Rising prices are becoming a serious political problem for President Donald Trump, and new polling suggests frustration extends well beyond his usual critics. A Reuters/Ipsos survey released in reporting on October 9, 2026, found that 78% of Americans believe the White House bears at least some responsibility for higher living costs, including substantial numbers of Republican voters.
The findings arrive as American households contend with expensive gasoline, persistent inflation and the effects of Washington’s trade policies. New research from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has also strengthened the evidence that tariffs have pushed consumer goods prices higher.
With the November midterm elections approaching, affordability is emerging as a defining political issue. For the Trump administration, the challenge is no longer simply defending tariffs as an economic strategy. It is convincing households that those policies are improving their financial circumstances.
A New Poll Finds 78% of Americans Hold the White House Partly Responsible
The Reuters/Ipsos survey found that 78% of American adults believe Trump’s policies deserve at least some blame for rising prices. The finding cuts across traditional political divisions, with 64% of Republicans and 76% of independents assigning some responsibility to the White House. It reflects widespread dissatisfaction with the cost of living rather than opposition confined to Democratic voters.
The survey was conducted from September 30 through October 5, 2026, and included 4,506 adults across the United States. Reuters reported an overall margin of error of approximately two percentage points, with larger margins for individual political groups.
An important distinction is that respondents were not necessarily blaming Trump for every price increase. The 78% figure includes people who believe administration policies contributed to rising costs alongside other economic forces.
The intensity of concern was nevertheless striking. Some 54% reported that their cost of living had increased substantially over the previous year, while another 30% said it had risen somewhat.
The findings also showed that 68% were dissatisfied with Trump’s handling of inflation, including 40% of Republicans. Together, those responses suggest that frustration over everyday expenses has become broader than conventional partisan disagreements.
Even Republican Voters Are Questioning the Administration’s Economic Results
Affordability has become one of the few issues attracting substantial concern from both major political parties. The Reuters/Ipsos questionnaire found that 52% of respondents identified the cost of living as the single most important factor in deciding how to vote in the congressional elections. That included 53% of Republicans, 49% of Democrats and 54% of independents.
Other major surveys reinforce the picture. Research released by the Associated Press-NORC Center on October 1 found that 65% of American adults believed Trump’s policies were primarily responsible for unusually high prices. Only 17% approved of his handling of the cost of living, while 26% approved of his economic management overall.
The Reuters/Ipsos and AP-NORC findings measure different degrees of responsibility, which explains why their percentages are not identical.
Meanwhile, a Pew Research Center survey published October 8 found that 65% believed Trump’s economic policies had made conditions worse. Among Republicans and Republican-leaning respondents, 35% held that view, compared with just 18% in January.
The movement among Republican voters is especially significant because it suggests economic dissatisfaction is increasingly cutting into the administration’s own political coalition.
New Federal Reserve Research Shows How Tariffs Reach American Consumers
The argument over tariffs is no longer based entirely on competing political claims. Research published October 6 by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that tariffs imposed during 2025 and 2026 increased prices paid by American consumers.
Researchers Mary Amiti, Sebastian Heise and David Weinstein estimated that nearly 90% of the tariffs’ initial costs were passed through to U.S. import prices. Foreign exporters generally absorbed relatively little of the additional burden. American importers therefore faced higher costs, which could subsequently move through wholesalers, manufacturers and retailers.
The researchers estimated that a broad 10% tariff would eventually raise consumer goods prices by approximately 2.6% after one year, under their model’s assumptions.
The effects extend beyond imported products. Roughly one-third of the estimated increase in retail goods prices came through indirect channels, including higher costs for American manufacturers using imported materials and reduced competitive pressure on domestic producers.
For example, a U.S.-manufactured vehicle can become more expensive when imported steel or components cost more, even though the finished vehicle is assembled domestically.
This helps explain why tariffs can affect prices beyond the products directly subject to additional import duties.
