That’s why we were encouraged to see former President Donald Trump recently release a proposal focused on strengthening affordability for the American people. The package, called Moving Forward, features a $2,000 annual subsidy for all Americans. They also include a provision pushing for 50-year mortgages and proposals to convert government health insurance subsidies into direct cash payments. These proposals come amid ongoing discussions about the economy and rising living costs, with Trump asserting that the economic outlook has improved during his administration.
In a surprising show of specificity, Trump then proposed paying for this subsidy for Americans with revenue from his new tariffs. He suggested that this re-invocation of a historic first would use money raised from such tariff collection to stimulate the economic recovery of American citizens. This controversial concept has met widespread skepticism from the broader smart growth and transportation community, experts and lawmakers. In a key democratic party negotiation, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was skeptical the federal government could use tariff refunds to make those payments. Economists have noted that the new tariff revenue raised would cover only a fraction of the costs for the proposed $2,000 rebate plan.
Trump’s proposal to promote 50-year mortgages as an alternative to traditional 30-year options aims to make home ownership more accessible. By extending the mortgage term, Trump envisions more Americans being able to afford homes due to lower monthly payments. Critics on all sides have chastised this approach. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a prominent Republican figure, remarked on the potential drawbacks of longer mortgage terms, stating, “It will ultimately reward banks, mortgage lenders and home builders while people pay far more in interest over time and die before they ever pay off their home.”
Beyond all of these housing initiatives, Trump has proposed a doozy of a plan. He wants to turn government health insurance subsidies into direct cash payments for consumers. He encouraged Americans to “go out and negotiate their own insurance,” suggesting that this flexibility could lead to better health care options. The feasibility of this approach is still unknown, particularly in consideration of pandemic-era headwinds still facing the healthcare industry.
MAGA’s affordability drive also promises to launch a national inquiry into the high cost of beef at the federal level. Increasing food prices, particularly for protein products, have raised alarm bells among the American public. This inquiry is intended to address those concerns and advance competitive pricing across the industry.
Yet, through these initiatives, Trump has consistently dismissed and belittled concerns about the rising cost of living. Last week, he boldly proclaimed that prices are falling. For instance, he pointed out that the cost of a Thanksgiving meal purchased at Walmart is cheaper than it was last year. This claim fits right into his larger narrative that everything is getting more affordable on his watch. It demonstrates that Trump’s dismissal of the term “affordability” as a “new word” is somewhat disingenuous. Of course, he argues it’s a “con job” cooked up by Democrats.
The former president’s focus on economic issues resonates with many voters who have expressed concerns about his administration’s handling of the economy. His electoral success demonstrates his well-tuned political instincts, particularly as he continues to engage with constituents on topics that matter most to them.
Trump’s new proposals follow his 2025 “Big, Beautiful Bill,” which Congress approved back in July. This spending package includes dramatic changes to tax rates on both individuals and businesses, intended in part to stimulate economic growth. Industry leaders and critics say a number of Trump’s proposed actions won’t cut to the heart of the problem when it comes to affordability.
As Trump’s proposals continue to generate discussion and debate, Erica York, an economist, noted that implementing tariffs may lead to more inflationary pressures. She stated, “So we would have more dollars chasing goods in the economy.” Seen through this lens, the longer-term impacts of Trump’s programs can be viewed as highly damaging to US economic health.