President Donald Trump is facing a challenge that can’t be dismissed as just media bias. A new Fox News poll, conducted by both Democratic and Republican polling firms, shows his job approval at 39%, just one point above the lowest rating he has received from Fox.

The poll highlights widespread dissatisfaction with Trump’s handling of inflation, the economy, immigration, and Iran. For Republicans, these results point to economic frustration shaping the upcoming 2026 midterm elections.

Trump’s Approval Remains Underwater

The Fox News national survey found that 39% of registered voters approved of Trump’s job performance. This rating has remained steady for the third month in a row and is slightly above the 38% low he reached in October 2017.

Immigration was Trump’s strongest issue, yet he still faced considerable disapproval. Forty-two percent approved of his immigration policies, while 57% disapproved. His ratings on Iran were even worse, with 34% approval and 66% disapproval, and on the economy, where 33% approved and 67% disapproved.

Inflation showed the clearest warning sign. Only 27% approved of Trump’s performance, while 73% disapproved.

These numbers matter because Trump’s comeback was partly based on his promise to restore affordability. Many voters do not believe he has kept that promise. Democrats now lead Republicans by 10 points on inflation and by nine points on the economy.

Economic Pain Dominates the Poll

Around three-quarters of registered voters gave the economy a negative rating. Another 75% said inflation had hurt them financially, including 34% who described their situation as serious. That serious-hardship figure rose from 26% last year.

Fifty-four percent expected the economy to get worse in the next year. While Republicans remained hopeful, 75% of Democrats and 64% of independents anticipated a downturn.

Trump needs voters to believe his policies are improving their lives, but the Fox poll suggests many see it differently.

A June Fox News survey found that only 12% felt they were improving financially, while 44% felt they were falling behind. The July results indicate that the frustration is not just a passing issue.

Who Answered the Fox News Poll?

The survey ran from July 17 to July 20, 2026, under the guidance of Beacon Research, a Democratic firm, and Shaw & Company Research, a Republican firm.

Fox polled 1,003 registered voters randomly selected from a national voter file. Of those, 681 participated through live interviews on cellphones, 70 answered via landline, and 252 completed the survey online after receiving a text invitation.

The poll included an additional sample of voters aged 18 to 29, increasing that subgroup to 350. Fox weighted the results according to age, race, education, and geographic variables so the total sample accurately reflected the national registered-voter population.

This distinction is important. The poll represents registered voters, not all adults in the United States and not only those who voted for Trump or participated in the 2024 election.

The margin of sampling error was plus or minus three percentage points. Trump’s 39% approval rating should not be seen as perfectly accurate, but that doesn’t mean the poll could be wrong by any significant amount.

Pew Research Center methodologist Andrew Mercer explained the limitation in a guide to understanding polling margins of error: “Because surveys only talk to a sample of the population,” the outcome will not match what would be found by interviewing everyone.

A Warning, Not an Election Prediction

An approval poll does not predict how every respondent will vote. Some who disapprove of Trump may still vote Republican due to party loyalty or dissatisfaction with Democrats.

Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who helps conduct Fox News polls, warned that Americans from both parties are becoming increasingly distrustful of the system. “Both think elected officials answer to the elites, both think the system is rigged,” he said.

The poll showed Democrats ahead on the generic House ballot with 53% to 46%, their best percentage in Fox’s version of the question since 1996. Democratic voters were also more likely to identify as extremely motivated to vote compared to Republicans.

The strongest message is not that Trump has lost his core supporters. Rather, his coalition is no longer enough to instill confidence in the broader public. When a Fox News poll shows only a third approving of a Republican president’s economic management, the White House cannot dismiss the result as simply liberal polling.

Trump’s political risk lies at home. Voters evaluate him based on grocery bills, housing costs, insurance premiums, and wages that feel insufficient. Unless these experiences improve, Trump’s approval rating may be the least of the Republican Party’s challenges in November.

America is facing an oil shock that should have caused higher gas prices.

