How Democrats plan to run on Trump's tariffs in 2026

The chair of House Democrats' campaign arm is already mapping out how her caucus can wield President Donald Trump's latest round of tariffs against Republicans come 2026.
'It's important that we continue to talk [about] not only the impact, but what we could be doing instead,' Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., told Semafor in an interview at her Capitol Hill office. 'We could be focused on helping working families. We could be engaged in policy where we look at how we build a strong economy going forward.'
DelBene sat down soon after her Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee unveiled 35 House seats held by Republicans that they hope to flip in next year's midterm elections. Several are in states that will be hit hardest by Trump's new levies.
Lawmakers have already started building their case this week as they grill Trump's trade representative, Jamieson Greer, in back-to-back appearances. DelBene said she plans to press Greer on the president's trade agenda when he testifies before the House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday.
'How do you ever do any trade if we have a trade deal and the president can just kind of blow it up on a whim?' DelBene said of her planned line of questioning.
'I think it would make it really hard for any partner to negotiate with a president who doesn't seem to be interested in — even a policy that he put in place — in making sure that he continues to honor that,' DelBene added. 'So how does he think trade's gonna work going forward with anybody?'
Eleanor Mueller: How are Democrats planning to message on Trump's tariffs headed into the midterm elections?
Suzan DelBene: This is a tax on American families. Costs are going up at the grocery store, the gas pump, at the pharmacy counter. This is a No. 1 issue for voters, last election: the cost of living, housing, food, child care, health care. And Republicans have broken the promise to lower costs.
Tariffs not only are raising costs — it's been chaotic, unpredictable, and that's a terrible economic environment going forward too, where no one knows how to plan because they don't know what's going to happen next. And our farmers, our small businesses, are all getting hit hard.
Do Democrats believe that the effects of Trump's tariffs are, to a degree, self-evident?
It's important that we continue to talk [about] not only the impact, but what we could be doing instead. We could be focused on helping working families. We could be engaged in policy where we look at how we build a strong economy going forward — as opposed to the the random and destructive layoffs that we've seen in the federal government, the dismantling of Social Security and attacks on Medicaid, programs that people depend on are being dismantled — and now we are in a situation where prices are going up because of tariffs. People have lost jobs. People see the programs they depend on being taken away.
So — are Democrats the free-trade party now?
We are saying that we should have a vote in Congress. Congress should have a say.
Congress actually has jurisdiction over taxes and trade. And so, I have put forward legislation making it clear that Congress has a role, and Congress needs to have a vote before any of this can go in place. No. 1, that should be there.
And then [No.] 2, if you look at Canada and Mexico, we have a trade agreement in place, and the president's basically blowing that up without congressional approval. None of this makes sense.
But the real thing is, we could be doing important work, and not raising prices on American families.
What is that important work, as far as the alternative economic vision that Democrats should be peddling voters?
First of all, making sure that critical programs that people depend on and have paid into, like Social Security, are strengthened — not being dismantled. Making sure that we continue to have affordable, quality health care for folks across the country, as opposed to threatening to cut Medicaid for what tax breaks for the wealthy and well-connected.
This is about fairness. It's about building a strong economy, and it's about addressing the challenges that families are seeing.
We talk about things like housing: Housing costs are going up because of Trump's actions and the impact he's having on the ability for folks to finance new construction and build more affordable housing. We can do things like expand the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit to help make sure that we have more affordable housing in our communities. This is actually something that I have been leading on, and has been a bipartisan solution. But is that the priority? No. The priority is tariffs with no plan in place, and raising costs on American families for no reason.
What do you see happening with bipartisan legislation to give Congress more power over tariffs?
Republicans have been blindly loyal to Donald Trump, but they don't seem interested in listening to their constituents or doing policy that's helping their constituents. They promised that they were going to lower prices. Trump said he's going to lower prices on Day One.
That's a broken promise, when they're not doing anything to help families. And you've got the tariffs, and now you have this budget coming forward with huge cuts to Medicaid, the dismantling of Social Security.
Are you more optimistic about Democrats' odds now than you were before Trump's tariffs?
Well, we're going to hold them accountable. I think this will definitely be a referendum on the policies of this administration and the blind loyalty of Republicans in Congress who aren't willing to stand up.
Oversight: We are a co-equal branch of government. We tried to have Elon Musk come in just to answer questions about access to sensitive taxpayer data. Republicans refused to bring him in. If he's doing such a great job, why wouldn't you want him to come in and talk about the work that he's doing? They're not interested in that.
Votes on tariffs: Congress has an important role to play here. Republicans, even Republicans who in the past have insisted that Congress needs to have a say, have somehow become incredibly silent and capable of standing up. Folks want candidates who are going to stand up for their communities and fight for their communities.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hill