Tariffs Added Nearly Three Percentage Points to Goods Inflation at Their Peak
The New York Fed’s findings offer a particularly important measurement of the inflationary consequences of recent trade policy. Its researchers estimated that tariffs contributed 2.9 percentage points to annual consumer goods inflation at their peak in February 2026.
The analysis examined 67 non-oil consumer goods categories, comparing prices for products with different levels of tariff exposure. Researchers concluded that, without those tariff effects, prices for the goods in their sample would have declined slightly.
However, the 2.9-percentage-point figure applies to the study’s goods measure, not the entire Consumer Price Index. Services and energy were excluded, so it would be inaccurate to suggest tariffs alone raised overall U.S. inflation by that amount.
The research also found that the inflationary contribution began fading after the Supreme Court invalidated tariffs imposed under emergency powers and Washington replaced them with a lower 10% surcharge.
By August 2026, the researchers estimated that tariffs were still keeping consumer goods prices approximately 2% above where they otherwise would have been.
That distinction is crucial. Even when tariffs stop adding significantly to the annual inflation rate, the higher prices already created can remain embedded in household budgets.
Official Inflation Figures Show Why Families Are Still Feeling the Pressure
The latest available Consumer Price Index figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show that inflation remained above the Federal Reserve’s target heading into October. Consumer prices increased 3.4% over the 12 months ending in August 2026, while the index excluding food and energy rose 2.4%.
Energy was particularly troublesome. The overall energy index increased 16.3% from a year earlier, while gasoline prices measured by the CPI rose 27.4%. Food prices increased 2.7%, with grocery-store food prices rising 2.2%.
These figures demonstrate why households can experience very different levels of financial pressure depending on their spending patterns.
A commuter driving long distances to work may feel gasoline inflation far more sharply than someone who rarely uses a vehicle. Families with high grocery bills or expensive housing commitments face different pressures, even when the national inflation rate is identical.
There is also an important difference between inflation slowing and prices actually declining. A lower inflation rate generally means prices are increasing more slowly, not returning to their earlier levels.
For households already struggling with the cumulative cost increases of previous years, that distinction helps explain why improving economic indicators may not translate into a noticeable sense of financial relief.
The Iran War Has Added Another Major Source of Inflation Pressure
Trump’s tariffs are only one part of the affordability problem. The U.S.-Israeli war with Iran has also disrupted global energy markets, contributing to sharp increases in gasoline and diesel prices.
According to Reuters, the national average price of regular gasoline reached approximately US$4.36 per gallon on October 8, compared with US$3.11 a year earlier. Diesel stood near US$6.28 per gallon, with prices having climbed roughly 70% since the conflict began in late February.
Those increases matter far beyond drivers filling their vehicles. Diesel is essential to trucking, agriculture and numerous industrial operations. More expensive transportation can raise operating costs for businesses moving groceries, construction materials and other merchandise.
The White House has pursued measures intended to improve fuel availability, including encouraging emergency petroleum releases and temporarily expanding access to tax-exempt red-dyed diesel for highway use.
However, Reuters reported that fuel suppliers and industry representatives questioned whether those measures could provide meaningful relief while global supply remained constrained.
The combination of trade tariffs and expensive energy creates separate sources of pressure on household budgets, making it difficult to attribute the entire inflation problem to any single policy.
Paychecks Are Struggling to Keep Up With Household Expenses
One of the most politically revealing findings in the Reuters/Ipsos survey concerns wages. Among Republican respondents, 57% said their living costs were increasing faster than their earnings. This suggests that even voters generally supportive of the president are noticing a gap between their paychecks and everyday expenses.
Official data lend context to those perceptions. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that inflation-adjusted average hourly earnings for private-sector employees declined 0.3% between August 2025 and August 2026. Real average weekly earnings increased 0.3% over the same period because average working hours rose.
Meanwhile, the Reuters/Ipsos survey found signs of households adjusting discretionary spending. Approximately 63% reported eating at restaurants less often, while 56% said they were spending less on entertainment or streaming services.
These changes do not necessarily mean families are unable to pay essential bills. They do, however, suggest that many are reassessing how much room remains in their budgets.