The Strait of Hormuz, which handled almost 20 million barrels of oil daily in 2025, has been closed or restricted for much of the Iran conflict. Yet the latest official U.S. average for regular gasoline was $3.855 per gallon on July 13. This is slightly below the $3.95 Americans paid on average in 2022, when Russia’s invasion of Ukraine caused chaos in energy markets.

Gas is not cheap. The key point is that the Trump administration has prevented a major supply disruption from repeating June 2022, when regular gasoline reached $5.01 across the country.

A Government Willing to Use Every Lever

The administration viewed oil supply as an emergency and implemented various policies.

In March, President Donald Trump approved a 172-million-barrel exchange from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as part of a coordinated 400-million-barrel release by International Energy Agency members. Companies borrowing this crude must return it with premiums. This approach allows emergency supply to reach markets without permanently removing all barrels from the reserve.

The Environmental Protection Agency approved nationwide summer sales of E15 and relaxed rules that divided the country into specialized gasoline markets. The White House also temporarily waived the Jones Act, allowing foreign-flagged ships to transport oil and fuel between American ports when shipping capacity was limited.

These actions cannot replace Hormuz but can buy time and reduce regional shortages.

Trump also approached sanctions policy thoughtfully. The administration temporarily allowed the sale of Iranian oil already at sea. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent described this as using “the Iranian barrels against Tehran” to keep prices low. Officials estimated that this waiver could release around 140 million barrels into global markets.

Domestic Production Provided a Cushion

Trump took office with a U.S. oil industry producing near record levels, and his administration continued to prioritize production. The Energy Information Administration expects American crude production to average 13.8 million barrels per day in 2026 and reach 14 million in 2027.

Domestic production does not insulate Americans from global prices, but it gives refiners more options and strengthens the country’s position during disruptions.

Alternative export routes have played a role as well. The International Energy Agency estimates that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates can reroute 3.5 million to 5.5 million barrels per day through pipelines that avoid Hormuz. While this cannot fully replace normal strait traffic, it has prevented a complete cutoff.

Demand has also weakened. The IEA projected world oil demand would decrease in 2026 as expensive fuel, slower growth, and disruptions in aviation reduced consumption. This is not a direct achievement of the White House, but it made the administration’s actions more effective.

Diplomacy Moved Prices Faster Than Drilling

The biggest drop in prices came from diplomacy, not new oil wells.

After the United States and Iran reached an interim agreement in June, tanker traffic increased and crude prices fell from their wartime highs. Kpler analyst Muyu Xu noted that reopening Hormuz could release about 93 million barrels of stranded non-Iranian crude.

Gasoline prices followed suit, dropping from about $4.50 in May to below $4 in June. Patrick De Haan, GasBuddy’s head of petroleum analysis, referred to normal oil flows as “the clearest signal that this relief is durable.”

However, the relief did not last. Renewed fighting in July again reduced tanker traffic, and analysts predicted gasoline prices could rise back to $4. The latest $3.855 figure is thus an achievement under pressure, not a lasting victory.

Where Gas Prices Could Go Next

If Hormuz fully reopens and stays open, regular gasoline prices could settle between $3.35 and $3.60 per gallon by late 2026.

The EIA’s July forecast estimated the average for the third quarter at $3.80 and projected about $3.40 in the fourth quarter as crude supply stabilizes, inventories rebuild, and summer demand decreases. It expects global production and trade to return to prewar conditions by year’s end, though full restoration may extend into early 2027.

Prices will not drop dramatically overnight. Refinery margins remain high, gasoline stocks are tight, and a new attack could quickly restore the geopolitical premium.

Still, the difference from 2022 is significant. Trump’s administration used reserves, regulatory waivers, shipping flexibility, sanctions relief, and diplomacy to prevent a partially closed Hormuz from causing $5 gasoline again.

This record deserves recognition. Holding it will require reopening the strait, not just managing its closure.

America’s inflation debate often focuses on clogged ports, stimulus spending, labor shortages, oil shocks, and interest rates. While these factors matter, they don’t fully explain why temporary cost increases can become permanent price floors. When a few companies dominate an industry, consumers can’t respond to a price hike by shopping elsewhere. A disruption then becomes a chance to raise prices, protect profits, and keep them high.

