Trump’s Approval Slump To 31%: A Midterm Warning Sign?

Donald Trump is asking voters to keep Republicans in control of Congress while his own approval rating sinks to a record low. With the November 3 midterms approaching, the president faces a problem of his own making: the cost of living remains a central voter concern, the Iran war has complicated his promise to avoid foreign entanglements, and his immigration crackdown has generated a backlash over enforcement.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll published on October 19 put Trump’s approval rating at 31 per cent, the lowest of either of his presidential terms. Democrats led Republicans 47 per cent to 35 per cent among registered voters asked which party they would support in congressional elections. A separate Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll put his approval rating at 33 per cent, with 66 per cent disapproving. The surveys differ, but both point to mounting difficulties for the president’s party.

All 435 House seats and 35 Senate seats are up for election, but the result will turn on a much smaller number of competitive contests. Democrats need a net gain of four seats in each chamber to take control, according to Reuters. A Democratic victory would give the opposition greater power to scrutinise the administration and block parts of its legislative agenda. Yet disapproval of a president does not automatically translate into votes for the other party. The outcome will depend on competitive races, turnout and whether Democrats can persuade voters that they offer a credible alternative.

The Iran war has put Trump’s promises under scrutiny

Trump campaigned on ending foreign conflicts, but the war against Iran has put that promise under scrutiny. The consequences are no longer confined to foreign policy: higher fuel prices have brought the conflict into household budgets, making it harder for the administration to separate its military objectives from voters’ concerns about affordability.

The Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll found that 65 per cent of respondents considered the decision to take military action against Iran a mistake. It also found that 71 per cent regarded petrol as unaffordable, compared with 71 per cent who said petrol was affordable in February, before the war began.

The problem for Trump is the collision between two campaign promises: keeping the United States out of costly foreign conflicts and making everyday life more affordable. Higher fuel prices have made those pledges harder to defend together. Reuters reported that half of registered voters surveyed in a recent poll identified the cost of living as the most important factor in their vote. Gasoline, food, housing and healthcare were among the household expenses they wanted lawmakers to address.

Trump’s earlier rhetoric makes the contrast sharper. In a September analysis, Reuters recalled that Trump had campaigned as a “president of peace” who would stop foreign wars. The administration may argue that military action is necessary for national security, but voters facing higher bills may judge the conflict by its costs as well as its stated objectives.

The war does not guarantee electoral losses for Republicans: some voters may prioritise national security or blame rising prices on other factors. But Democrats can argue that Trump has taken the country into another overseas conflict while failing to deliver the economic relief he promised. The White House must explain both the cost of the campaign and what it expects to achieve.

Inflation is the test Trump cannot talk his way around

Affordability may prove a more immediate electoral test than any single foreign-policy dispute. Voters have repeatedly ranked household costs among their leading concerns, giving Democrats an issue that cuts across debates about the war, immigration and the wider economy. At a campaign appearance in Ohio on October 3, Trump declared: “We have almost no inflation.” AP's latest figures offer a test of that claim.

The economic data tell a more mixed story. The Associated Press that annual inflation had reached 3.7 per cent, up from 3 per cent when Trump returned to office in January 2025. Unemployment stood at 4.2 per cent, while annual economic growth remained a little above 2 per cent.

The distinction between inflation and affordability matters here. Slower inflation does not mean prices return to earlier levels; it means they are rising more slowly. Households can therefore remain under pressure even when the rate of price increases falls. Higher fuel costs, expensive groceries and borrowing costs can reinforce the perception that economic conditions have not improved.

Low unemployment and continued growth suggest economic resilience, but they do not necessarily translate into financial security. Stock-market gains also offer little reassurance to households struggling with rent, mortgages and everyday expenses.

For Republicans, the risk is that economic statistics touted by the White House fail to match voters’ experience of paying for groceries, housing and fuel. Democrats have an opening, but they must explain how their policies would reduce those costs rather than assume that frustration with Trump will automatically translate into support for them.

ICE enforcement creates another political fault line

Immigration remains one of Trump’s defining issues, but aggressive enforcement has brought new political risks. Reuters reported on October 20 that preliminary Department of Homeland Security data showed a 95 per cent decline in migrants apprehended at the south-western border compared with the Biden administration. That gives Republicans a measurable result to cite in defending their approach.

But the administration's enforcement methods have also generated political opposition. Reuters reported fatal encounters involving federal immigration agents in Maine, Minnesota and Texas, with the deaths of two US citizens in Minnesota intensifying scrutiny. Some Democratic candidates have called for ICE to be abolished, while others have called for the impeachment of then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Republicans have countered that Democrats support open borders.

Stricter enforcement may appeal to voters who prioritise border control, while controversial operations may alienate those who believe the administration has gone too far. A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll found that 56 per cent thought Trump had gone too far in deporting undocumented immigrants. The electoral balance will depend on which concern carries more weight in competitive districts; neither party can assume immigration will deliver a uniform national advantage.

Democrats have an opening, not a guaranteed victory

Trump's declining approval gives Democrats an opening, but not proof that voters trust them to govern. A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll found that registered voters preferred a Democratic-led Congress to act as a check on Trump by 58 per cent to 39 per cent. That signals demand for congressional oversight, not necessarily broad agreement with Democrats on immigration, spending or foreign policy. Their task is to turn frustration over prices and the war into specific proposals while persuading voters that they can govern effectively. Candidate quality, local issues and turnout will still shape the outcome.

International opinion offers a wider measure of the discontent surrounding Trump's foreign policy, although it cannot predict the US midterm result. A Pew Research Center survey published in June found that a median of 23 per cent of respondents across 36 countries had confidence in Trump to do the right thing in world affairs. The figure indicates widespread international scepticism, but domestic voters are more likely to respond to the practical consequences of foreign policy than to overseas opinion itself.

Trump has made himself central to the closing weeks of the campaign, urging voters to treat the election as if he were on the ballot. That could energise his supporters, but it also gives his opponents a clear target. Reuters has identified this tension as one of the defining features of the midterms.

The question is whether that strategy can overcome the gap between Trump's promises and voters' concerns about prices, the Iran war and immigration enforcement. Republicans do not need to lose the national argument everywhere to lose control of Congress; they need to lose enough competitive races. On November 3, the test will be whether Trump's presence helps Republican candidates turn out their supporters—or gives dissatisfied voters another reason to turn out against them.