A restaurant meal, weekend outing or subscription renewal can become an easy place to cut spending when grocery bills and transportation costs rise.
For policymakers, this creates a challenge: economic growth may continue, but voters often judge financial progress by what remains after unavoidable expenses are paid.
Higher Interest Rates Are Making the Affordability Problem More Difficult
Inflation also affects Americans through borrowing costs. On September 16, the Federal Reserve raised its benchmark interest-rate target by a quarter percentage point to a range of 3.75% to 4%, citing the need to bring inflation back toward its 2% objective.
Higher interest rates can help moderate inflation by restraining demand, but they can also make borrowing more expensive. Mortgage costs have become a particularly visible concern.
According to Mortgage Bankers Association figures reported by Reuters, the average rate on a 30-year fixed-rate U.S. mortgage reached 7.49% during the week ending October 2, its highest level in nearly three years. Mortgage applications declined 4.2% from the previous week.
Consumer expectations have also weakened. The New York Fed’s September survey found that Americans expected inflation of 3.9% over the next year, the highest one-year expectation since May 2023.
Separately, the Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index fell to 81.9 in September, its third consecutive monthly decline.
These figures reveal how inflation worries can reinforce financial caution. Rising prices squeeze current purchasing power, while high borrowing rates complicate decisions involving homes, vehicles and other major purchases.
Canada’s Economy Is Also Exposed to Washington’s Tariff Decisions
Although the Reuters/Ipsos survey measures American public opinion, the economic consequences of U.S. tariff policy extend beyond the country’s borders. Canada is particularly exposed because its manufacturers, energy producers and agricultural exporters operate within deeply integrated North American supply chains.
According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, bilateral goods trade between Canada and the United States totalled approximately US$715.5 billion in 2025. Major industries such as automotive manufacturing rely on components and finished products moving between the two countries.
Recent Canadian data illustrate how tariff announcements can influence trade. Statistics Canada reported that Canadian merchandise exports to the United States rose 8.1% in August 2026, partly amid shipment activity ahead of newly announced American tariffs.
The New York Fed’s October research also incorporated announced January 2027 tariff increases on Canadian cars, trucks and auto parts into its projections, highlighting their potential future impact on consumer prices.
For Canadian businesses, higher American import costs could affect competitiveness, pricing and demand. For American consumers, tariffs on Canadian inputs may contribute to higher production costs.
The precise consequences will differ by product and applicable trade rules, but the affordability debate in Washington has clear implications for both economies.
The White House Defends Its Record as the Midterm Elections Approach
The Trump administration disputes the argument that its economic policies are responsible for the broader affordability crisis. White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers told Reuters that the president had delivered improvements through tax cuts and measures lowering prescription drug costs. The administration also continues to present tariffs as a strategy for protecting American industries and supporting domestic production.
The White House points to the severe inflation experienced under former President Joe Biden, when price increases reached a four-decade high. However, recent surveys suggest many voters are increasingly focused on current conditions rather than assigning responsibility exclusively to earlier administrations.
Pew Research Center found that 56% of Americans expect Trump’s tariffs to have mostly negative consequences for the country, compared with 20% who anticipate mostly positive effects.
The political stakes are substantial. Reuters/Ipsos polling showed Democrats leading Republicans by 44% to 37% among registered voters when asked about their congressional election preferences.
Yet dissatisfaction does not automatically translate into a change in voting behaviour. Reuters interviewed a Texas Republican who remained committed to supporting his party despite criticizing the Iran war and experiencing high diesel costs through his trucking-related work.
For Trump and congressional Republicans, the November 3 elections will test whether voters prioritize party loyalty or their dissatisfaction with economic conditions.
The 78% finding is therefore more than an isolated polling result. It illustrates a growing gap between the administration’s economic promises and how many Americans experience the cost of living. With tariffs, energy disruptions and borrowing costs still shaping prices, restoring public confidence may prove considerably harder than defending the policies themselves.
