As the US midterm elections approach, President Donald Trump is stepping up his campaign with a combination of financial promises and economic incentives, while warning that states and voters could lose access to federal funding and assistance if Republicans fail to win.
As the White House seeks to rally voters behind the governing party’s candidates, the strategy is raising questions about the limits of using government resources in political competition and whether such tactics can restore voter confidence amid rising prices and declining presidential approval ratings.
Reports published by Politico and Newsweek outline a strategy that increasingly links Americans’ direct economic and household interests to the outcome of the elections.
Promises tied to voters’ support
According to a report by Politico journalist Megan Messerly, Trump began an election tour of several states in September, making promises of projects, investments, and financial assistance, while tying some of them to a Republican victory in November.
In Dallas, he spoke of paying $5,000 to every adult American if Republicans retained control of Congress. He later announced other initiatives involving the pharmaceutical and biofuel industries, as well as compensation for people affected by water contamination.
The significance of these promises lies not only in their financial value but also in how they are presented to voters. Rather than simply arguing that the Republican Party is best positioned to advance local interests, Trump has framed some benefits as a direct equation: a Republican victory means money or projects will be delivered, while a Republican defeat could mean they will not, according to his statements.
In Kansas, the president linked year-round sales of E15, a fuel blend containing 15% ethanol, to the re-election of Republican Senator Roger Marshall. He said that if Marshall’s Democratic challenger, Adam Hamilton, were elected, he would not move forward with the measure. The pledge matters to the agricultural sector and consumers because of the fuel’s implications for energy prices and demand for agricultural products.
Trump also announced an $8 billion program to help farmers cope with fuel costs as they face rising diesel prices, amid mounting economic pressure from oil market disruptions linked to the war on Iran.
According to Newsweek, Trump also announced that he would direct the Justice Department to settle outstanding claims that are legally owed to disaster victims in North Carolina if Republicans win control of both chambers of Congress. He added that a Republican defeat would mean, in his words, that there would be no money available for compensation.
Disaster victims and pollution claims at the center of the campaign
The sensitivity of this strategy becomes more pronounced when it involves disaster relief and compensation owed to victims.
In North Carolina, Trump sparked controversy when he suggested during a campaign rally in Gastonia that he might withhold additional funding for recovery from Hurricane Helene if Republican Senate candidate Michael Whatley lost to Democrat Roy Cooper.
Speaking about the funding expected by the state, the president said he would not send the money if Whatley lost before backtracking and saying he had been joking. But Democratic Governor Josh Stein rejected the approach, arguing that linking the response to a devastating disaster to an election result was not an appropriate way to govern the country or conduct political campaigns.
Trump’s characterization of the remark as a joke has not ended the controversy, particularly because he has previously rejected $227 million in disaster funding requests from four Democratic-led states, according to a Newsweek report by journalist Julia Carbonaro.
In the same state, the president’s comments about victims of water contamination at the Camp Lejeune military base took on a more direct tone. He announced that he would instruct the Justice Department to settle outstanding claims that are legally owed if Republicans win control of both chambers of Congress, adding that a defeat would mean, in his words, there would be no money for compensation.
However, information reported by Politico indicates that the compensation process did not begin with the current campaign. By September, the Justice Department had already made settlement offers worth more than $1.1 billion under legislation signed by former President Joe Biden in 2022.
This raises questions about the rationale for tying the completion of an existing process to election results, as well as the legitimacy of using victims’ suffering as a means of political pressure.
President Trump tried to galvanize Republican voters in Iowa, a state he won by double digits two years ago but now faces a tougher battle in the November midterm elections due to dissatisfaction with rising prices and the Iran war https://t.co/9XxWnDNoKd https://t.co/roC3jF8WLY
— Reuters (@Reuters) October 23, 2026
Between incentives and threats
Trump’s campaign messages have extended beyond North Carolina and Kansas. In Ohio, he suggested that he might be less willing to provide federal assistance to the state if Democrat Amy Acton won the governorship. The remarks came amid important electoral contests for Republicans. He also discussed his relationships with Republican officials in the state, suggesting that a change in political leadership could alter those ties.
These examples illustrate a shift in campaign rhetoric away from promoting party policies and platforms toward appealing to voters through specific financial interests—and, at times, warning that those benefits could be lost.
A resident awaiting compensation for personal losses or a community rebuilding homes after a hurricane is thus confronted with a message linking essential needs to electoral choices, even when the funding involves existing government programs or measures requiring legislative approval.
Critics warn that this approach risks blurring the line between the public interest and party loyalty, undermining the principle that citizens should receive federal services according to law and need rather than their political choices.
Republicans, by contrast, defend Trump’s remarks as a way of clarifying what is at stake in the election. They argue that a Democratic victory would obstruct the president’s agenda and prevent him from implementing his proposals.
Politico quoted Natalie Baldassare, a spokesperson for the Republican National Committee, as saying that Trump was simply explaining the importance of the election and urging voters to support candidates who would work with his administration.
The White House also told the publication in a statement that the president wanted to preserve the Republican majority in Congress so he could continue implementing his agenda.
Promises that may be difficult to fulfill
Beyond the political and ethical controversy, practical questions remain about the administration’s ability to deliver on its commitments. Some proposals, such as distributing $5,000 to every adult American, would require substantial funding and congressional approval. A presidential announcement alone cannot guarantee implementation.
Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, described the prospect of such payments as highly unlikely. He noted that the cost could increase the federal deficit and that retaining a Republican congressional majority would not guarantee that party members would approve the plan.
Other investments and initiatives, meanwhile, were already moving through government processes. Politico reported that the Defense Department had announced a conditional $80 million loan to a pharmaceutical company in Kentucky, while the Justice Department was pursuing settlements for Camp Lejeune victims.
This suggests that linking these matters to the election does not always reflect an absence of government action. Instead, it raises questions about the use of existing achievements or commitments to bolster the prospects of particular candidates.
Republican strategists have warned that the messaging could backfire, particularly as voters’ concerns about corruption grow. A poll cited by Politico found that 60% of respondents were very concerned about corruption, placing it ahead of inflation and health care as a source of concern.
Republican strategist Jason Roe said the approach was relatively new but questioned its credibility and its ability to persuade voters.
These concerns come as Trump’s approval rating has fallen to 36%. Rising inflation, linked to oil market disruptions and the war on Iran, has also added to the pressure on Republicans, who typically face electoral difficulties in midterm elections when their party holds the White House.
A test of presidential power
Ultimately, Trump is seeking to turn the midterm elections into a referendum on his ability to continue implementing his agenda, relying on tangible promises on the one hand and warnings about the potential loss of funding and assistance on the other.
Such messages may help mobilize some voters, particularly in closely contested states. But they may also raise doubts among others about the fairness of public resource allocation and the credibility of campaign pledges.
The election battle, therefore, is not simply about which side can make the biggest promises. It also concerns the relationship between political power and voters and the limits of using public money in electoral competition.
The central question facing Americans on November 3 may not be only what they stand to gain if Republicans win, but whether promises and threats will convince them that their interests will be protected regardless of which party prevails.
Source: Agencies (translated and edited by Al-Manar)