As the daughter of a blue-collar family from the predominantly lower-middle-class village of Waterford, New York, I’ve shared economic concerns with the working and middle classes my whole life. I understand the frustration of many workers who feel the United States economy has failed them; however, President Donald Trump’s administration will not ease economic tensions.
The economy was the top issue influencing votes in the 2024 presidential election. Post-pandemic inflation rates reached a four-decade high in 2022, with many Americans still feeling these effects on their gas, grocery, and housing bills. And while inflation has steadily dropped in the past year (reaching 3.3% at the time of this article), turnout says voters think Trump’s policies will alleviate their financial stress.
It’s hard to believe a Trump presidency won’t overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy, especially after billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos gained billions overnight after Trump’s November win. This was partly due to the uptick in the stock market, driven by the expectations of Trump’s pro-business laws and corporate tax cuts, which some argue benefit everybody—not just the wealthy—by contributing to Americans’ 401(k) retirement plans. However, this doesn’t account for nearly half of Americans who don’t have retirement plans—of whom, of course, the majority are low-wage workers.
Trump’s only consistent proposal is permanently implementing his first-term income tax cuts—changes to tax codes that reduce the amount of tax people have to pay—which expire in 2025. Critics have warned that these tax cuts, which will total $7.5 trillion over the next decade, would be extremely unaffordable as they reduce government revenue and result in inflation. If Trump makes these provisions permanent, over 45% of the benefits will go to the highest-income households, with those making around $450,000 or more considered “the biggest winners.”
To put this into perspective, those in the top 1%—making at least $1 million and paying a 30% tax rate—would receive a tax cut of about $70,000, or 3.2% of their after-tax income in 2027. On the other hand, middle-income households earning $65,000 to $116,000, with a 14% tax rate, would only receive a $1,000 tax break, which is 1.3% of their income.
Even for the working and middle-class families who receive financial benefits from his 2017 tax policies, sources have reported that those benefits will be diminished by his other policies, like Trump’s newly proposed no-tax-on-tips policy and his tax-free social security promises.
Furthermore, during his presidential campaign this past year, Trump said imposing tariffs on surrounding nations for products like cars, furniture, and toys would fix America’s debt. However, many economists have reported that it would have the opposite effect, raising the national debt by billions of dollars and increasing consumer prices, as manufacturers pass the cost to consumers by raising the prices of goods to make a profit.
Trump backtracked on his initial promises after his election to his second presidential term. In two December interviews with NBC and Time Magazine, Trump admitted that he couldn’t guarantee that the cost of living would not be higher because of tariffs and that lowering the prices of groceries would be a “very hard task.”
To make matters worse, economists predict that grocery prices will only continue to rise as countries like Mexico, Turkey, Canada, and Russia impose retaliatory tariffs against the U.S., resembling their reaction to Trump’s first round of tariffs in 2018. As a result, the average American will face increased costs for necessities, paying nearly $3,000 more yearly for groceries—the very thing their votes aimed to prevent.
The Trump administration’s immigration policies will also have substantial financial impacts on the U.S. Trump’s unwavering commitment to deport immigrants is reflected in a multi-billion dollar plan through taxpayer funds that strain the economy, according to Laura Collins, an immigration policy expert with the George W. Bush Institute.
Immigrants make up a large portion of the blue-collar jobs in America, especially in the construction and agriculture industries, which are already facing employment shortages. Trump’s deportation plan lacks the infrastructure to keep these industries afloat after removing much of its labor force. As these industries lose workers, productivity will drop massively, and market prices will rise as employers raise wages to attract U.S. citizens to fill these job openings.
The job market “remains strong by historic standards,” according to NBC News, despite slower hiring rates post-pandemic. Despite this, Trump has argued that imposing tariffs on surrounding nations and deporting immigrants will create more jobs for the U.S. However, a study on Trump’s 2018 tariffs found that increasing tariffs negatively affected lower-skilled job postings—including those in fishing, forestry, farming, and construction—due to companies that relied on imported goods having to downsize and close.
I find these potential effects on the trades to be extremely worrisome. Instead of mass deportations, Trump should focus on raising the minimum wage and implementing labor standards, including overtime pay, to help improve American worker wages and attract more people to these jobs.
Many labor unions fear that Trump’s appointed labor board could overrule many of Biden’s past pro-union policies, including one that made forming a union easier if employers make a fair election impossible. These concerns stem from his actions during his first term in 2018, when he signed executive orders that weakened labor unions’ ability to negotiate contracts and shortened the time union representatives could dedicate to helping members with their complaints.
This is particularly problematic for union workers post-pandemic because unions fight for better wages and for the ability of workers to continue working remotely from home, which Trump ended for federal workers on Monday after signing an executive order. This unexpected shift would lead to many union workers paying more for childcare and transportation, even though there is little to suggest that working remotely from home leads to a significant decline in productivity.
Using Trump’s first term as a guide, many experts predict that Trump will “ease up on enforcing safety rules, narrow eligibility for overtime pay and make it harder for gig workers to gain status as employees,” according to The New York Times. These proposed changes will unfairly aggravate conditions for middle and working-class workers, leading to stagnant wage growth and thus contributing to the wage gap in America.
Trump’s promise to abolish the Department of Education will also disproportionately affect working and middle-class families. It is well-documented that communities with more low-income families and people of color typically receive less funding for school programs, which results in lower test scores and affects college admission rates. Trump’s ability to completely eradicate the department is extremely slim. Doing so would require congressional approval and an unlikely supermajority of 60 votes in the Senate. However, the proposal to alter these programs would highly threaten the education of average Americans.
The Department of Education administers federal grant programs, including the $18.4 billion Title I program, which funds high-poverty public schools; the $1.6 trillion federal student loan program, which helps students receive higher education; and Pell grants, which help low-income students attend college. While these programs could be moved to other agencies, the mere possibility of losing them is distressing for individuals like me and my community members who rely on Pell grants and federal student loans to attend college.
While it remains uncertain how exactly the president will enact these policies, the belief that they will benefit the average American isn’t entirely true. The effects of these policies will compound over time but disproportionately affect the most vulnerable populations first, highlighting why it is essential to think critically about a presidential nominee’s policies. The warning signs of his policies were always there, which is why it is so saddening to see middle-class families and blue-collar workers believe in Trump’s rhetoric anyway.
