Can President Trump and Republicans Win Back Voters as Cost-of-Living Pain Intensifies Ahead of Midterms?

Energy 

The Trump administration’s American Energy Dominance push to expand domestic oil, gas, and nuclear output, while easing regulatory constraints, is also aimed at lowering energy costs—a key driver of broader inflation, given how the fuel and power form an important input cost across sectors, from transportation to manufacturing and housing.

Until February, the household gas spending was said to have lowered to near two-decade lows, with fuel savings platform GasBuddy having projected the average prices of US$2.97 a gallon nationally in 2026. The Trump administration touted this as an achievement of its American Energy Dominance agenda that has driven record oil and natural gas production through deregulation.

However, the war in Iran appears to have completely undone these gains. That said, the Trump administration has entered into talks with Iran, and the ceasefire reached April 10th for negotiations between the U.S. and Iran appears to be holding as of the writing of this article, so perhaps, gas prices could be lower in a couple of months from now.

This is because the United States has its own supply of energy, which it is increasing as part of the Trump administration’s American Energy Dominance agenda, and it is not just limited to gas but also oil and nuclear energy. So, sustained production could further ease energy bills, once the external volatility comes to rest.

Health

In February 2026, the Trump administration launched a new prescription drug pricing platform called ‘TrumpRx’ to allow the purchase of certain medicines directly from manufacturers at discounted rates, bypassing insurers and intermediaries.

The platform is built around a ‘most favored nation’ pricing model that seeks to align U.S. drug prices with lower international benchmarks.

Early evidence suggests the biggest beneficiaries are uninsured, underinsured, and higher-income Americans, who are more likely to pay full list prices for medicines.

For some high-cost drugs included in the program—such as weight-loss or specialty therapies—patients have reported price reductions ranging from 30% to as much as 80–90%, according to international reporting from Le Monde. In dollar terms, that can translate into monthly savings of several hundred to over US$ 1,000 for specific medications, particularly for patients without insurance.

However, TrumpRx focuses on cash transactions outside insurance systems, its savings accrue primarily to those without comprehensive drug coverage, and it does not help the roughly 85% of Americans with prescription drug insurance coverage. 

For instance, healthcare policy analysis by STAT News notes that patients with employer-sponsored insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid typically pay negotiated prices or fixed copays that are already lower than cash prices, and TrumpRx does not process insurance claims, and purchases made through it do not count toward deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums.

So, this reduces the incremental value of TrumpRx and limits its appeal for insured users.

Also, at launch, the platform listed roughly 40–45 drugs, and about half already had cheaper generic alternatives available elsewhere, according to the analysis by STAT News.

So for now, TrumpRx is primarily a targeted cost-saving tool for higher-income and uninsured Americans, delivering substantial savings in specific cases but limited impact for the majority of the population.

Another meaningful near-term impact of this platform could be the indirect pressure it may place on drugmakers and intermediaries to offer more competitive pricing across the broader healthcare system, however, that as of yet remains in the realm of speculation.

That said, recent weeks have seen a steady expansion of TrumpRx, with multiple large drugmakers joining and adding specific medicines, even as officials signal further growth in the months ahead.

For instance, AbbVie agreed to supply drugs including Humira and Synthroid through the platform, while Genentech has added its flu treatment Xofluza at a sharply reduced price. Amgen is adding medicines such as Enbrel and Otezla, and firms including GSK, Merck & Co., and Sanofi have either announced plans to join or are in the process of adding products.

The additions have already expanded the platform’s catalogue to more than 60 medicines, up from roughly 40 at launch, with further increases expected as new pricing agreements are negotiated.

Media reports indicate that these deals are part of a broader push by the Trump administration to bring more pharmaceutical companies onto the platform in exchange for policy concessions such as tariff relief, suggesting that both the number of participating firms and the range of drugs available are likely to continue growing in the near term.

Consumer Credit: Proposed Interest Rate Cap

In January 2026, President Trump floated a one-year 10% cap on credit card rates, echoing bipartisan legislative ideas.

