Trump's Working-Class Base Faces Economic Hardship from Administration Policies

newrepublic.com/article/197396/mind-boggling-trump-voters-shocked-badly-he-screwing

Revised Article

Growing evidence suggests that President Trump's core supporters are experiencing significant negative impacts from his major policy initiatives, particularly his comprehensive budget legislation and trade policies. Recent polling data indicates substantial opposition even among Trump's traditional base, with a Fox News poll showing that a majority of white men without college degrees - described as 'the heart of Trump's base' - oppose the administration's legislative package.

The budget bill, known as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' became law on July 4, 2025, after a contentious congressional process. The legislation includes approximately $930 billion in Medicaid cuts, creating divisions within the Republican Party. Senator Jim Justice of West Virginia expressed discomfort with the reductions, while dozens of House Republicans opposed the package due to concerns about both deficit impacts and the steep cuts to safety-net programs. The Congressional Budget Office projects the legislation will add $2.8 trillion to the deficit over ten years.

Trump's trade policies have also created economic hardship for his supporters. Tariffs on Chinese goods reached 145% after April 2025, contributing to a stock market crash that month. Additional 25% tariffs were imposed on goods from Canada, Mexico, and on steel, aluminum, and automotive products globally, though some exemptions were later granted for USMCA-compliant goods.

Senator Mitch McConnell reportedly acknowledged privately that many Republicans are receiving significant criticism from constituents about the Medicaid cuts, suggesting they would 'get over it.' Trump's own polling data indicates his voters are feeling betrayed by policies that disproportionately impact working-class communities. The combination of reduced healthcare access through Medicaid cuts and increased costs from tariffs has created a particularly challenging situation for Trump's working-class base, according to economist Jared Bernstein's analysis.

Missing Context & Misinformation 6

  • The 'One Big Beautiful Bill' referenced became law on July 4, 2025, after passing Congress on July 3 following six hours of filibustering. The Congressional Budget Office projected it would add approximately $2.8 trillion to the deficit over ten years.
  • The Medicaid cuts in Trump's legislation amount to approximately $930 billion, with some Republican senators like John Cornyn pushing for an additional $313 billion in cuts that failed to gain support.
  • Senator Jim Justice of West Virginia expressed discomfort with further Medicaid reductions, stating the cuts had been taken 'as far as I'm comfortable taking it,' indicating Republican divisions on the issue.
  • Dozens of House Republicans opposed Trump's comprehensive bill, including both fiscal hawks worried about deficit impacts and vulnerable centrists concerned about steep Medicaid cuts in the Senate version.
  • Trump's tariff policies have created significant economic disruption, with baseline tariffs on Chinese imports reaching 145% after April 9, 2025, contributing to a stock market crash in April 2025.
  • The tariff escalation includes a 25% tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico, though indefinite exemptions were later granted for USMCA-compliant goods, and a 25% tariff on steel, aluminum, and automotive products from all countries.

Disinformation & Lies 2

  • No verifiably false statements were identified that contradict available information through July 2025.

Bias 4

The article contains clear bias against Trump and his policies, using loaded language like 'getting shafted,' 'mind-boggling,' and 'horrified.' However, this bias serves a useful purpose by highlighting genuine concerns about policy impacts on working-class voters. The emotional language helps convey the severity of the situation that neutral language might understate. The bias is somewhat warranted given the cited polling data and expert analysis, though the tone is more inflammatory than necessary. The article would benefit from more balanced language while retaining its critical perspective on policy impacts.