Source : INDIA TODAY NEWS
The 2026 US midterm elections, which were seen as a litmus test of Donald Trump’s policies amid growing economic concerns, dealt his presidency one of its biggest political blows. The Democrats have won both Houses of the US Congress. They have secured a 54-44 win in the Senate and captured at least 30 new seats in the House of Representatives.
advertisement
According to the latest count, Democrats lead 240-147 in the House of Representatives, but there are some races that are yet to be counted. This provides Democrats a strong ground to fight against the policies of President Trump and even question the legitimacy of his administration. The midterms have been a total disaster for the Republican leader.
GOP leaders, including US Vice President JD Vance, were quick to throw Trump under the bus, saying his war in Iran and US policy on Israel were big reasons why even many Republicans turned out to vote against them.
Is that the only reason why Trump lost control of Congress? The answer is a straight no.
But the more revealing question is not simply why Republicans lost. It is why voters who had supported Trump and the Republican Party just two years ago decided to punish them this time.
Ted Cruz, the Republican senator from Texas, cited research from the Georgetown Blood and Plasma Research Group. On X, he wrote, “Americans made more than 75 million paid plasma donations in 2026. That’s another record. That means 200,000 Americans every single day, with a needle in their arm, just to pay for groceries.”
He pointed to a problem that Republicans could not escape during the midterms, i.e., Americans were feeling the squeeze in their daily lives. And that is where Trump’s economic policies, particularly his sweeping tariff strategy, enter the picture.
TRUMP’S TARIFF WAR
Trump returned to the White House on January 20, 2025, and vowed to put “America First” on his agenda. Only week later, he launched a full-blown tariff war. On April 2, 2025, he announced reciprocal tariffs, imposing baseline 10 per cent tariffs on products imported from other countries, contending that foreign countries have been exploiting America for decades.
Trump’s gamble was sold to Americans as a way to make foreign countries pay and protect US market. But research from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy says the opposite happened. American consumers and businesses absorbed almost all of the tariff burden.
That makes India particularly relevant. The Trump administration initially set a 26 per cent reciprocal tariff on Indian goods. Later they revising it to 25 per cent. Then, in August, Trump added another 25 per cent levy over India’s continued purchases of Russian oil, pushing total US duties on many Indian imports to 50 per cent.
A REFERENDUM ON THE COST OF LIVING
To millions of ordinary Americans, the increased cost of living, tight budgets, and cost of basic necessities were more important than the Republican party’s message, which was discredited in the mid-term elections.
The Republican Party did not lose because Americans suddenly stopped voting. In fact, Cruz made that point himself in a remarkable post-election assessment. He said that Republican voters, independents and libertarians had turned out but rejected GOP candidates.
The problem, as Cruz acknowledged, was not simply mobilisation. It was persuasion. Republicans failed to convince enough voters that the economy was working for them.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in the days before the election found that 48 per cent of registered voters identified the cost of living as the biggest issue influencing their vote. Democratic norms ranked second at 26 per cent, while immigration stood at 13 per cent.
Another finding was even more damaging for Trump. Nearly half — 49 per cent — said their household finances had deteriorated since Trump returned to office in January 2025. Only 13 per cent said their finances had improved, while 37 per cent said they were roughly unchanged.
Among Hispanic voters, the picture was even worse for Republicans: 54 per cent said their household finances had deteriorated, compared with only 10 per cent who said they had improved.
That is toxic territory for a president whose political identity is heavily built around economic strength. Trump had repeatedly asked voters to treat the midterms as a referendum on him.
They did. But the results were not in his favour.
TARIFF PROMISE COLLIDED WITH THE GROCERY BILL
Trump’s tariff strategy was built on a straightforward logic: make imported goods more expensive, pressure foreign countries to change their trade practices, and encourage production inside America.
The problem is that tariffs do not disappear simply because Washington labels them a foreign penalty. A tariff is collected by US customs when goods enter the country. The immediate importer pays it. That cost can then be absorbed, passed through supply chains or reflected in the final price paid by consumers.
Research by the Kiel Institute provides a particularly stark picture of what happened under Trump’s tariff regime.
The institute analysed more than 25 million shipment records, covering almost USD 4 trillion worth of US imports. The researchers found out that foreign exporters absorbed only about 4 per cent of the tariff burden, which means roughly 96 per cent was passed through to US buyers.
According to credit rating agency ICRA, major US retailers were hit by sharply higher wholesale costs for everyday cotton apparel, ready-made garments and home linens. The pressure was particularly significant because the US relies on India for roughly a third of its imported textiles. The impact was also felt in the jewellery market. As per the Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council (GJEPC), American jewellers faced higher prices for polished diamonds and fine gold jewellery, with India accounting for nearly 90 per cent of the world’s diamond polishing.
In the grocery and dining sectors, imported frozen shrimp, Basmati rice and spices also saw sharp increases in retail prices, according to trade data. The tariffs also filtered into the auto repair market. The Automotive Component Manufacturers Association of India (ACMA) highlighted higher input costs for engine parts, castings and replacement components in the US.
However, US customs revenue increased by about USD 200 billion in 2025. But that did not mean Americans were receiving a free economic benefit.
The tariff effectively behaved like a consumption tax.
INDIA BECAME PART OF THE EXPERIMENT
This is where India’s role in the story becomes difficult to ignore. In August 2025, Washington sharply increased tariffs on Indian imports, taking the rate from 25 per cent to 50 per cent.
Did Indian exporters simply slash their prices to absorb the additional cost? No. Instead, shipments to the US fell sharply, said Kiel Institute.
They sold less. If foreign exporters do not absorb the cost, the tariff does not magically become somebody else’s problem.
It works its way through the American economy. Importers pay more. Businesses face higher costs. Supply chains adjust. Product availability can narrow. And consumers ultimately encounter higher prices.
TARIFFS ACTUALLY COST REPUBLICANS THE ELECTION?
The election was clearly driven by a much broader collection of grievances. Cruz’s own breakdown of Kansas voting provides a revealing snapshot.
He said cost of living, energy and groceries were the top issue for 30.6 per cent of voters there. Corruption followed at 18.5 per cent, while the cost of the Iran war accounted for 10.1 per cent.
That hierarchy tells the story. Americans were not necessarily walking into polling booths thinking about war or Israel.
They were thinking about groceries. They were thinking about fuel. They were thinking about insurance. They were thinking about whether their paycheque could keep up.
And tariffs became part of that larger economic equation.
MIDTERM REFERENDUM BACKFIRED FOR GOP
Trump’s strategy was to make himself the central figure in the election. That was not necessarily a bad calculation. Presidents often try to nationalise midterm elections because voters are otherwise more likely to focus on local candidates and issues.
But it carries an obvious risk. If voters are unhappy, making the election a referendum on the president gives them a clear target.
The president had effectively asked voters to judge his record.
They did.
And the cost of living, affordability and the economy became the measuring stick.
– Ends
SOURCE :- TIMES OF INDIA
