| “They helped” | “They hurt” | “No difference” | |
|---|---|---|---|
| African American | 4% | 86% | 10% |
| Under 30 years old | 7% | 78% | 15% |
| California | 9% | 73% | 18% |
| Women | 16% | 68% | 20% |
| National | 14% | 64% | 22% |
| Ohioans | 16% | 62% | 22% |
| Texas | 16% | 61% | 22% |
| White non-Hispanic | 16% | 60% | 24% |
| Kansas | 19% | 59% | 22% |
| Florida | 24% | 60% | 15% |
* 2026 “Voter Poll” via CNN. Longer list of state results and demographics below.
WHAT THEY MEAN:
From PPI’s post-election trade policy essay, “End of an Error”:
“In the Biblical Book of Daniel, the mysterious writing on the wall conveys an ominous message to Babylon’s King Belshazzar:
“God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; you have been weighed in the balance and found wanting; your kingdom is divided and given to [others].”
“The public’s message to Mr. Trump in last month’s election was just about as blunt. Two years into the first U.S. general tariff increase since Herbert Hoover’s in 1930, American family budgets are stressed, workers’ real wages down, farm and factory competitiveness eroded, and America’s worldwide power and reputation diminished; but the reindustrialization’ and ‘new golden age’ he promised as compensation are nowhere in sight. Having weighed his policies and found them wanting, voters have given much of his power to others.”
Some statistics to illustrate the breadth of this verdict, then ideas for how the new Members of Congress might implement it:
Data: Last week’s “Voter Poll,” a seven-network October/November poll of 80,000 voters in 45 states, found 14% of voters believing the Trump administration’s tariffs had ‘helped’ their local economy, and 64% that the tariffs had “hurt.” (The remaining 22% chose “no impact”.) By state, the lowest “helped” responses were below 10% in three New England states, California, and Hawaii, while in nine states the “tariffs hurt the local economy” share topped 70%. The highest “helped” response was 32% in Idaho — but even there Mr. Trump’s tariffs were twenty points “underwater,” with 52% of Idahoans thinking they had hurt. States with especially high-profile Senate and Governor elections this fall — Texas, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia — almost exactly mirrored the national 14% “help,” 64% “hurt” split. (Full state list below.) From a demographic perspective, 4% of African American voters thought the tariffs had “helped,” against 86% “hurt.” Young voters under thirty were almost equally put off, with 7% choosing “helped” and 78% “hurt.” Among the least negative respondents, “white voters with no college degree,” 20% thought tariffs had helped while 51% thought they had hurt.
The incoming Congress, then, needs no one so learned as the Biblical Daniel to decipher the voters’ tariff message: “Stop it.” PPI’s essay offers ideas as they get started. Here’s the three-point précis:
1. Repair the Constitution and restore the separation of powers: First and most important, Congress should repair the harm Mr. Trump’s attempts to create new tariff systems by decree have done to the separation of powers. This entails revising “Section 232,” “Section 301,” etc., of U.S. trade law — the mostly archaic statutes the administration has used as foundations for its tariff decrees — by requiring a Congressional vote of approval for any future use of these laws to impose tariffs, and repealing some obviously dated or unnecessary laws.
2. Use tariff policy to make things cheaper, not more expensive: Having campaigned on affordability, Congress can now act on it. By repealing the tariff decrees that have driven up both consumer prices and business and farming costs over the past two years, it can remove inflationary pressure from the economy and ease costs for consumer goods, goods-intensive industry, and sectors such as home construction and auto insurance where tariffs indirectly push costs up. These would include the tariffs on metals, autos, and lumber, the “Section 301” tariffs meant to replace last year’s illegal “IEEPA” tariffs, etc. Special priority should go to ending the crisis Mr. Trump has created for rural America, both through unprovoked trade conflicts with neighbors Canada and Mexico and through the tariff hikes – mostly, though not only, the Section 232 “national security” tariffs applied to metals, agricultural equipment and tools, and wood – that have done most to drive up farming costs. Looking further ahead, it should begin a review of the “MFN” tariff system, with a view to modernizing it by purging out regressivity and gender bias.
