WASHINGTON, United States – President Donald Trump’s economic record faces growing scrutiny as voters prepare to choose members of Congress on November 3. Inflation remains above the Federal Reserve’s long-term target, gasoline prices have climbed sharply and recent wage data show that workers’ pay has not kept pace with consumer prices.
The latest figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show that consumer prices rose 3.7% in the year to September 2026. Prices also rose 0.6% from August to September. Gasoline drove much of that monthly increase, with prices jumping 9.1% during the month.
The figures give both parties material for their campaigns. Democrats can point to household costs and the recent fall in inflation-adjusted wages. Republicans can argue that economic performance depends on more than a single month of data and that their policies aim to strengthen domestic production and energy supply.
But the data do not support a simple claim that one policy caused all current price increases. Inflation reflects several forces, including energy markets, housing costs, supply conditions, consumer demand and government policy. The political debate is about how much responsibility the administration bears for those pressures and whether its policies will improve household finances.
Inflation has not stopped
Inflation measures how quickly prices rise. When the inflation rate slows, prices generally continue to increase, but at a slower pace. Prices fall only when the relevant price index declines.
That difference helps explain why many households may still feel squeezed even after inflation comes down from earlier peaks. Families do not pay last year’s prices. They pay today’s prices for groceries, rent, fuel, utilities and other essentials.
In September, the CPI rose 3.7% over 12 months, up from 3.4% in August. The monthly increase also accelerated, rising from 0.4% in August to 0.6% in September. Core CPI, which excludes food and energy, increased 2.6% over the year and 0.3% in September.
The pattern varied by category. Grocery prices were almost unchanged in September, with food at home falling 0.1% during the month. However, grocery prices remained 1.8% higher than a year earlier. Restaurant food prices rose 3.5% over the year.
■ Related News
Housing costs continued to rise, too. The shelter index increased 0.4% in September. Rent rose 0.2%, while owners’ equivalent rent increased 0.3%. These measures matter because housing takes up a large share of many household budgets.
The figures show why households may experience inflation differently. A family that spends a large share of its income on fuel may feel a sharper squeeze than one that drives less. Renters may face different pressures from homeowners, while people who buy more services may see a different pattern from those who spend more on goods.
Gasoline adds to household pressure
Energy prices were a major driver of the September increase. The BLS reported that its overall energy index rose 5.2% during the month. Gasoline prices increased 9.1% on a seasonally adjusted basis and were 34.2% higher than a year earlier.
Fuel prices can affect households in direct and indirect ways. Drivers pay more at the pump, while businesses may face higher transport and delivery costs. Those costs can put pressure on prices for other goods and services, although the size and timing of any effect vary.
The figures do not, by themselves, explain why gasoline prices rose. Fuel prices respond to crude oil markets, refinery capacity, seasonal demand, distribution costs, taxes and international events. A careful assessment of the administration’s energy policies must consider those factors rather than attribute every increase to a single decision.
For voters, the immediate issue is often practical: how much money remains after paying for fuel, food, housing and other necessities. Even if other parts of the economy perform well, a sudden rise in a regular expense can affect how people judge their finances.
Pay has not kept pace with prices
The latest real-earnings report adds to the pressure on the administration’s economic message. Average hourly earnings rose 3.0% from September 2025 to September 2026. But consumer prices increased 3.7% over the same period.
After adjusting for inflation, real average hourly earnings fell 0.7% over the year. Real average weekly earnings declined 0.1%. In September alone, real hourly and weekly earnings each fell 0.5% from August.
These figures measure the purchasing power of wages. When pay rises more slowly than prices, workers can afford less with each dollar of earnings, unless other income or changes in spending offset the difference.
The averages do not describe every worker. Individual results vary by industry, hours worked, benefits and wage growth. Some workers may have gained purchasing power, while others have lost ground. Still, the national figures show that average pay did not keep pace with consumer prices over the year to September.
That distinction matters in the campaign. A rising paycheck can look like progress, but the real test for household finances is what that paycheck can buy.
What voters say about the economy
Recent polling suggests that household costs are a major concern ahead of the midterms.
A Pew Research Center survey of 5,062 U.S. adults, conducted from September 28 to October 4, found that 73% were very concerned about the price of food and consumer goods. The same share were very concerned about gasoline and energy prices. Another 69% were very concerned about health care costs, while 66% expressed serious concern about housing costs.
The survey used Pew’s American Trends Panel, a nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults. It included online and telephone interviews. Pew reported a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 1.6 percentage points for the full sample. The results represent adults, not only registered or likely voters, so they should not be treated as a direct forecast of the election result.
The same survey found that 65% of adults believed Trump’s economic policies had made economic conditions worse. Nineteen percent said they had made conditions better, while 15% said they had not had much effect. Views differed sharply by party, although even Republicans had become less positive about the administration’s economic impact than earlier in the year.
These responses measure public opinion, not economic causation. A voter may blame the administration for prices because of personal experience, political identity or information received from others. The poll does not establish which policies caused the price changes.
Other polling points to affordability as an important election issue. The August 28-31 Reuters/Ipsos survey found that 47% of registered voters named the cost of living as the single most important factor in deciding their midterm vote. The survey included 1,167 U.S. adults aged 18 or older from a probability-based panel. Its registered-voter finding applies to that group, not automatically to all Americans.
