Majorities of American citizens blame the Iran war and trade tariffs for high prices, but the structure of executive power will prevent an immediate shift in Trump's policies.
According to Atlas Diplomacy, an commentary piece titled "American Voters' Anger
Over the Iran War and Tariffs: Why the Midterms Won't Bring Quick Change" by Heather Hurlburt has been published by Chatham House. Examining the direct link between American economic discontent and Donald Trump's aggressive foreign policy, the piece analyzes the legal and political constraints facing the next Congress in halting the war with Iran and repealing tariffs. A summary of the piece follows below.
Ahead of the November 3 midterm elections, American voters are deeply angry about economic conditions and inflation, directly linking their cost-of-living struggles to the international policies of the Donald Trump administration. According to an August survey, 75 percent of Americans worry about being able to afford everyday goods, and 83 percent of those worried say trade tariffs have driven up prices—with three in four voters stating that tariffs will influence their vote. At the same time, majorities of citizens are angry about the war with Iran, which has driven up living costs, and say that even ending the war before the elections would not make them view the ruling party more favorably.
The last time foreign policy loomed this large over a midterm election was in 2006 amid setbacks in the Iraq war; yet just as George W. Bush responded to electoral defeat by adopting the more aggressive "surge" strategy in 2007, Trump's statements and the deployment of 9,000 additional troops to the region indicate that he, too, will seek to escalate pressure on both Iran and tariffs after the elections. The concentration of foreign policy powers in the executive branch means that even a Democratic victory in Congress cannot quickly alter the White House's course.
On the war with Iran, congressional efforts to rein in the president face structural hurdles. A resolution under the 1973 War Powers Act—which requires congressional authorization for hostilities lasting beyond 60 days—has already passed the House of Representatives three times with some Republican support and fell short in the Senate by just one vote. Although passage in the new Congress is likely, past presidents, including Trump himself in 2019 and 2020, have vetoed such resolutions, and courts have declined to intervene.
Congress's other tool is the power of the purse. In its post-election lame-duck session, the current Congress must vote on the Pentagon's emergency funding request for the Iran war—a request already blocked once by Democrats and a few Republicans. While Congress rarely cuts off funding for ongoing wars entirely, it is unlikely to approve Trump's requested $1.5 trillion military budget, which represents a 44 percent increase. The U.S. military's struggle to replace expensive missiles and maintain global deterrence will increase pressure to scale back the war, though this process will be gradual.
In the trade arena, despite Congress's constitutional authority over tariffs, the lack of cross-partisan consensus will prevent a broad repeal. Instead, the Trump administration is doubling down by launching new "Section 301" investigations against the European Union and 15 other economies, weighing "Section 232" tariffs on semiconductors, critical minerals, and commercial aircraft, and targeting the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). If the new Congress fails to wield its budgetary and trade powers decisively, voter frustration will deepen further, setting the stage for unexpected upheavals in the 2028 presidential election./ Source
