Rising Costs, Diminishing Confidence: How Economic Anxiety is Shaping the 2026 Midterms

WASHINGTON — As the United States barrels toward a high-stakes congressional midterm election, a pervasive cloud of economic anxiety has settled over the American electorate. With household budgets stretched thin by the relentless creep of inflation and global geopolitical shocks rippling through domestic markets, public sentiment regarding the national economy has plunged to some of the lowest marks recorded during President Donald Trump’s second term.

According to a comprehensive new nationwide survey conducted by the Pew Research Center between September 28 and October 4, 2026, Americans are increasingly consumed by the rising costs of basic daily necessities. The poll, which surveyed 5,062 U.S. adults drawn from the Center’s nationally representative American Trends Panel, reveals a stark disconnect between Washington’s policy rhetoric and the kitchen-table realities faced by millions of citizens.

The findings paint a complex political and financial portrait: while cost-of-living concerns dominate across the ideological spectrum, foundational confidence in national economic management is eroding—not just among political opponents, but increasingly within the president’s own party.

Main Facts: A Sour Mood and Skyrocketing Costs

At the core of the Pew Research Center’s findings is a notable downturn in general economic evaluations. Only 21% of U.S. adults currently describe national economic conditions as either "excellent" or "good." This represents a noticeable decline from the 28% who felt similarly at the outset of 2026, placing public sentiment near the trough of Trump’s current administration. Conversely, 37% of Americans view the economy as "only fair," while a substantial 42% bluntly categorize conditions as "poor."

Driving this pessimism is a sharp spike in anxiety over specific consumer costs, most notably energy and fuel.

• Gasoline and Energy: A striking 74% of Americans report being "very concerned" about the price of gas and energy. This figure represents a massive surge from the 60% recorded in July 2026, and nearly doubles the 43% who expressed extreme concern back in January, prior to the outbreak of military hostilities between the United States and Iran.
• Food and Household Goods: Day-to-day survival expenses remain a persistent pressure point. Roughly 73% of adults are deeply worried about the price of food and everyday consumer items—a level of concern virtually unchanged from the peaks seen during the height of post-pandemic inflation cycles.
• Housing and Healthcare: Long-term structural expenses continue to weigh heavily. Two-thirds of Americans (66%) express intense concern over the escalating cost of housing, while 69% are deeply worried about healthcare expenditures.
• The Labor Market and Emerging Tech: While job scarcity has historically ranked lower on the public’s worry list, anxiety has crept upward. Today, 48% of Americans are very concerned about job seekers being unable to find employment, up from 44% in July and just 29% in October 2022. Furthermore, half of the public (50%) reports being heavily concerned about the disruptive economic role and displacement potential of artificial intelligence (AI).
• Wall Street vs. Main Street: Illustrating the deep chasm between financial markets and everyday survival, only 21% of Americans say they are very concerned about the performance of the stock market.

Chronology: The Trajectory of Economic Sentiment in Trump’s Second Term

To understand how the American economic psyche arrived at this juncture, it is helpful to examine the chronological progression of public opinion over the past several years:

• Late 2024 to Early 2025 (The Handover and Initial Optimism): Following Donald Trump’s return to the White House, economic optimism experienced an initial post-election bump driven largely by Republican expectations. In February 2025, 40% of Americans expected conditions to improve over the coming year, and 73% of Republicans expressed high confidence in future economic growth.
• Mid-2025 (The Reality Check): By April and September of 2025, early enthusiasm began to wane. Pessimism regarding inflation and the administration’s early legislative packages pushed the share of those expecting worse conditions up to 45%–46%.
• January 2026 (A Brief Interlude): Entering 2026, positive economic evaluations ticked up slightly to 28%, bolstered by a brief period of market stability. However, underlying anxieties regarding the cost of living remained structurally high.
• Spring to Summer 2026 (Geopolitical Shocks): A major inflection point occurred mid-year following direct U.S. military conflict with Iran. Global energy markets shuddered, driving domestic gasoline prices upward. Consequently, "very concerned" ratings regarding energy spiked from 43% in January to 60% by July.
• September – October 2026 (The Pre-Midterm Crunch): Just one month out from the congressional midterms, overall economic ratings hit a low point for the year (21% positive). Disillusionment spread from a deeply entrenched Democratic opposition into the ranks of the Republican base, culminating in widespread skepticism over tariffs and administration policies.

Supporting Data: Partisan Divides and Policy Perceptions

While cost-of-living anxieties affect households regardless of political affiliation, partisan lenses dramatically color how Americans interpret the causes and cures of their economic distress.