40 minutes ago

• The Hill

Iran's ‘proportionate response' will be set by military, envoy tells UN

Amir Saeid Iravani, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, condemned the United States' involvement in its conflict with Israel, and said the nation's military would determine its response after President Trump on Saturday ordered the bombing of three of Iran's nuclear sites. 'The Islamic Republic of Iran has repeatedly warned the warmongering US regime to refrain from stumbling into this quagmire, even though Iran reserves its full and legitimate right under international law to defend itself against this blatant US aggression and its Israeli proxy,' he said at the United Nations. 'The timing, nature and the scale of Iran's proportionate response will be decided by its armed forces.' The United Nations Security Council held an emergency meeting on the escalating war on Sunday afternoon. Iran, the U.S. and Israel were among the nations that spoke to the attack during the meeting. Iravani described the action as the U.S. helping Israel carry out its 'vile agenda.' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thanked Trump on Saturday for directing U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. 'President Trump and I often say, 'Peace through strength.' First comes strength, then comes peace. And tonight, President Trump and the United States acted with a lot of strength,' Netanyahu said in a video on the social platform X. Iravani said the Israeli president had hijacked 'U.S. foreign policy, dragging the United States into yet another costly, baseless war.' Dorothy Shea, the interim U.S. ambassador to the U.N., spoke ahead of Iravani, and defended Trump's actions. 'Iran has long obfuscated its nuclear weapons program and stonewalled good faith efforts in recent negotiations, Madam President, the time finally came for the United States in the defense of its ally and in the defense of our own citizens and interest, to act decisively,' she said in explaining Saturday's bombing. Shea told the council that Iran, for decades, 'has been responsible for misery and countless deaths across the Middle East. Iran's government and its proxies have also killed numerous Americans, including American service members in Iraq and Afghanistan.' She accused Iranian officials of ramping up 'hostile bluster and rhetoric' over recent weeks.

Axios

40 minutes ago

• Axios

Trump floats regime change in Iran

President Trump floated the possibility of "regime change" in Iran on Sunday in a post to his Truth Social account. "It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!" the president wrote. Why it matters: This is the first time Trump has raised the possibility of regime change in Iran since Israel launched its war ten days ago — and the U.S. joined with airstrikes targeting Iran's nuclear sites on Saturday. Trump has criticized the neo-conservative faction of the Republican Party for years over their support for regime changes in Iraq, Iran and other places around the world. Driving the news: The president's post is a departure from the rest of his administration, which has stressed multiple times over the last several days that its goal is to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and that the U.S. is not pushing for regime change in Iran. Vice President Vance said on Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press" that the administration's view "has been very clear that we don't want a regime change." "We do not want to protract this or build this out any more than it's already been built out. We want to end their nuclear program, and then we want to talk to the Iranians about a long-term settlement here," Vance said. Between the lines: An Iran regime change has become an unstated goal of the Israeli government since the war began earlier this month. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even said it could be one of the results of the war. Yes, but: There has been no significant uprising against the Iranian regime since the war began, and experts have mentioned a dynamic of rallying around the flag in Iran — even among Iranians who are critical of the regime. State of play: Trump also wrote on his Truth Social account on Sunday that the damage to the Iran nuclear sites targeted by U.S. airstrikes "is said to be monumental" and that the hits "were hard and accurate."

