How did Trump's economic policies affect low-income voters in the 2024 election?
Executive summary
Donald Trump’s 2024 economic message — promises of lower taxes, tariffs to bring back manufacturing, and cuts to regulation — helped him win increased support among voters earning under $100,000 and under $50,000, even as independent analyses warned his plans would raise deficits by roughly $5.8 trillion over 10 years and risk long‑run wage declines [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and polling show low‑income voters were driven by affordability and inflation concerns that Trump capitalized on, but advocacy groups and economists warned his proposals could raise costs for basics and shift benefits away from those same voters [4] [5] [6].
1. How economic anxiety translated into votes
Exit and survey data show that worries about inflation and the cost of living were primary motivators for many lower‑ and middle‑income voters in 2024; AP’s VoteCast found Trump gained slightly among households earning less than $100,000 and that voters who ranked the economy highest broke strongly for him [2]. PBS reporters described grocery bills and rent hikes as central grievances pushing frustrated, lower‑income Americans to back Trump’s promise of “total upheaval” on economic policy [5].
2. What Trump promised that appealed to low‑income voters
Trump campaigned on eliminating taxes on tips and Social Security benefits, cutting corporate taxes, imposing tariffs to repatriate jobs, and regulatory rollbacks — proposals framed as direct relief for families struggling with prices and jobs [7] [5]. Local analysts told campus and regional outlets that some proposals could theoretically benefit low‑ and middle‑income households, though the scale and distribution of benefits remained unclear [8].
3. Policy realities versus voter expectations
Independent modelers and nonpartisan analysts warned that Trump’s tax and spending proposals would substantially increase deficits — Penn Wharton estimated a $5.8 trillion increase in primary deficits over 10 years on a conventional basis — and projected small or mixed economic gains that erode over decades [1]. Time and other outlets noted that economists expect the wealthiest to receive the largest after‑tax gains from proposed cuts while tariffs commonly raise consumer prices, contrary to campaign claims that foreign producers would absorb costs [7] [1].
4. The risk to benefits and basic costs flagged by advocates
Policy advocates from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities warned that Republican economic proposals would raise costs for housing, food, and health care, cut funding for schools and infrastructure, and “double down” on tax giveaways for wealthy households and corporations — outcomes that would harm the people Trump pledged to help [6]. Reporting also highlighted low‑income Trump voters’ fears that certain cabinet picks and conservative plans (Project 2025) could lead to steep cuts in programs like SNAP [3].
5. Short‑term political payoff, long‑term uncertainty
Analysts and polls documented a clear short‑term political payoff: Trump improved his share among lower‑income voters relative to earlier cycles and leveraged affordability concerns to win the 2024 race [9] [2]. Yet several economic commentators and institutions warned that while GDP and some measures might rise short term, wages and living standards could be worse over a multi‑decade horizon under his plan, leaving low‑income households exposed if promised benefits fail to materialize or if deficits produce austerity later [1] [7].
6. Mixed signals from the electorate and early hindsight
Post‑election polling found a complex picture: Newsweek and NBC reporting later showed substantial dissatisfaction among working‑class and low‑income voters with Trump’s performance on affordability, with approval among those under $50,000 notably low — evidence that initial electoral gains did not guarantee durable support if economic conditions did not improve [10] [11]. Fortune and academic commentators described a “K‑shaped” dynamic where lower‑income cohorts felt left behind, suggesting a fragile political coalition for the long term [12].
Limitations and competing viewpoints: available sources document voter motivations, campaign proposals, economic modeling, and advocacy critiques [2] [7] [1] [6], but they do not offer a single causal estimate of how specific policies changed individual low‑income voters’ behavior — that level of causal attribution is not found in the current reporting. Sources disagree on projected outcomes: campaign proponents and some commentators emphasize job repatriation and short‑term relief [8] [7], while independent models and policy groups emphasize rising deficits and risks to basic services that disproportionately affect low‑income Americans [1] [6].