The Partisan Gap in Concerns

Democrats consistently express higher levels of acute anxiety than Republicans across nearly every tracked metric. For instance:

• Gasoline and Energy: 81% of Democrats/leaners are very concerned, compared with 65% of Republicans/leaners.
• Food and Consumer Goods: 82% of Democrats express deep concern, versus 62% of Republicans.
• Housing and Healthcare: 76% of Democrats worry about housing costs (vs. 53% of Republicans), and 80% worry about healthcare (vs. 57% of Republicans).

Despite these gaps, clear majorities within both parties classify everyday living costs as major crises, highlighting an area of cross-partisan economic pain that transcends standard political polarization.

Shifting Views on Presidential Policies

The survey uncovers a significant evolution in how the public—and particularly Republicans—evaluates the macroeconomic policies of the Trump administration.

When asked about the overall impact of Trump’s economic policies since taking office, 65% of all Americans say his policies have made economic conditions worse, compared to just 19% who say they made things better (with 15% reporting no major effect). These numbers represent a worsening trend for the administration since July, when 60% said policies had worsened conditions.

Crucially, Republican support is showing cracks:

• While 39% of Republicans still maintain that Trump’s policies have improved the economy, a striking 35% now say his policies have actually hurt the economy—a notable increase from just 18% in January 2026.
• Another 25% of Republicans feel the administration’s actions have not had much of an effect.
• Meanwhile, opposition among Democrats remains near-universal, with 91% stating that Trump’s policies have worsened economic conditions.

The Verdict on Tariffs

A central pillar of the administration’s economic strategy—aggressive tariff deployment—faces overwhelming public skepticism. By a margin of nearly three-to-one, Americans view the administration’s tariff policies as having a predominantly negative (56%) rather than positive (20%) effect on the country over the coming years, while 22% expect a mixed impact.

Even among Republicans, enthusiasm for tariffs has noticeably cooled. Only 40% of Republicans now view the tariffs as mostly positive, down from 52% in August 2025 and 49% in January 2026. Conversely, the share of Republicans who view tariff policies as mostly negative has climbed to 26%, up from 17% earlier in the year. Among Democrats, 83% view the trade policies as mostly negative.

Official Responses and Political Implications

The release of the Pew Research Center data serves as an ominous backdrop for incumbent lawmakers heading into the final sprint of the 2026 midterm campaigns. With economic management traditionally serving as a referendum on the party in power, the administration and its congressional allies face a steep uphill battle in convincing voters that their financial strategies are delivering results.

Defenders of the administration have pointed to underlying resilient sectors of commerce, structural manufacturing investments, and national security imperatives as necessary justifications for trade protections and energy interventions. Administration officials argue that short-term price volatility—particularly in global energy markets—is a temporary byproduct of necessary geopolitical postures and long-term domestic industrial revitalization. They contend that aggressive trade measures are vital to shielding American workers from unfair foreign competition and securing economic independence over the next decade.

Conversely, opposition leaders and independent economic analysts have seized upon the survey data to argue that protectionist trade policies and regulatory missteps are directly compounding inflation, punishing middle-class consumers at the gas pump and the grocery store checkout. Democratic strategists argue that the data reflects a profound yearning for economic stability and lower domestic costs—themes that are central to their midterm messaging.

Furthermore, political scientists note that the erosion of positive economic evaluations among the president’s own base could depress enthusiastic voter turnout or complicate down-ballot races for Republican candidates. When a third of the ruling party’s own adherents openly state that administration policies are damaging the broader economy, the traditional armor of partisan loyalty begins to fracture.

Implications: Navigating the Road Ahead

As the nation looks beyond the immediate horizon of the upcoming congressional elections, the implications of these public sentiment surveys extend far beyond immediate ballot box calculations.

1. Monetary and Fiscal Pressures: The persistent fixation on daily survival costs suggests that macroeconomic indicators—such as gross domestic product (GDP) growth or stock market records—will hold little sway over public contentment if inflation in core sectors like energy, housing, and food remains stubbornly high. Policymakers on both sides of the aisle will face intense constituent pressure to craft targeted relief measures.
2. The Future of Trade Policy: The measurable cooling of Republican enthusiasm for tariffs indicates that trade protectionism is no longer a monolith within conservative politics. If cost-of-living pressures continue to be explicitly linked by voters to tariff policies, future legislative and executive trade strategies may face stiffer bipartisan resistance.
3. Technological Disruption Anxiety: The emergence of artificial intelligence as a top-tier economic worry (cited by 50% of the public) signals a fundamental shift in how Americans view labor security. As AI integration accelerates across industries, future electoral cycles will likely be defined not just by traditional inflation, but by widespread anxiety over automation and workforce displacement.

Ultimately, the Pew Research Center survey delivers an unvarnished message from the American public: the psychological weight of everyday expenses is dictating the national mood. Whether lawmakers can effectively address these foundational cost-of-living concerns will determine not only the outcome of the impending midterms, but the economic trajectory of the nation for the remainder of the decade.