Axios

41 minutes ago

• Axios

"It was a headfake": Inside Trump's secret orders to strike Iran

President Trump told the world last Thursday that he would decide " within the next two weeks" whether to strike Iran. 48 hours later, B-2 stealth bombers were whizzing through Iranian airspace — undetected — on a mission to cripple the Islamic Republic's nuclear program. Why it matters: Trump remained open to aborting the mission if a diplomatic window emerged. But his public countdown doubled as a smokescreen — concealing a strike plan that was already in motion, according to multiple officials. "It was a headfake," a Trump adviser told Axios. "He knew the media couldn't resist amplifying it. He knew the Iranians might think he was bluffing. Well, everyone was wrong." "The president wanted to buy time," another adviser said. "He knew what he wanted to do. And he knows he can't look eager for war. So all the folks in MAGA urging restraint gave him some space." Driving the news: The bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities on Saturday marked the most direct and consequential U.S. military action against Iran since the Islamic Republic was founded in 1979. Trump, who praised the operation as a "spectacular military success," came to the decision to join Israel's war after months of failed diplomacy — and one last secret effort to meet with Iranian officials last week. Once Trump decided Thursday that a military intervention was necessary, he tightly controlled the administration's messaging and narrowed the circle of people involved in the planning. Between the lines: As with many moments of geopolitical drama during Trump's two terms, his aides have gone to great lengths to emphasize an image of total command and decisive leadership. "This wasn't a Pentagon operation. This was a Donald Trump operation," a senior administration official told Axios. "He came up with the PR. He chose the plans. He chose the day." "He's no Jimmy Carter," the official said, referencing the last time the U.S. tried direct military action in Iran: Operation Eagle Claw in 1980, a humiliating and failed hostage rescue mission. The complexity of Saturday's Operation Midnight Hammer — which amounted to the largest B-2 strike in U.S. history — required meticulous planning from the Pentagon that likely stretched back years. Behind the scenes: In the first days after Israel launched its unprecedented attack on Iran, Trump hoped a swift nuclear deal could end the war before it escalated further. From the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada last weekend, he began coordinating with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to arrange a high-level meeting between U.S. and Iranian officials in Istanbul. Trump was prepared to send Vice President J.D. Vance and White House envoy Steve Witkoff — or even travel himself to meet Iran's president, if that's what it would take to reach a deal. Vance and Witkoff had even started packing their bags, but it became clear on Monday afternoon that the meeting was not going to happen, senior U.S. official said. Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who was in hiding over fears of assassination, couldn't be reached to authorize the talks — and constant Israeli airstrikes made it too dangerous for Iranian officials to leave the country. "The president was ready to go forward with a strike if no diplomatic breakthrough took place. And as the week progressed, he realized that this was the case," a U.S. official told Axios. Zoom in: While still at the G7 summit, Trump gave the Pentagon the order to begin final planning work for a U.S. strike on Iran. On Tuesday, after cutting short his trip to Canada, he convened a Situation Room meeting with his top national security team. Trump pressed for details on the military plans, the reliability of the 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs, and the potential risks of the operation. "The military and the Pentagon told the president they were sure it was going to work," a U.S. official said. On Friday afternoon, a day after suggesting the attack could be delayed, Trump gave Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth the green-light to launch the B-2 bombers. Several hours later, the stealth bombers departed their base in Missouri. Some flew west as decoys. The real strike group headed east toward Iran, according to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine. On Saturday afternoon, while still at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, Trump was told the bombers were about to reach the point of no return — the moment they would go into full radio silence. The president gave the final go-ahead. Shortly after, Trump boarded Air Force One and flew back to Washington to be in the Situation Room as the first bombs hit their targets. Sitting in the Situation Room, the president saw that the media was still reporting he was undecided, a U.S. official said. That's when Trump grew confident the operation would be successful. "In the end, it was everything. The timing was right. The Ayatollah gave Trump and the U.S. the middle finger. And that came with a price," said a Trump confidant who spoke with the president in recent days. The intrigue: An extraordinarily small group of officials inside the Trump administration knew about the planned strike. "There were no leaks from the Pentagon or from the White House," a U.S. official said. Trump himself helped maintain the secrecy, using public statements to keep Washington, Tehran and the rest of the world guessing about his true intentions. On Thursday, he told reporters he would decide "within the next two weeks" whether to join the war — signaling that a strike wasn't necessarily imminent. A U.S. official said the president was willing to abort the mission at any minute if he saw a diplomatic opening, but "his instinct at that point was to move forward with a strike." An Israeli official told Axios that by the time Trump made the "two weeks" comment, he had already decided to authorize military action — and knew exactly when it would happen. On Friday night, as the bombers were already in the air, Trump appeared upbeat and relaxed at his golf club in New Jersey. "POTUS was having the time of his life. None of us had any idea that a bunch of bombers were already in the air ready to rain down hell," said one person who spoke with him that evening. What to watch: As the strike was underway, White House envoy Steve Witkoff sent a message to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to make clear that the operation was a one-off and limited strictly to Iran's nuclear program, a U.S. official told Axios. Witkoff, who has remained in direct contact with Araghchi throughout the crisis, emphasized that the U.S. still seeks a diplomatic resolution — and now wants Iran to return to the table following the destruction of its key enrichment sites, the official said. Several senior Trump officials, including Vance and Hegseth, stressed Sunday that the U.S. does not seek regime change in Iran and called on the Iranians to return to the negotiating table. The big picture: Multiple factors ultimately triggered Trump's decision to green-light the strike and go where no president has gone before, advisers told Axios. The CIA, working closely with Israeli intelligence, delivered fresh assessments on Iran's nuclear progress, though skepticism remains about whether Iran had made the formal decision to build a bomb. A damning International Atomic Energy Agency report underscored the urgency. And Israel's success in degrading Iranian air defenses created a window to act. The bottom line: Trump still wants a deal with Iran — and wanted one before the bombers took off, an adviser to the president told Axios.