Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump Frames Economy As ‘Stronger than Ever Before’ in State of the Union, but Lawmakers Question the Claim

Entering an election year with low approval ratings, Trump used the joint address to convey a message of national strength.

News

Trump Frames Economy As ‘Stronger than Ever Before’ in State of the Union, but Lawmakers Question the Claim

President Donald Trump delivered his State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night.

(Cayla Labgold-Carroll/MNS)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump used the longest State of the Union address in U.S. history on Tuesday night to argue that Americans are already experiencing “a turnaround for the ages” thanks to his agenda. But moments of disruption inside the House chamber and reactions from lawmakers afterward suggested Democrats and even some Republicans dispute his claims.

Trump’s address offered a snapshot of how the White House is trying to frame the economy heading into an election year. The administration sought to present easing inflation, falling prices, and rising wages as settled facts.


“He talked about affordability and how everything is cheaper now — beef, vegetables, gas, automobiles — none of which is true,” Rep. Adelita Grijalva, D-Ariz., told reporters on her way out of the chamber.

Throughout the address, Trump repeatedly argued that inflation is no longer a defining economic problem. He said inflation is “plummeting,” arguing that after one year in office, Americans are already benefiting from lower everyday costs, including groceries, gasoline, and housing.

“After just one year, I can say with dignity and pride that we have achieved a transformation like no one has ever seen before and a turnaround for the ages,” Trump said.

Recent inflation data showed some cooling, but prices continued to rise. According to the latest Consumer Price Index, headline inflation eased from 2.7% in December 2025 to 2.4% in January 2026, indicating that price increases were slowing rather than outright falling. Core inflation, which excludes food and energy, remains elevated, underscoring that many household costs are still rising, just at a slower pace. Still, slower inflation does not translate into lower prices, particularly for goods and services that surged during the peak inflation period.

The White House reinforced the president’s message during the speech. At 9:37 p.m., while Trump was addressing Congress, the administration released an article declaring that “Trump is delivering real relief” and “reversing Biden’s economic disaster.” The release closely mirrored the president’s remarks, signaling a coordinated effort to frame the economic moment as one of improvement rather than transition.

Inside the chamber, Democrats reacted skeptically to that portrayal. Some visibly shook their heads as Trump listed examples of falling prices. The pushback reflected a broader dispute over whether aggregate economic indicators align with voters’ lived experiences.

After the address, Rep. Adelita Grijalva, D-Ariz., said the president’s description of affordability did not match what she hears from businesses and families in her district. Small business owners continue to report the risk of closure due to higher costs, she said.

Questions about credibility extended beyond domestic policy. When Trump claimed to have ended eight wars during his time in office, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., shouted that the statement was false. The president was referring to the Cambodian-Thai border crisis, which escalated into a direct armed conflict on July 24, 2025.

That tension resurfaced later in the speech when Trump turned to Russia and Ukraine. While he said he was working to bring an end to the war, he did not explicitly name Russia as the aggressor. The omission drew visible reactions from both parties, particularly given that the address coincided with the fourth anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

“He did not call out who is the aggressor and say that we stand with Ukraine,” Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., told reporters in the Capitol's National Statuary Hall.

Criticisms were also raised inside Trump’s party.

“If I had to pick two items of the speech that were on the bad side, that would be one of them,” Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., told reporters in the Capitol.

The economic and foreign policy moments underscored the stakes of the address in an election year. Public opinion data suggests he faces a skeptical electorate. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that 61% of Americans disapprove of the way Trump is handling his job as president. A separate CNN/SSRS poll conducted in mid-February showed a similar pattern, with 63% disapproval

The same CNN/SSRS survey found that 57% of Americans said the economy and cost of living were the issues they most wanted Trump to address in his State of the Union.

André Hiroki covers business for Medill on the Hill.

The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. Learn how by clicking HERE.



Read More

 Dollar Bill Sticking Out of Piggy Bank on Yellow Background

A federal court sided with LAHSA, but LA nonprofits are still fronting millions to deliver government-funded homeless and DV services. Time to fix this.

Javier Zayas Photography/Getty Images

When Nonprofits Become the Bank for Government

It is a victory for Los Angeles in LAHSA v. Trump et al. that a federal court has temporarily halted the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's suspension of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority and ordered HUD to execute already-awarded 2025 grants. The court found that HUD's action was arbitrary and unlawful, restoring LAHSA's role as the regional Continuum of Care applicant and protecting critical federal homelessness resources.

That is good news for Los Angeles.

Keep ReadingShow less
Construction worker


Low angle view of male construction workers framing a new house

Getty Images

Latino Workers Are the Backbone of America — But Inequities Persist

WASHINGTON — As the nation pauses today to mark Labor Day 2026, a glaring spotlight is shining on the massive economic influence, historical legacy, and evolving challenges of the Latino labor force. Once relegated to the margins of the broader American labor narrative, Latino workers are stepping into the national conversation as the indisputable backbone of the modern United States economy.

According to recent findings from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the overall labor market has shown unexpected strength, with a stable baseline keeping the Hispanic and Latino unemployment rate hovering around 4.8%. While this reflects a significant drop from the 5.3% peak recorded a year ago, advocacy groups argue that the metrics mask deeper inequalities that holiday celebrations tend to overlook.

Keep ReadingShow less
US $1 dollar bill in mid air melting, red gradated background

From $215B to $7.14T: how outbound investment, falling labor share, and rising corporate profits reveal trickle-down economics' core flaw.

PM Images/Getty Images

Trickle-Down-Economics was Doomed from Day-One; yet Defended to Present-Day

By 1972, U.S. direct investments abroad amounted to $94.0 billion. This was two years prior to the development of the Laffer Curve in 1974 by American economist Arthur Laffer, famously sketched on a restaurant napkin during a dinner meeting in Washington, D.C. Therefore, the writing was on the wall regarding the vulnerability of Trickle-down economics, years prior to Reagan’s Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981.

Trickle-down economics fails primarily because outbound foreign direct investment (FDI) allows corporations and wealthy individuals to invest tax-cut windfall profits globally rather than domestically. The theory of Trickle-down economics predicted that lowering taxes on businesses and high earners will stimulate local capital accumulation, leading to domestic business expansion, job creation, and wage growth for everyone. However, in a highly globalized economy, capital is hyper-mobile. Instead of filtering downward into the domestic economy, these untaxed or low-tax profits frequently exit the country entirely.

Keep ReadingShow less
An American & Canadian flag waving in the wind

An American & Canadian flag waving in the wind

Getty Images

Just the Facts: What’s Changed in U.S.–Canada Tariffs Since March 2025

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and a spirit of inquiry, presenting our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our newsgathering and the selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

In March of 2025, I wrote a column for The Fulcrum, Just the Facts: Canadian Tariffs, that set out to do something simple: strip away the rhetoric and explain, plainly, what tariffs between the United States and Canada actually were, what each country imposed, and why. That piece went on to become the most‑read article in Fulcrum history — more than 300,000 readers — because people were hungry for clarity in a debate that had become clouded by politics, slogans, and selective memory.

Keep ReadingShow less