On Nov. 21, 2025, one of the most extraordinary political moments of the Trump presidency unfolded in the Oval Office. President Donald Trump warmly welcomed New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, a 34-year-old democratic socialist whom Trump had previously called a “100% Communist Lunatic,” for a remarkably cordial meeting focused mostly on one issue: affordability.
The stunning reversal was riveting. Trump had threatened to arrest Mamdani, endorsed his opponent Andrew Cuomo, and even suggested that the naturalized citizen may be in the country illegally. Mamdani had called Trump a “fascist,” a “despot,” and “Donald Trump’s worst nightmare.” Yet there they sat, discussing housing affordability, grocery costs, rents and utilities with what both described as “shared admiration and love” for New York.
Trump told reporters: “I met with a man who’s a very rational person. We agree on a lot more than I would have thought. I want him to do a great job, and we’ll help him do a great job.” The President even said he would feel “very, very comfortable” living in New York City under Mamdani’s leadership and predicted the democratic socialist would “surprise some conservative people.
When asked if he agreed with Rep. Elise Stefanik’s characterization of Mamdani as a “jihadist,” Trump declined, saying “She’s out there campaigning, and you say things sometimes in a campaign.” The President was actively undermining his own party’s strategy to make Mamdani their 2026 boogeyman.
The meeting wasn’t just political theater; it represented Trump’s high-stakes gamble to seize control of the single issue that will determine the 2026 midterm elections: whether regular Americans can afford to live.
With his approval rating plummeting to 39%, his lowest since January 6, 2021, and Democrats holding a stunning 55%-41% lead on the congressional ballot, Trump is betting everything on a dramatic pivot. He’s positioning himself not as the cause of America’s affordability crisis, but as the pragmatic leader willing to work with anyone, even democratic socialists, to solve it.
The question is whether this gamble can save Republicans from a potential midterm massacre or whether it’s too late to convince voters that the party in power deserves credit rather than blame for their economic pain.
The affordability crisis
The data tells a brutal story of why affordability dominates American politics. Despite official inflation rates declining to around 3% by late 2025, the cumulative impact of years of price increases has fundamentally altered household economics.
Groceries: The daily pain
Food costs serve as a constant reminder of diminished purchasing power. As of September 2025, food prices have risen 3.1% year-over-year, with grocery store prices up 2.7% and restaurant meals increasing 3.7%. While modest compared to the 11.4% spike in August 2022, these increases compound on already-elevated bases.
Specific items reveal the depth of the problem. Ground beef prices have surged nearly 14% from the previous year. Orange juice has skyrocketed 29% annually. Coffee reached a record high of $8.41 per pound in July 2025, a 33% increase driven partly by Trump’s own tariffs on Brazilian imports. Between January and September 2025, grocery prices gained another 1.4%, adding relentless upward pressure on family food budgets.
READ: Buy what everyone wants, what nobody can stop, and what few understand (
For millions of Americans, what used to be routine shopping trips now require careful calculation. Generic brands replace preferred labels. Certain foods disappear from weekly meal plans entirely. A basket of goods that cost $100 in early 2020 now costs approximately $125, and wages haven’t kept pace.
Housing: Dreams deferred
The housing market presents another daunting challenge. As of late 2025, the median home sales price stands at $410,800, while the average home price reached $512,800 during the second quarter. Prices have risen just 1.2% year-over-year, showing some cooling, but remain historically elevated after years of dramatic increases.
For renters, the national median asking rent was $1,695 as of December 2024, down slightly from peaks in July 2022 but representing approximately 35% higher prices than pre-pandemic levels. Some markets saw relief as new construction came online, while others, particularly Montana and Idaho, face rent increases exceeding 20% year-over-year.
Mortgage rates compound the difficulty. Despite Federal Reserve rate cuts, the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate hovered around 6.17% at the end of October 2025, nearly double the rates available just a few years earlier. This has created a “lock-in effect” where homeowners with low rates refuse to sell, constraining supply and keeping prices elevated.
A CNN poll found that 86% of Americans who were renting said they would like to buy their own home but could not afford to do so. Economists estimate the U.S. faces a housing shortfall of as many as 5 million homes. An entire generation finds homeownership, long considered the cornerstone of the American Dream, increasingly unattainable.
The debt trap
Most alarming is the surge in household debt. Total U.S. household debt reached $18.59 trillion in the third quarter of 2025, a record high and $4.44 trillion above pre-pandemic levels. Credit card debt hit a historic milestone of $1.23 trillion in Q3 2025, up $24 billion in just three months and nearly 6% higher than a year earlier.
The average household now carries $9,326 in credit card debt, with the average per-cardholder balance at $6,523. With credit card APRs averaging 22.25%, near record highs, Americans are paying exponentially more to carry these balances. Many families are borrowing just to maintain their previous standard of living.