Tariffs and the cost of imported goods
Trump’s tariff policy is one of the central disputes in the economic debate. The administration has presented tariffs as a way to support domestic industry, change trade relationships and strengthen the U.S. economic position. Critics argue that tariffs can raise costs for American businesses and consumers.
A tariff is a tax on imported goods. Importers pay the tax when covered goods enter the country. Businesses may absorb some of the cost, seek lower prices from suppliers, change where they buy products or pass some of the increase to customers.
The final effect depends on the product, the tariff rate, exchange rates, supply chains and how businesses respond. Tariffs do not raise every price by the same amount, and their effect can take time to reach consumers.
The Budget Lab at Yale University estimated in an August 24 analysis that the tariffs then in force could raise consumer prices by about 0.7% overall. It estimated an annual household cost of about $1,100 under current law. Those figures are model-based estimates, not direct measurements of every household’s spending. They depend on assumptions about the tariffs, business responses and the wider economy.
The estimates offer a way to assess the potential effect of tariffs, but they do not prove that tariffs explain the full rise in consumer prices. Energy costs, housing, services and other factors also affect inflation.
The administration’s argument rests partly on expected benefits to domestic producers and changes in trade patterns. Assessing those benefits requires looking at investment, jobs, output and prices across affected industries. It also requires considering costs to companies that depend on imported parts or materials.
The question for voters is not simply whether tariffs help or hurt. It is whether the overall gains outweigh the added costs, how those effects are distributed and whether consumers will see lasting benefits.
Energy policy and other causes of inflation
Energy prices are another point of political dispute. The administration can argue that policies supporting domestic production may help strengthen supply over time. Critics can point to current fuel costs and question whether policy changes have delivered the promised relief.
Neither position should be treated as proven by a single monthly price report. Gasoline prices reflect global oil prices, refining and distribution, seasonal changes, geopolitical events and domestic conditions. Government policy can influence some of these factors, but it does not control them all.
Housing costs also have several causes. They depend on supply, construction costs, local rules, mortgage rates, household formation and demand. Monetary policy affects borrowing costs, while local conditions shape how quickly new homes can enter the market.
The Federal Reserve sets monetary policy to support its goals for stable prices and maximum employment. It is separate from the White House. Interest-rate decisions can affect borrowing, spending and investment, but they work with delays and cannot quickly resolve every supply problem.
These factors make it difficult to assign the entire inflation rate to one president or one policy. A sound assessment must examine what changed, when it changed and how the effects compare with other influences.
The political arguments ahead of November 3
The midterm election gives voters a chance to assess the president’s party and the direction of federal policy. Republicans will seek to defend their record on growth, jobs, energy and trade. Democrats are likely to focus on the cost of living, purchasing power and the effects of administration policies on household budgets.
The economic data give both sides arguments, but they also impose limits. Rising nominal wages do not establish that households are better off if prices rise faster. Higher consumer prices do not prove that one policy caused the increase. Polls can show how people feel about the economy, but they cannot replace analysis of the underlying data.
The election will also depend on local conditions and the candidates in individual races. National polling cannot reliably predict every congressional contest. District-level results may reflect local industries, housing markets, candidate records and turnout as well as views of the national economy.
For that reason, the political effect of affordability concerns remains uncertain. The data establish that many households are worried about essential costs and that real wages fell over the year to September. They do not establish which party will win control of Congress.
What the evidence says — and what remains uncertain
The latest official figures show that prices rose faster in September than in August. Gasoline prices climbed sharply, and average inflation-adjusted hourly earnings fell over the year. Polling shows widespread concern about household costs and more negative public views of Trump’s economic policies.
Those findings support the conclusion that affordability is a serious political challenge for the administration before the midterms. They do not settle the larger debate over the causes of inflation or the long-term impact of tariffs and energy policy.
A fuller judgment requires more than a snapshot. It should track prices and real wages over several months, examine changes in household expenses, and compare the effects of policy with wider economic conditions.
For voters, the practical test is whether income can cover essential costs. For policymakers, the challenge is to improve purchasing power without creating new pressures on prices, jobs or growth. For candidates, the question is whether their proposals can deliver measurable relief.
As November 3 approaches, affordability is likely to remain a central test of the administration’s economic record. The outcome will depend not only on national trends, but also on how voters weigh their own finances, their expectations and the competing promises of the parties.
Reporting Credit: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics — October 14, 2026, Consumer Price Index and Real Earnings releases for September 2026, including inflation, gasoline prices, household expense categories and inflation-adjusted wages. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis — August 2026 Personal Income and Outlays release, published September 30, 2026, for personal income, spending and the Personal Consumption Expenditures price index. Pew Research Center — October 8, 2026, survey of 5,062 U.S. adults on economic conditions, household costs and views of President Donald Trump’s economic policies; field dates September 28–October 4 and reported margin of sampling error of ±1.6 percentage points. Ipsos — August 31, 2026, Reuters/Ipsos poll on cost-of-living concerns among registered voters, fielded August 28–31 among 1,167 U.S. adults. The Budget Lab at Yale University — August 24, 2026, model-based estimate of the consumer-price and household-cost effects of tariffs under current law.