Experts estimate that a 10% cap on credit card interest rates could save Americans around $100 billion a year in interest costs, equivalent to several hundred dollars per borrower on average.

It remains un-enacted as of the writing of this article, facing industry warnings of reduced credit access. A mandatory nationwide cap would require legislation, not just executive action, so there is not much the President can do about this other than proposing it.

Conclusion

While the headline inflation showed signs of cooling earlier in 2026, the rebound driven by energy prices due to conflict in the Middle East has reinforced a central political reality: for most Americans, the cost of living remains elevated, which has weighed heavily on public sentiment and, by extension, President Trump’s approval ratings.

With purchasing power still recovering from the inflation surge of previous years and wage growth only keeping pace rather than exceeding price increases, households continue to feel financially constrained. As a result, economic dissatisfaction has emerged as a defining factor shaping the political environment ahead of the midterm elections.

Against this backdrop, the Republican Party faces a structurally challenging electoral landscape in the run-up to the midterm elections, consistent with historical patterns in which the incumbent President’s party often loses ground.

However, the form and extent of potential losses in the U.S. Congress—whether limited to the House, the Senate, or both—carry significant implications for governance. Each scenario presents a distinct balance of legislative authority, institutional control, and political leverage, ultimately determining the U.S. administration’s ability to pursue its policy agenda.

The policy response from the Trump administration has evolved from demand-side tax relief in 2025 toward a broader supply-side affordability agenda in 2026. While some initiatives, such as regulatory easing in housing, could yield benefits over time, their impact is likely to be gradual and uneven in the near term.

Expanded domestic energy production could start translating into lower energy costs, but only if U.S.–Iran tensions cool and conditions in the Middle East normalize. As of the writing of this article, the U.S.–Iran ceasefire, already on shaky footing, is scheduled to end this week, with little indication of a deal being reached.

Alternatively, the Trump administration could look at temporarily lifting the 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which have raised input costs for oil and natural gas producers reliant on imported pipes and tubular steel.

Easing these tariffs could make a greater number of drilling projects economically viable at current price levels, potentially boosting energy supply and exerting downward pressure on prices.

Another area where reducing or suspending tariffs could work is the food sector. The Trump administration has already moved to roll back tariffs on a broad range of imported food products, including staples such as beef, coffee, and fruits, in an effort to ease grocery prices and alleviate pressure on household budgets.

Building on and expanding such measures in the months ahead could help deliver broader, more immediate relief and improve public sentiment in the run-up to the midterm elections.

At the same time, flagship efforts like the TrumpRx platform and proposed credit interventions highlight both the potential and the limitations of targeted policy tools. While these measures can deliver substantial benefits to specific groups, their reach remains constrained, leaving large segments of the population, particularly insured individuals or lower-income households, less affected.

This uneven distribution of benefits underscores a broader challenge in translating policy actions into widespread improvements in economic sentiment.

So, the coming months represent a critical window for the Trump administration and Republicans to recalibrate their approach, ensuring that relief reaches a broader cross-section of households. A more inclusive impact on everyday costs could play a decisive role in meaningfully shifting public perception ahead of the midterm elections.

Overall, current polling trends suggest that if economic pressures persist and tangible relief remains limited, Democrats could have a credible path to securing control of not just the U.S. House of Representatives but also the Senate.

Conversely, even modest improvements in household finances or a sustained easing in energy costs could help stabilize voter sentiment, potentially enabling Republicans to at least retain control of the Senate.

Tanmay Kadam is a geopolitical observer based in India. He has experience working as a Defense and International Affairs journalist for EurAsian Times. He can be contacted at tanmaykadam700@gmail.com.

References

1. What midterm projections tell us about Trump’s central struggle, Ipsos, January 23rd, 2026
   Alan I. Abramowitz, Generic Ballot Model Gives Democrats Strong Chance to Take Back House in 2026, The Center for Politics, April 24th, 2025
   Charles Tien, Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Forecasting suggests the Republicans will lose 28 seats and the House in the 2026 midterm elections, The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), October 13th, 2025 ↩︎