Corporate consolidation and inflation are linked because weak competition takes away the pressure that usually forces companies to absorb costs, improve service, and compete for customers.

This lack of pressure affects nearly every household budget.

Market Power Turns a Shock Into a Price Hike

Research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City found that company markups increased by 3.4 percent in 2021 while inflation, measured by the Personal Consumption Expenditures price index, reached 5.8 percent. The researchers estimated that markup growth could account for over half of that year’s inflation. They noted that this trend aligns more with companies forecasting future costs than with a sudden increase in monopoly power.

That caution is crucial. It also shows that pricing choices were significant. In a competitive market, a company that raises prices above its costs risks being undercut. In a concentrated market, too few rivals may lack the scale, inventory, or distribution network to impose that penalty.

Monopolization doesn’t cause every inflationary shock, but it makes such shocks easier to exploit and tougher to reverse.

The Grocery Aisle Shows How Concentration Works

The Federal Trade Commission’s grocery supply-chain investigation found that large market players worsened the damage from pandemic disruptions. Some major retailers used their purchasing power to secure scarce goods while smaller grocers struggled to keep their shelves stocked. The agency also noted that parts of the industry used rising costs as an excuse to increase prices and profits.

Food and beverage retailer revenue rose to 7 percent above total costs during the first three quarters of 2023, surpassing the previous peak mentioned by the FTC. This doesn’t prove that every grocery price increase was unjustified, but it shows that prices were not just following expenses.

Concentration limits choices before shoppers even reach the checkout. A powerful retailer can demand better allocations, a dominant supplier can prioritize its largest accounts, and smaller competitors can lose access to expected products. Shelves may still appear full, but the number of independent companies controlling production, wholesale distribution, and retail placement has declined.

Fewer Competitors Means Fewer Real Choices

The Justice Department and FTC’s 2023 Merger Guidelines describe competition as the force that drives businesses to lower prices, enhance quality, innovate, and broaden choices. The guidelines warn that mergers can cut down the number or appeal of alternatives for customers.

Consumer choice isn’t measured by counting colorful packages or slightly different subscription tiers. It depends on how many independent companies have a reason to earn a customer’s business.

When two competitors merge, products may not vanish immediately. What disappears is an independent decision-maker. One parent company can set prices, close overlapping locations, reduce service, cancel lower-margin products, or slow down innovation. The illusion of choice may linger long after real competition has faded.

The proposed Kroger-Albertsons merger illustrates why regulators are being more cautious. Federal and state judges blocked the $24.6 billion deal in 2024 after regulators argued that merging two major supermarket rivals would harm competition and risk higher grocery prices. The companies promised efficiencies, but courts focused on what consumers could lose.

Weak Competition Makes Inflation Stickier

When transportation, fuel, labor, or commodity costs rise, dominant firms can increase prices quickly. When those costs drop, the pressure to roll back prices is weaker because customers have fewer alternatives.

This creates a punishing cycle. Consumers pay more, the Federal Reserve reacts with higher interest rates, and households face costlier mortgages, vehicles, and credit cards. Small businesses bear the brunt of higher borrowing costs while the biggest firms retain the scale and market power that helped them maintain profit margins.

Antitrust enforcement can’t replace responsible monetary, fiscal, energy, or supply-chain policies. It’s not a magic fix. But treating inflation solely as excess demand or temporary shortages leaves a significant part of the pricing system unaddressed.

Competition Is a Cost-of-Living Policy

The solution isn’t to punish companies for being successful. It’s to prevent success from becoming a permanent right to exclude rivals. Regulators should closely examine serial acquisitions, challenge mergers that eliminate significant competitors, scrutinize exclusionary contracts, and lower barriers that stop new firms from entering concentrated markets.

A market with five logos but only two real decision-makers isn’t competitive.

Monopolization raises the cost of daily living twice: first through the bill consumers pay, and again through the choices they no longer have.