Buried somewhere in the wreckage of Tuesday’s stunning Republican defeat is President Donald Trump’s signature economic policy: The notion that tariffs on foreign goods will deliver a better life for everyday Americans.

For several decades, Trump has promoted trade protectionism as a remedy for economic ills real and imagined. He lifted U.S. tariffs last year to their highest level since the 1930s before allowing them to recede to a still high 12 percent.

The president’s enthusiasm for import taxes remains undimmed. But on Tuesday, after more than 18 months of upheaval, his constituents said they had had enough. Nearly two-thirds of voters concluded that Trump’s comprehensive tariffs had hurt the U.S. economy, according to network exit polls.

That tariffs were a political albatross was evident in Michigan and Maine, where Republican Senate candidates fell after struggling to defend the president’s trade policy. Democrats also romped to Senate wins in Kansas and Iowa, thanks to farmers who turned on the GOP after their export markets became casualties of Trump’s trade wars.

Despite the election setback, however, tariffs are not going away. Facing a hostile legislature, the president will probably continue using his executive powers to shape trade. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who is likely to be the next speaker, promised during the campaign “to end the Trump tariffs.” But lacking a veto-proof Senate majority, the Democrats are unlikely to pull that off.

They may have more success attacking unpopular elements of Trump’s trade agenda — such as his counterproductive tariffs on Canadian goods. Investigations of the corporate cronyism and influence-peddling that has flourished around trade policy are expected and could produce debate-shifting revelations.

Once the realities of a divided government set in, there may be an opportunity for both parties to agree on the use of selective tariffs to protect a handful of strategic industries. That would represent a middle ground between the unbridled trade liberalization of the pre-2016 era and the peak tariffs of what Trump called his Liberation Day proclamation in April 2025.

“The direction of travel, I think is clear. We’re likely to live in a more tariffed world rather than the less tariffed world that existed before Trump. That doesn’t necessarily mean that we have to have the same level of tariffs on all of these countries, whether they’re friends or competitors, or [have them] on all sectors,” said Michael Froman, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and President Barack Obama’s chief U.S. trade negotiator.

For all their criticism of Trump, many Democrats, such as ex-senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio who recaptured a Senate seat, are longtime tariff advocates. They may take issue with the president’s indiscriminate use of trade weapons. But they are sympathetic to workers’ desire for protection against subsidized Chinese manufactured goods.

“For those of us who see tariffs as a legitimate policy tool when used strategically and with other policies, this has been incredibly painful. Trump’s craziness shows how not to do it,” said Lori Wallach, the director of the Rethink Trade initiative at the American Economic Liberties Project.

Indeed, the president’s abrupt decision in August to ease tariffs on imported beef, designed to lower consumer prices, sparked an uproar among ranchers and cattle producers. Nebraska Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts, who won his reelection bid by 7 percentage points in a state that Trump won two years ago by three times that margin, may count beef among the reasons.

Working-class voters who have long celebrated Trump’s defense of traditional industries also appear to have lost their ardor for him. Two years ago, the president beat former vice president Kamala Harris among workers without college degrees by more than 12 points. Tuesday, sentiment swung 14 points toward Democrats, handing them a two-point advantage.

Republicans still won among noncollege Whites, but their 13-point edge was less than half Trump’s 2024 margin.

“You had a lot of Americans that were really upset with high prices and cost of living issues and that, of course, is particularly resonant with working class folks that aren’t making gobs of money and may be living paycheck to paycheck,” said Scott Lincicome, a Cato Institute trade specialist.

When voters looked at tariffs, they glimpsed the distilled essence of Trumpian governance and didn’t like what they saw.

The president repeatedly changed course, imposing tariffs to bolster the national interest, and then lifting them seemingly at random. He gave little consideration to small businesses that suffered higher costs for essential parts or equipment while giant corporations secured waivers by cozying up to the White House. Breaking with decades of U.S. diplomacy, Trump at the negotiating table often treated allied democracies worse than authoritarian rivals.

Within weeks of announcing his sweeping global tariffs last year, he was forced to backpedal after China enacted a foreseeable ban on shipments of vital rare earth minerals needed to produce everything from smartphones to jet fighters.

Eventually, the president’s impulsive approach to trade policy led him into a legal, diplomatic, economic and political cul-de-sac.

On the legal front, the normally executive-friendly Supreme Court ruled this year that most of Trump’s tariffs were beyond his authority. Diplomatic tensions flared after Trump threatened U.S. allies in Europe with 50 percent tariffs and economic costs became apparent when tariffs pushed consumer prices higher.

Independent economists at the Federal Reserve concluded that Americans paid most tariff costs. But Trump and his advisers insist the bills lands with foreign manufacturers, leaving U.S. prices unaffected.

“They haven’t led to inflation. We have no inflation,” Trump told CBS’ “60 Minutes” in March when the annual inflation rate remained more than a percentage point above the Fed’s 2 percent price stability target.

Even as voters headed to the polls, the White House was touting a “manufacturing renaissance.” New orders for factory goods have expanded for 10 straight months and production is at its highest point in five years.

The White House statement credited the president’s policies for a 72,000 job gain in factory payrolls since January. But for all the president’s talk of a “Golden Age,” manufacturing employment remains more than 250,000 jobs below the Biden administration peak. And most private sector analysts credit the artificial intelligence boom, not tariffs, with the modest employment rebound.

Considering all the voter discontent that surfaced Tuesday, it’s ironic that the economy overall is doing so well. Output expanded from July through September at an annual rate of 3.4 percent. The 4.2 percent unemployment rate is lower than one year ago. In the ongoing AI revolution, U.S. labs are the global leaders.

The past two years may demonstrate that Americans like tariffs better in theory than in practice. On the campaign trail, beating up on foreign trading partners was always a reliable applause line for Trump. In the months before the 2024 election, two-thirds of those surveyed by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs supported restricting trade to protect American jobs.

But once Trump began doing just that — and the real world costs began mounting — public support evaporated, according to Washington Post polling. From Liberation Day through this week’s voting, Americans rejected tariffs — and eventually the political party that produced them.