true people of faith or just plain decent people disgusted?

In South Carolina, Darline Graham didn’t explain her plans for the economy or for fighting corruption or foreign entanglements, except to say “national security is not my thing” on a debate stage.

But the candidate with a scant resume did manage at a South Carolina rally to call her opponent “bats--t crazy” while standing next to an approving Trump, who coined his own anti-trans slur for Andrews.

Andrews responded by saying: “If name-calling would help lower gas prices and grocery prices, he can call me all the names he wants. But I don’t think that’s going to get the job done.” In a state with 14 counties “without a single OB/Gyn,” as Andrews has said, the emptiness of insults is hard to miss.

Whatever lessons they draw from Tuesday, Democrats should not get comfortable.

Angry, hurting voters expect results — fast.

But for now, it’s hard not to recall the warning issued and then forgotten 10 years ago, with the hope that Republicans realize the old Lindsey might have been right all along.

Mary C. Curtis has worked at The New York Times, The Baltimore Sun, The Charlotte Observer, as national correspondent for Politics Daily, and is a senior facilitator with The OpEd Project. She is host of the CQ Roll Call “Equal Time with Mary C. Curtis” podcast. Follow her on X @mcurtisnc3.

Reprinted with permission from Roll Call


Cheesecake Factory interior

LOL: Republicans Lost 'Cheesecake Factory Vote' By Overwhelming Margins

RollCall calculated the "Cheesecake Factory vote," that is, counties where there is a Cheesecake Factory and how people who live in those counties voted. Republicans lost the overwhelming majority of those counties.

"In Cheesecake Country, Democrats lead the combined vote (D+28.8 percent) across 141 counties with a Cheesecake Factory," the site said.

Of the 215 Cheesecake Factory locations currently open in 175 different congressional districts, Democrats will represent 171 of them. Meaning Republicans lost the Cheesecake Factory vote. That is up from 108 districts.

The outliers were in Idaho, Utah, Lubbock, Texas, Montgomery County, Texas, Williamson County, Tennessee, Greenville County, South Carolina, parts of Florida, two counties in Ohio and one in Indiana. Everything else went to Democrats.

The reference comes from a moment when former President Barack Obama was in Michigan for a campaign rally, and he mocked President Donald Trump for spending more time on supergluing gold embellishments to the walls of the Oval Office than he did focusing on issues like affordability. He said that Trump has "made the White House look like Saddam Hussein opened a Cheesecake Factory." The administration coordinated the whole of government to respond to Obama's insults, the former president observed.

“Classic Obama snobbery. Cheesecake Factory is a great option for people who can’t afford a private chef at their Martha’s Vineyard estate,” posted GOP strategist Matt Whitlock.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who has a net worth of hundreds of millions of dollars, took his photo outside a Cheesecake Factory.

It prompted The Bulwark's Brendan Hartnett to joke, "The whole brouhaha felt like a preposterous relic of an earlier political era—one in which Obama’s choice of suit or salad greens could tie conservative pundits and pols into knots of rage. And now we have some proof of how manufactured the outrage really was."

"House districts with at least one Cheesecake Factory have a median household income of $93,000, while districts bereft of the restaurant have a median household income of $76,000," Hartnett said.

On Election Night, when President Donald Trump and his advisors watched returns, they had the Cheesecake Factory cater the event. Much of it went untouched as the night grew increasingly depressing.

"WH eating good on a big day," Kaelan Dorr, who is a White House staff member, wrote on X. His post included a photo of a takeout bag from the restaurant.

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet

Trump in war room

The New Affordability Agenda, Step One: End The Iran War

Tuesday’s vote made things pretty clear: we don’t want Donald Trump’s f**king war. No one wants their family members and friends going to the other side of the world, risking injury and death, to kill people we have no real grievance with. That view is largely a bipartisan consensus, at least among voters, if not among their representatives in Congress.

As is also pretty clear, the war is very much front and center in the affordability issue. Gas prices jumped as much as $1.50 a gallon in the months following the start of the war and are still more than $1.00 a gallon above the pre-war level. Diesel prices rose almost $3.00 a gallon at their peak and are currently more than $2.50 a gallon above their pre-war level. This is a cost borne directly by truckers but will be largely passed on in higher prices for food and just about everything else.

We are also likely to see a hit to food prices next year due to fertilizer shortages. Much of the world’s fertilizer comes from the Persian Gulf region. The blockades and damage to factories have meant that considerably less fertilizer than normal has been exported to the rest of the world.