3. Return to the world: Finally, start developing a new program for the next administration. The core here is to drop the unwarranted pessimism and gloom of the last decade’s trade policies — whether the leftish “post-neoliberalism” of the Biden White House or Mr. Trump’s far-right “national conservatism” — and replace them with confidence and aspiration. As the essay points out, U.S. weaknesses are certainly real and need policies that remedy them. But Americans have far more strengths than weaknesses — top-tier aerospace, medical, and agricultural industries, a role as the center of digital technology and of worldwide popular arts and culture, military alliances with the world’s industrial democracies, a flexible political system that can learn and reject bad ideas, etc. — and should take advantage of them. Detailed objectives should come from discussion and consensus-building within the U.S. and with friends overseas, but top-tier goals ought to include stabilizing and rebuilding economic relationships with allies and neighbors; restoring America’s role as a supporter of poverty alleviation, public health, and development in smaller and poorer countries; re-engaging on digital policy, including promoting appropriate and impartial taxation and regulation, and addressing common threats from child protection to cybersecurity and disinformation.
PPI’s four principles for response to tariffs and economic isolationism:
From Daniel 5 (KJV), the “writing on the wall.”
PPI’s “End of An Error” reviews the Trump record and looks ahead.
And the public view:
The seven-network Voter Poll surveys 80,000 voters in 45 states (all but Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah, and Washington), and “demographics” including age, race and ethnicity, gender, and (for white respondents only) education. Their findings:
| “Helped” | “Hurt” | “No Difference” | |
|---|---|---|---|
| National | 14% | 64% | 22% |
| Race & Ethnicity | |||
| African American | 4% | 86% | 10% |
| White | 16% | 60% | 24% |
| … White college | 12% | 69% | 19% |
| … White non-college | 20% | 51% | 28% |
| Hispanic | 12% | 71% | 17% |
| Male & Female | |||
| Women | 11% | 68% | 20% |
| Men | 18% | 59% | 23% |
| Youth & Age | |||
| 18–29 years | 7% | 78% | 15% |
| Over 65 | 18% | 58% | 24% |
| State by State | |||
| Alabama | 27% | 60% | 13% |
| Alaska | 31% | 56% | 13% |
| Arizona | 17% | 60% | 22% |
| Arkansas | 20% | 53% | 26% |
| California | 9% | 73% | 18% |
| Colorado | 10% | 71% | 19% |
| Connecticut | 17% | 71% | 10% |
| Delaware | 19% | 71% | 8% |
| Florida | 24% | 60% | 15% |
| Georgia | 16% | 63% | 21% |
| Hawaii | 9% | 82% | 9% |
| Idaho | 32% | 52% | 16% |
| Illinois | 12% | 66% | 22% |
| Indiana | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Iowa | 16% | 63% | 21% |
| Kansas | 19% | 59% | 22% |
| Kentucky | 25% | 57% | 17% |
| Louisiana | 21% | 53% | 25% |
| Maine | 9% | 71% | 19% |
| Maryland | 10% | 72% | 18% |
| Massachusetts | 7% | 72% | 20% |
| Michigan | 14% | 65% | 20% |
| Minnesota | 14% | 65% | 22% |
| Mississippi | 17% | 57% | 25% |
| Missouri | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Montana | 25% | 55% | 20% |
| Nebraska | 18% | 58% | 23% |
| Nevada | 15% | 62% | 23% |
| New Hampshire | 13% | 63% | 23% |
| New Jersey | 17% | 69% | 13% |
| New Mexico | 13% | 68% | 19% |
| New York | 11% | 67% | 22% |
| North Carolina | 17% | 63% | 20% |
| North Dakota | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Ohio | 16% | 62% | 22% |
| Oklahoma | 21% | 56% | 23% |
| Oregon | 11% | 66% | 23% |
| Pennsylvania | 14% | 66% | 20% |
| Rhode Island | 10% | 72% | 17% |
| South Carolina | 18% | 57% | 24% |
| South Dakota | 21% | 52% | 27% |
| Tennessee | 22% | 54% | 17% |
| Texas | 16% | 61% | 22% |
| Utah | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Vermont | 10% | 72% | 18% |
| Virginia | 13% | 64% | 23% |
| Washington | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| West Virginia | 18% | 53% | 29% |
| Wisconsin | 16% | 61% | 23% |
| Wyoming | 20% | 43% | 26% |
Read the full email and sign up for the Trade Fact of the Week.