The strain is becoming visible. About 4.5% of all outstanding debt is now in some stage of delinquency, the highest share since before the pandemic. Credit card delinquencies reached 8.88% by the third quarter of 2025, while student loan delinquencies climbed to 9.4% as pandemic-era forbearance protections ended.
Stagnant incomes
While wages have grown nominally, real purchasing power tells a different story. Real median household income stood at $83,730 in 2024, essentially flat from $82,690 in 2023 and only marginally above the $83,260 recorded in pre-pandemic 2019. Full-time workers earn a median weekly income of $1,196, translating to approximately $62,192 annually.
As Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi observed: “Even though they have a job in most cases, their purchasing power is no longer rising. Many are borrowing money to supplement their income and now they are paying interest on that debt.”
This is the economic reality driving American politics in late 2025: steady employment but eroding purchasing power, nominal wage growth but real income stagnation, and mounting debt to bridge the gap. Nearly 60% of Americans say Trump’s top priority should be lowering prices—no other issue comes close.
Trump’s pivot
Facing these numbers and disastrous approval ratings, Trump has launched an aggressive, multi-pronged effort to demonstrate he’s addressing affordability. The strategy represents a dramatic reversal from many of his own policies and a willingness to contradict Republican orthodoxy.
Rolling back his own tariffs
Perhaps most revealing, Trump has begun eliminating tariffs he himself imposed, a tacit admission they contributed to higher prices. On November 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order removing the 40% tariff on Brazilian coffee, beef, and other agricultural products that he had imposed in July. This followed an earlier reduction on November 13 that eliminated a 10% universal tariff on these items.
Bloomberg reported the tariff relief comes “amid growing US voter dissatisfaction over the cost of living.” Trump also extended relief to other countries, announcing reciprocal trade agreements with Argentina, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Ecuador. The White House framed these moves as efforts to lower consumer costs. The political calculus is clear: better to be accused of flip-flopping than to head into midterms defending policies that raised grocery prices.
The $2,000 check
In another dramatic proposal, Trump promised to send “dividend” payments of “at least $2,000 a person” to middle- and lower-income Americans using tariff revenue. The announcement, made via social media in early November 2025, promised checks would go to “everyone” except high-income individuals.
The economics do not make sense. The Congressional Budget Office estimates such payments could cost between $300 billion and $606 billion depending on eligibility criteria, far exceeding the $195 billion to $216 billion in projected annual tariff revenue. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was noncommittal when asked about the plan, suggesting it “could come in lots of forms.”
Economists warn the checks could backfire by worsening inflation. Sending money to households in a relatively strong economy with steady employment could boost demand without increasing supply, driving prices higher, exactly what happened after pandemic-era stimulus. As Stephen Moore, a former Trump economic adviser, told CNN: “Sending out checks to people is a bad way to stimulate the economy. Stimulus checks only stimulate inflation.”
Congress would need to approve the payments, and fiscal conservatives are skeptical. The proposal has received little concrete follow-through, leading many analysts to view it as more political messaging than serious policy. But the message is clear: Trump is willing to embrace direct cash payments, traditionally a Democratic policy if it might ease voter anger.
Drug price negotiations
Trump is lowering prescription drug prices through voluntary agreements with pharmaceutical companies. In November 2025, he announced deals with Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly to reduce prices on blockbuster weight-loss drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy, and Zepbound. Under these agreements, Medicare prices would be set at $245 per month, described as “less than half the prices proposed by the Biden Administration.”
These agreements likely benefited from Medicare’s drug price negotiation program, a key provision of President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. The program allows the government to negotiate prices on high-cost drugs, with 15 medications subject to negotiation in 2025 for prices taking effect in 2027.
Economic populism
Which brings us back to the Oval Office meeting with Zohran Mamdani. The encounter wasn’t just about New York City; it was about Trump seizing control of the populist narrative on affordability.
Both leaders “discussed housing affordability and the cost of groceries and utilities, as Mamdani successfully used frustration over inflation to get elected, just as the president did in the 2024 election,” PBS News reported. NBC News exit polls found that 10% of New York City voters who cast ballots for Trump in the 2024 presidential election voted for Mamdani, suggesting significant overlap in their populist appeal on economic issues.
By embracing Mamdani, Trump accomplished several objectives. He repositioned himself as a problem-solver rather than problem-creator on affordability. He demonstrated willingness to work across ideological divides when it serves his populist brand. He signaled to business interests that he wouldn’t let partisan warfare destroy economic growth. Most importantly, he seized control of the affordability narrative rather than letting Democrats monopolize the issue.
As one conservative analyst observed, Trump was reassuring stakeholders that “The White House and Mayor Mamdani won’t be going to war, and New York’s economy won’t fall off a cliff.”
