The Confidence Collapse

April 15, 2026

The Confidence Collapse: America Has Never Felt Worse

The University of Michigan’s Consumer Sentiment Index just hit the lowest reading in its 74-year history — a number that is not an abstraction, but the measurable cost of erratic governance, tariff-driven inflation, an unauthorized war, and a president who has confounded economists, alienated allies, and spooked every American who has ever checked a grocery receipt. This is the record Donald Trump has earned.

On April 10, 2026, the University of Michigan released a number that should stop every serious person in Washington cold: 47.6. That is the preliminary consumer sentiment reading for April — the lowest score ever recorded in the survey’s 74-year history, surpassing even the depths of the 2008 financial collapse, the stagflationary misery of the late 1970s, the peak of COVID-era despair, and every crisis in between. This is not a blip, a seasonal adjustment artifact, or a passing mood. It is the aggregate voice of the American public rendering a verdict on the state of their economic lives — and that verdict is historic in its severity.

The April reading of 47.6 represents an 11 percent drop from March’s already-depressed figure of 53.3. It lands well below the previous all-time low of 50 recorded in June 2022 during peak Biden-era inflation — a figure Republicans spent years citing as proof of Democratic failure. That number now looks almost enviable. Economist G. Elliott Morris put the comparison starkly: during Trump’s first term, the Michigan sentiment index averaged 97.5 over the first 23 months. In his second term so far, it has averaged 55.5 — and now sits at 47.6. That is a 50-point swing. No president in the history of the survey has presided over a collapse of this magnitude.

1. The Numbers That Don’t Lie

The University of Michigan’s Surveys of Consumers, directed by economist Joanne Hsu, measures how households across income levels, age groups, and political affiliations feel about their personal finances and the broader economic outlook. It is one of the most closely watched indicators in the world. When Hsu released the April 2026 data, she reported that the decline was broadly distributed across all demographics — every age bracket, every income tier, every political affiliation. The pain is not partisan. It is universal. Year-ahead inflation expectations surged from 3.8 percent in March to 4.8 percent in April — the largest single-month spike since April 2025, when Liberation Day tariffs first rattled the public psyche. Long-run inflation expectations ticked up to 3.4 percent, the highest since November 2025. Assessments of personal finances dropped 11 percent. One-year business condition expectations cratered 20 percent. Buying conditions for durable goods and vehicles deteriorated further. The survey, as Axios reported, captured a country that does not merely feel uncertain — it feels besieged.

Key Indicators at a Glance

Consumer Sentiment Index

47.6

All-time record low in the survey’s 74-year history. Previous low was 50 in June 2022. Down 11% from March in a single month.

University of Michigan →

Year-Ahead Inflation Expectation

4.8%

Largest single-month jump since April 2025. Consumers increasingly expect prices to keep climbing faster than wages.

Axios Report →

Trump Approval on Economy

–56%

Quinnipiac polling shows 56% disapproval on economic handling. Trump’s overall approval sits at 37% — lowest of his second term.

Groundwork Collaborative →

Manufacturing Jobs Lost

77,000

Manufacturing employment fell by 77,000 positions from April through December 2025, despite Trump’s promise to revitalize the sector.

Center for American Progress →

Trump 2nd-Term Sentiment Avg.

55.5

Average Michigan sentiment during Trump’s second term — versus the 97.5 average of his first term. The contrast is without precedent.

G. Elliott Morris →

Business Condition Expectations

–20%

One-year business condition expectations plunged 20% in April alone. Consumers see no improvement on the horizon for the broader economy.

U of M Surveys →

2. The Tariff Tax on Every American

The confidence collapse did not arrive without warning. It was manufactured — one executive order, one erratic announcement, one chaotic reversal at a time. The proximate cause that survey respondents most frequently cited is the Iran war’s spike in gas prices and energy costs. But the deeper structural cause is a trade policy that has functioned for the past year as a hidden tax on every American who buys groceries, appliances, cars, or clothing.

On April 2, 2025 — “Liberation Day” — Trump announced sweeping country-by-country tariffs with an oversized Rose Garden posterboard, instantly upending global trade. As CNN’s year-in-review tracker documented, the administration collected $187 billion more in tariff revenue in 2025 than in 2024 — a nearly 200 percent increase. In the early months, roughly 80 percent of those costs were absorbed by businesses. But as CNN Business reported in January, those same businesses are now passing the bill to consumers, with that ratio projected to flip — meaning consumers will shoulder 80 percent of the cost in 2026.

Procter & Gamble raised prices on 25 percent of its products, citing a billion-dollar annual tariff impact. Goldman Sachs economists estimated that tariffs added half a percentage point to inflation in 2025 — consistent with Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s assessment that Trump’s tariffs were responsible for the entirety of inflation’s rise above the Fed’s 2 percent target. And the Center for American Progress found that nearly 70 percent of Americans predicted 2026 would be a year of economic difficulty — a prediction that, four months in, appears grimly accurate.

