Supreme Court Decision on Tariffs: Democrats Shift Focus to Affordability
The recent Supreme Court ruling on tariffs has provided Democrats with a prime opportunity to criticize President Donald Trump, but instead of taking the bait on legal arguments, they are cleverly redirecting the conversation to a more pressing issue: the impact of tariffs on the wallets of everyday Americans.
Democratic campaigns have long contended that Trump’s tariffs ultimately burden voters with higher costs. While some party members are quick to label the tariffs as “unlawful,” the primary narrative has pivoted to affordability. Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, articulated this shift succinctly: “The decision is significant, but prices remain excessively high, and the administration appears intent on keeping them that way. Our focus is laser-sharp on affordability and holding Republicans accountable for the rising costs faced by families nationwide.”
This new approach represents a notable departure from the party’s 2024 strategy, where every opportunity was seized to warn voters about potential lawlessness under a second Trump term. Even after the Supreme Court struck down a key element of Trump’s policy agenda, Democrats are opting for a less intricate discussion about legality and more emphasis on the economic strain on consumers.
Across Washington and in battleground states, Democratic lawmakers and candidates are weaving the Court’s check on Trump’s executive power into their ongoing narrative that tariffs increase the costs of essential goods. There’s also renewed discussion in Congress about legislation aimed at refunding tariff revenues back to American small businesses, although Speaker Mike Johnson has been less than enthusiastic about its prospects.
Even those Democrats who are emphasizing the notion that Trump has “stolen” from voters are framing this within the context of household affordability, rather than executive overreach. As Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) pointedly remarked on social media, “Donald Trump stole your money with his illegal tariffs — and you paid higher prices on everything from housing to groceries.”
Despite some positive economic indicators like job growth and inflation improvements, voter sentiment remains largely pessimistic. Democrats targeting vulnerable Republican incumbents from states such as Colorado to Minnesota believe they have tapped into a winning message: Tariffs are making life unaffordable, irrespective of their legality.
“Voters aren’t concerned with whether that’s under an IEEPA regulation or Section 122,” noted Gabe Horwitz, senior vice president at the center-left group Third Way. “The reality is, the Trump administration continues to impose tariffs that harm consumers.”
Democratic operatives are reflecting on a string of off-cycle wins in places like New Jersey and Virginia, where candidates effectively made the cost of living their central campaign issue. Polling data, including a November POLITICO poll, shows that a plurality of Americans — 45 percent — believe that higher tariffs are detrimental to the U.S. economy in both the short and long term.
“When prices are rising, any news event that we can tie back to Trump’s policies that inflate costs is a beneficial moment for Democrats,” stated Andrew Mamo, a strategist focused on upcoming congressional races, including the Texas Democratic Senate primary. “Every time we can link an event back to affordability is a win.”
A growing movement among Democrats also advocates for refunding tariff revenues directly to consumers, seamlessly aligning with their affordability message. Reps. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.) and Janelle Bynum (D-Ore.), both representing battleground districts, have introduced legislation requiring Customs and Border Patrol to refund tariffs collected over the past year to small and independent businesses. A similar initiative has been proposed by a group of Democratic senators led by Ron Wyden of Oregon, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, gaining the support of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
While the chances of this legislation advancing in a GOP-controlled Congress are slim, it provides Democrats a way to pressure Republicans. “When someone takes money that wasn’t authorized and does it in a way that harms you, they’ve stolen from you, and that is what the Trump administration has been doing,” Horsford remarked in a recent interview.
This sentiment was echoed by several Democratic governors and potential 2028 presidential contenders, who quickly capitalized on the discussion about refunds in their responses to the court’s decision. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker has called for federal refunds of $1,700 per household, while California Governor Gavin Newsom asserted that Trump has an “obligation” to return the money to consumers who have been adversely affected by the tariffs. “He has taken hundreds of billions of dollars from working folks — from the agricultural sector to small businesses — all for this vanity project, this illegal action,” Newsom stated.
In a key Senate race, former Sen. Sherrod Brown is also advocating for tariff refunds for every Ohio household, noting that his opponent Jon Husted has consistently supported the tariffs “at every turn.”
Interestingly, the message of providing direct relief resonates more broadly than simply pointing out the illegality of Trump’s tariffs, according to Parker Butler, a Democratic digital strategist. “Highlighting Trump’s illegal actions is important, but it often doesn’t break through the political noise. What resonates more is saying, ‘Trump owes you money. He’s been illegally taxing you for nearly a year.’”
In response to the court ruling, Trump has doubled down on his tariff strategy, announcing plans to impose a 15 percent global tariff using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. However, this plan would only last 150 days unless Congress extends it — a vote that could put vulnerable Republican members in a tight spot just months before the November midterms.
Republicans, who quietly welcomed the court’s decision, are now concerned about heading into an election centered on the economy while on the defensive. Meanwhile, Democrats view Trump’s steadfastness in maintaining his tariff agenda as an advantage for their affordability narrative.
“We need to communicate consistently and effectively,” emphasized Will Robinson, a Democratic consultant and ad-maker. “The abstract discussions about the Supreme Court and tariffs pale in comparison to the real-world implications for consumers at the grocery store.”
Brakkton Booker and Jordain Carney contributed reporting.