The political stakes
Historical patterns strongly suggest the party in power loses seats during midterm elections. With Trump’s approval underwater and economic anxiety high, Republicans could face losses comparable to the 2018 “blue wave” that cost them 40 House seats. Nineteen Republican districts are considered highly vulnerable, most in college-educated, suburban areas that have trended away from Trump.
Trump’s affordability pivot, particularly the Mamdani meeting, has exposed fissures within his coalition. The MAGA base’s reaction revealed deep tensions between pragmatic populism and ideological purity.
Some supporters called the Mamdani meeting “such a power move by President Trump” and “an incredible moment in the Oval as Trump extends the olive branch.” These supporters viewed Trump’s charm offensive as savvy politics, disarming a potential adversary and co-opting his message.
READ: Humanity’s meaning crisis (
However, many conservatives expressed outrage that Trump had given a “total and complete pass” to someone Republicans hoped to demonize. The more ideological elements of the MAGA movement see Mamdani as representing everything they oppose: democratic socialism, sanctuary city policies, progressive taxation, and rent control. To them, Trump has complicated their messaging for the mid-terms. One conservative outlet captured the frustration perfectly: “Mamdani’s radical liberal base feels the exact same way” as disappointed conservatives—betrayed that their champion had made nice with the supposed enemy.
This fracturing poses a serious problem for Trump and the Republicans heading into 2026. Midterm elections typically see lower turnout, making base enthusiasm crucial. If ideological conservatives feel betrayed by Trump’s embrace of progressive mayors, tariff rollbacks, stimulus checks, and government drug price negotiations, they may lack motivation to vote. Yet if Trump doesn’t demonstrate tangible progress on affordability, swing voters will punish Republicans.
Trump is caught between two imperatives: maintaining ideological purity to energize his base, or demonstrating pragmatic flexibility to win back moderates. He’s chosen the latter, betting that results matter more than rhetoric.
Why the gamble matters
Trump’s affordability pivot represents more than tactical maneuvering before difficult midterms; it’s a battle for the soul of American populism. The central question is whether economic populism will be claimed by the left or right, and whether voters view Trump as champion or obstacle to relief.
The Trump-Mamdani dynamic reveals something profound about contemporary American politics: affordability has become the defining populist issue that cuts across traditional left-right divisions. Voters who want rent control, free buses, and city-run grocery stores may also support immigration crackdowns and “America First” trade policies, not out of ideological consistency, but out of desperation for economic relief from any source willing to deliver it.
This creates both opportunity and peril for Trump. If he can successfully position himself as the pragmatic populist who delivers results regardless of ideological constraints, he neutralizes Democrats’ most potent issue. He becomes the leader who rolled back his own tariffs, negotiated drug prices, sent stimulus checks, and even worked with democratic socialists, all in service of affordability.
But if affordability continues worsening while Trump publicly embraces progressive mayors and abandons conservative principles, he risks losing both his base and swing voters. He’ll be accused of selling out without delivering results, the worst possible outcome.
The results-oriented test
Ultimately, Trump is betting on a simple proposition: that voters care more about practical results than ideological purity. If grocery prices fall, if rent stabilizes, if Americans feel economic relief by Election Day 2026, Trump calculates that voters will credit him regardless of whether he achieved it through tariff rollbacks, Democratic legislation, or bipartisan cooperation with socialists.
It’s the ultimate expression of Trump’s transactional, results-oriented approach to politics. He’s asking voters: “Is your life more affordable than before?” If the answer is yes, he believes they won’t care about the methods or partnerships involved.
The risk is that no amount of political repositioning matters if the fundamentals don’t improve. Addressing deeply rooted affordability challenges requires more than executive orders and photo ops. Housing shortages stem from decades of underbuilding and restrictive zoning. Grocery prices reflect global commodity markets, supply chain dynamics, and climate impacts. Debt burdens result from stagnant wage growth and rising costs across all categories.
These problems don’t have quick fixes. They require sustained effort, difficult tradeoffs, and patience that the electoral cycle rarely provides. If Trump can’t deliver tangible improvements by November 2026, his affordability pivot will be remembered as desperate flailing rather than strategic brilliance.
Last word
At 39% approval with Democrats holding a 14-point congressional ballot advantage, Trump needs dramatic improvement to avoid catastrophic midterm losses. Republicans could lose the House majority and see their Senate margins shrink, transforming Trump’s presidency into a period of divided government characterized by investigations and legislative gridlock.
The 2026 midterms will answer a simple question: Can I afford to live in America?
Trump is betting everything that voters will credit him with trying to answer “yes,” even if it means working with his ideological opponents and abandoning some of his own policies. Whether that gamble succeeds or fails will determine not just control of Congress, but the future direction of American populism itself.