Ending the war won’t immediately reverse all the economic damage it has caused, but it would be a great start. Also, because the war has jump-started the green transition across the globe (China’s exports of electric vehicles and solar panels are soaring), we should expect to see worldwide demand for oil falling sharply in the not-distant future. Two-thirds of the cars sold in China, by far the world’s largest car market, are now EVs. This means that oil prices will quite likely fall well below their pre-war level in the next few years.

The war is not the only policy Trump has pursued that raised inflation. Everyone but him now knows that we paid his tariffs. This raised inflation by roughly 0.8 percentage points in 2025. Ending the tariffs should lower prices of the affected products, although here too the benefits may not be felt immediately. Businesses have been happy to take advantage of market power to boost profit margins on the way up. Without some aggressive oversight, they are likely to be slow to pass on the savings from lower tariffs to consumers.

Higher inflation has also led the Fed to raise interest rates this year, reversing the downward course rates had been on prior to the election. If Trump ended his war and was forced to reverse his tariffs, the Fed would likely turn around and again lower rates. This would mean lower interest rates on mortgages, car loans, and credit cards. Of course, when the AI bubble bursts, that will also lower interest rates, but that is not as directly under the government’s control.

Near-Term Actions Beyond Just Reversing Trumpian Damage

Lower gas and fuel prices, along with the lower prices from eliminating tariffs, and lower interest rates, would be a great start on making people’s lives more affordable. But Congress can look to go further.

The cost of home insurance has hugely outpaced the overall rate of inflation, largely because of the impact of global warming. While it is a major expense for homeowners, averaging more than $2,500 a year, it is not included in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) because it is viewed as an investment item, not a consumption good.

Congress can’t look to do much to stem global warming as long as we have a big global warming proponent in the White House, but it can try to reduce insurance costs. Florida, a state run by that well-known communist, Ron DeSantis, has several programs that assist homeowners in implementing measures to improve resiliency. Average savings run close to $1,000 a year. That would be a great model for the rest of the country, and we’re talking chicken feed in terms of the federal budget.

On the topic of insurance, Congress should try to restore the enhanced subsidies in the Affordable Care Act that the Republicans stripped out with their Big Bill in 2025. This could help to reverse the loss of health insurance coverage in the last two years. The higher cost of health insurance also doesn’t show up in the CPI, but it is very real to the people paying it, or not paying it, in the event they can no longer afford insurance.

Lower Drug Prices and Universal Medicare

In a post-Trump world, we should be looking to a universal Medicare system, and a big part of making that affordable will be radically reducing the prices we pay for drugs and medical equipment. This can ultimately be done by eliminating patent-supported drug research and relying instead on direct public funding. In that case, all drugs could be sold as cheap generics from the day they are approved by the FDA. This could easily save $500 billion a year on prescription drugs (almost $4,000 per household) and other pharmaceutical products, and maybe a couple hundred billion more on medical equipment.

Since it won’t be possible to go directly to a system of publicly financed research, the government can gradually increase public funding as it radically lowers the price that we pay for drugs. The industry’s usual argument against lower prices, that it will reduce research, becomes irrelevant in this context. We don’t want them to do research supported by patent monopolies; we want them to rely on direct upfront funding of research.

Every card-carrying economist should support a switch like this. Patent-monopoly prices for drugs and medical equipment are a recipe for corruption, which we see in these industries all the time. When companies can sell drugs for 1000 percent more than their costs of production, they have an enormous incentive to lie about their safety and effectiveness, which is almost a standard practice in these industries, as was the case with the opioid crisis.

This also creates the horrible situation where people have to beg their insurers to pay tens of thousands of dollars for a cancer drug needed to stay alive, or alternatively, to start a GoFundMe. This is incredibly absurd when we realize the drug would almost certainly sell for just a few hundred dollars in a free market. It’s rare that a drug is actually expensive to manufacture and distribute.

Anyhow, the switch to universal Medicare will almost certainly have to wait for a new president, but since Trump likes to boast about his 600 percent reduction in drug prices, a Democratic Congress may be able to put a bit of truth into his absurd boast. Lowering drug prices in a big way is a great policy, whose benefits will be seen immediately. And if we want to have a universal Medicare program that is affordable to the country, it should be a big part of the story.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack, from which this is reprinted with permission.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Trending

World