“It’s impossible to plan. You hear that tariffs are off, and you are considering how to get refunds. Then a few hours later, it’s 10 percent. Then it’s 15 percent the next day. Not having that stable framework is hurtful for activity, hiring, investment.”

— Gregory Daco, Chief Economist, EY-Parthenon, via Al Jazeera

The instability is the policy. When the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s IEEPA tariffs as unlawful in February 2026, Trump’s response was not course-correction — it was tantrum. He threatened to do “absolutely terrible things” to trading partners who tried to take advantage of the ruling, posted that he “does not have to go back to Congress” for tariff authority, and within hours announced a 10 percent tariff, then a 15 percent tariff, then walked the rate back to 10 percent — leaving every CFO, supply chain manager, and family budget planner in the country unable to plan for anything. Goldman Sachs economist Pierfrancesco Mei warned that every additional five-percentage-point increase in effective tariff rates would reduce 2026 GDP growth by 0.4 percent and push inflation higher still.

3. An Unauthorized War and a Shattered Economy

Into a consumer economy already fraying under the weight of tariff uncertainty, the Trump administration on February 28, 2026, launched joint strikes on Iran — without a clear congressional authorization, without a publicly stated rationale, and, according to multiple reports, against the warnings of senior advisors. The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil supply flows, was subsequently choked off by Iranian retaliation. Energy prices spiked to their highest levels since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

That energy shock is now visible in every component of the April consumer sentiment report. Hsu noted that open-ended survey responses showed consumers blaming the Iran conflict for unfavorable economic changes. Critically, 98 percent of April survey interviews were conducted before the April 7th ceasefire announcement, meaning the carnage in sentiment predates any potential recovery from a truce. The damage to confidence is documented, quantified, and squarely traceable to decisions made — or not made — in the Oval Office.

The personal finance assessment component of the survey hit its lowest level since 2009 — the depths of the Great Recession. The wealth effect that buoyed consumer spending in 2023 and 2024 has reversed: the S&P 500 is broadly flat year-to-date after a sharp selloff, and for the millions of Americans whose retirement savings are tied to equity markets, the anxiety is not abstract. The World Trade Organization has revised its 2025 trade growth forecast sharply downward, citing tariff escalation as the primary risk. Global trade volumes are contracting for the first time since the pandemic.

A Timeline of Self-Inflicted Crisis

April 2, 2025

“Liberation Day”: Trump unveils sweeping country-by-country tariffs in the Rose Garden. Global markets immediately convulse. Consumer sentiment begins its long descent.

Late 2025

Government Shutdown drags on for over a month, erasing 6.2% of consumer sentiment in November alone — a reading of 50.4, down nearly 30% from one year prior.

January 2026

Tariff costs shift from businesses to consumers. Online prices jump at a record pace. Layoff announcements accelerate — 110,000 in January, a 118% increase year-over-year.

February 23, 2026

Supreme Court strikes down IEEPA tariffs as unlawful. Trump threatens trading partners, announces chaotic new rates within hours, and claims he does not need congressional approval.

February 28, 2026

U.S. and Israel launch strikes on Iran without clear congressional authorization. Iran retaliates by closing the Strait of Hormuz. Energy prices spike to highest levels since the Ukraine invasion.

March 26, 2026

Trump jokes about the 25th Amendment at a Cabinet meeting, saying he cannot reveal his Iran war plans because “They’d institute the 25th Amendment.”

April 5–6, 2026

Trump posts Easter Sunday threat on Truth Social, declaring that a “whole civilization will die tonight” if Iran does not open the Strait of Hormuz. More than 70 lawmakers call for his removal.

April 10, 2026

Consumer Sentiment falls to 47.6 — the lowest reading ever recorded in the University of Michigan’s 74-year history.

Get Involved Today

Contribute to our mission and turn your concerns into action.

4. Erratic Leadership as Economic Policy

There is a pattern in all of this, and it is not difficult to name. The defining characteristic of economic governance under Trump’s second term is not ideology — it is volatility. Tariff rates announced one morning are retracted by afternoon. Wars are started with posts on Truth Social. Trade partners are threatened with “absolutely terrible things” by the same president who, weeks later, reaches a ceasefire. The economic literature on policy uncertainty is extensive and consistent: it suppresses investment, deters hiring, and destroys exactly the kind of consumer confidence that the Michigan survey measures.

The Fulcrum’s analysis of Trump’s first year found that 74 percent of Americans believe the economy is mostly poor or at best fair — and more than half say Trump’s economic policies have made things worse. Monthly job creation averaged just 55,000 positions in the first 11 months of Trump’s second term, compared with 192,000 per month during the final two years of the Biden administration. Unemployment climbed to 4.6 percent — the highest in over four years. Health insurance premiums rose 114 percent for marketplace plans after the Big Beautiful Bill let enhanced tax credits expire. Electricity prices increased at two-and-a-half times the overall inflation rate in 2025 — the highest annual increase since December 2014.

“The Constitution is not perfectly designed for an emergency like this, but the 25th Amendment is definitely the closest avenue we have for a federal response.”

— Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Constitutional Law Expert & House Judiciary Ranking Member

None of these numbers exist in isolation. They are connected by a common thread: a governing style characterized by impulsivity, legal recklessness, and a willful indifference to consequence. When the person responsible for the largest economy on earth treats tariff policy as a daily improvisation, trade law as a personal prerogative above courts, and war-making as a Truth Social exercise, the result is exactly what the University of Michigan has now documented — the complete collapse of public confidence in the economic future.

5. The Democratic Response: Calls for Accountability

The economic crisis and the constitutional one are no longer separable. On Easter Sunday, April 6, Trump posted a profane, threatening message on Truth Social promising that “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day” for Iran — a statement widely interpreted as threatening to strike civilian infrastructure in violation of the Geneva Conventions, issued by a 79-year-old self-identified Christian president on the holiest day of the Christian calendar. The reaction was immediate and, notably, bipartisan.

By Tuesday afternoon more than 70 lawmakers — including Senators Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Chris Murphy of Connecticut, along with Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ro Khanna, Rashida Tlaib, Seth Moulton, Robert Garcia, and Yassamin Ansari — had publicly called for Trump’s removal through impeachment or the 25th Amendment. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries signaled openness to a formal accountability push, announcing that Rep. Jamie Raskin would brief the full Democratic caucus on constitutional options. Even former MAGA stalwarts Marjorie Taylor Greene and Alex Jones joined the chorus. Candace Owens wrote simply: “The 25th Amendment needs to be invoked.”

Rep. Raskin — a constitutional law professor and the lead manager of Trump’s second impeachment trial — has since formally demanded a presidential cognitive test, arguing that Congress possesses independent authority under the amendment’s language to create “such other body as Congress may by law provide” to assess presidential fitness. As Raskin told Axios: the Constitution gives lawmakers a tool, even if the cabinet remains supine.

The Presidential Disability Clause and the Case for Invocation

The Mechanism: Section 4 of the 25th Amendment — ratified in 1967 after the lessons of President Kennedy’s assassination — provides that whenever the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet transmit to Congress a written declaration that the President is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” the Vice President assumes those powers as Acting President. The President can contest this declaration, but if the Vice President and Cabinet reaffirm their position within four days, Congress must vote — and it takes a two-thirds majority of both chambers to permanently remove the President from power. As PBS NewsHour documented, one of the amendment’s architects, Rep. Richard Poff, stated explicitly that Section 4 applied not only to physical incapacitation but to cases where a president, “by reason of mental debility, is unable or unwilling to make any rational decision.”

Named Legislators Who Have Called for Action: Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ), Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM), Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA), along with more than 70 House and Senate Democrats in total, and several Republicans including former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker — a potential 2028 presidential contender — joined the call publicly.

The Constitutional Argument: The case rests on a convergence of documented behaviors: unilateral military action against Iran without congressional authorization; public threats to destroy civilian infrastructure in possible violation of the Geneva Conventions; chaotic and legally invalid trade policy reversed by the nation’s highest court; and the President’s own admission — at a Cabinet meeting on March 26 — that he could not reveal his war plans because “They’d institute the 25th Amendment.” A president who jokes publicly about being removed for his own conduct has invited the question of fitness himself.

The Practical Barriers: The path is daunting. Vice President J.D. Vance has given no indication he would initiate proceedings. Trump’s Cabinet is populated with loyalists. Republican members of Congress — with very few exceptions — have declined to join Democratic calls for accountability. Even Rep. Raskin has acknowledged that “There is not a single Republican who has called for impeachment or indicated to us interest in impeachment at this point.” A two-thirds vote in a Republican-led Congress is, under current conditions, a political impossibility.

Why the Barriers Don’t Negate the Moral Case: The purpose of naming a constitutional mechanism is not merely tactical — it is testimonial. When more than 70 elected representatives of the American people stand up and declare that the President of the United States poses a danger to constitutional order, they are performing the oldest function of representative government: bearing witness, on the record, for history. The economic devastation documented by the University of Michigan — a record-low confidence reading achieved in less than two years — is not collateral damage. It is the direct and foreseeable consequence of leadership that cannot be trusted, predicted, or constrained by law. The 25th Amendment exists for exactly this category of crisis. That it will not be used today does not mean it should not be named.

Editorial Conclusion

A consumer sentiment reading of 47.6 is not a data point. It is a confession — one extracted from millions of American households who, when asked how they feel about their economic lives, returned an answer never recorded in 74 years of asking the question. It is the measurable cost of tariffs imposed by decree and reversed by court order, of a war launched on a Truth Social post, of healthcare gutted by a budget bill sold as beautiful, and of a governing philosophy that mistakes chaos for strength. The constitutional mechanism exists. The moral case has been made — on the record, by more than 70 members of Congress, in language the history books will keep. The question that remains is not whether this president has failed the American people by every measurable standard. He has. The question is whether the institutions designed to correct that failure will find the courage to function before the damage becomes irreversible.