Last November, Donald Trump’s solemn vow resonated with millions of Americans: “Every citizen, I will fight for you, your family and your future every single day.” Eight months later, as of July 2025, his administration is vigorously backing policies that many critics argue will inflict significant pain, particularly on the nation’s most vulnerable.
Central to this concern is the Republican budget bill, which proposes substantial cuts to essential programs like Medicaid, Obamacare, and food assistance. These proposed reductions are projected to disproportionately impact the 30% of the U.S. population residing in households earning under $50,000 annually – the very demographic that, according to exit polls, played a crucial role in his electoral victory, favoring him over Kamala Harris by a margin of 50% to 48%.
Simultaneously, even as health and food assistance for non-affluent Americans face over $1.4 trillion in proposed cuts, the Trump administration continues to push for extending over $3 trillion in tax cuts. These tax provisions are widely understood to disproportionately benefit the wealthy and corporations. For instance, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the House bill would mean a painful $1,600 average income cut (a 3.9% drop) for the lowest-earning 10% of Americans. Conversely, wealthy households in the top 10% (earning over $692,000 annually) would see an average net income increase of $12,000. The Yale Budget Lab further highlights that the top 0.1% (income over $3.3 million) could receive an average tax cut of $103,500.
Social policy experts have openly questioned this divergence, with Sharon Parrott, president of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, stating, "Who’s getting hit, who’s bearing the cost? It’s people with low and middle incomes, people that the president and many Republican policymakers promised to serve and support in the last election.” This stark contrast has led many to label these “Robin-Hood-in-reverse” policies as, at best, hypocrisy, and at worst, a betrayal of working-class and blue-collar Americans.
This situation prompts a deeper, perennial question: Has politics ever truly been on the side of the poor? While political rhetoric often aligns with the needs of the less fortunate, the historical reality suggests a more complex dynamic. Politicians, by their very nature, represent a diverse electorate and are influenced by various stakeholders. While some genuinely strive to uplift the poor through social programs and economic policies, the pursuit of political power and campaign funding often necessitates appealing to wealthier donors and established interests.
The immediate benefit for politicians in “defending” the poor often lies in securing votes, particularly in democratic systems where the collective voice of a large, economically disadvantaged segment can be a decisive factor. However, the influence of money in politics, lobbying efforts from corporations, and the inherent challenges in organizing and mobilizing the poor as a cohesive political force can often tilt the scales.
Indeed, throughout history, politics has often appeared to be the “property of the rich,” with politicians sometimes perceived as servants to serve these affluent interests. While democratic ideals strive for representation of all citizens, the practicalities of governance and the immense financial resources required for political campaigns can create an imbalance.
The current policies, as outlined, serve as a potent illustration of this enduring paradox: the promise of fighting for “every citizen” versus the implementation of policies that appear to exacerbate economic disparities, leaving millions of those who supported the promise facing further financial hardship. The question remains whether the political system can genuinely and consistently prioritize the well-being of its most vulnerable citizens, or if the pursuit of power will continue to be intertwined with the interests of the financially privileged.
‘It’s harsh. It’s mean, brutal’: Trump bill to cause most harm to America’s poorest
Comments