As the conflict with Iran intensifies, President Donald Trump has focused heavily on soothing financial markets. His primary objective has been preventing oil prices from escalating dramatically, averting stock market crashes, and stopping interest rates from spiking.

Diminishing Returns on Market Messaging

Trump's Response to Market Volatility

Whenever markets signal distress, President Trump has quickly utilized social media posts or public remarks. He frequently asserts that the war he initiated last month will conclude soon. Despite these efforts, the S&P 500 index has fallen over the last five weeks, and the global oil benchmark has risen by approximately 60%.

At a Friday investor summit, Trump commented on the situation: “I thought oil prices were going to go up higher than they are now,” adding, “And I thought that we would see a bigger drop in stock. It hasn’t been that bad.”

Economic Consequences Ignored

The White House has largely avoided aggressive messaging to voters regarding the economic fallout. Instead, the strategy centers on containing damage within the financial markets. These markets have reacted wildly based on speculation regarding ceasefires or escalations in the high-stakes situation.

Trump’s mixed messaging was evident Monday before the stock market opened. He posted about significant progress in peace talks while simultaneously threatening Iranian civilian infrastructure, like desalination plants, if a deal was not reached “shortly.”

Voter Confidence Wanes Amid Economic Pain

Staking Agenda on Economic Stability

The White House views the stock, energy, and bond markets as indirect channels to reach constituents. President Trump has built his economic agenda around affordable gasoline, strong 401(k) growth, and lower mortgage rates.

However, this messaging appears to be losing traction. The president’s statements have done little to alter the reality that a significant portion of global energy supplies remains disrupted by the conflict.

Public Approval Numbers Reflect Concern

A March survey by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research showed only 38% of U.S. adults approve of Trump’s economic handling, with only 35% supporting his approach to Iran.

Gene Sperling, a former top economic adviser for Democratic administrations, argued that voters directly link gas prices to Trump’s decision to engage Iran. He stated that “simplistic jawboning” is inadequate for a public facing soaring gasoline costs, which surpassed $4 a gallon nationwide.

Sperling suggested the president must “speak directly to the American people and fully acknowledge the economic pain that his policy has so directly caused” rather than dismissing it. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt dismissed the oil price increases as a “short-term fluctuation” on Monday.

Expert Analysis on Diminishing Credibility

Uncertainty and Lost Confidence

Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale University School of Management professor, noted that Trump’s strategy of mixed messages is backfiring. He stated, “The uncertainty is now soaring.”

Sonnenfeld added that as reassurances fail to calm financial markets, “so, too, has Trump diminished public confidence.” Trump has maintained flexibility in war conduct, even while threatening further military action, such as when he stated Iran was “begging” for a deal during a Thursday Cabinet meeting.

Market Reactions Show Fatigue

On Friday, Trump extended the deadline for Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz, delaying planned strikes on energy plants in the interim. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed on Monday that the market is adequately supplied due to countries releasing strategic reserves and sanctions relief on existing oil.

Graham Steele, a former Biden-era Treasury official, observed that Trump’s messaging techniques have “diminishing returns, over time,” when detached from results. He noted that initial market volatility has given way to a “steady trend upward in prices,” indicating markets are no longer responding strongly to the pronouncements.

Consumer Sentiment Reflects Economic Anxiety

Consumer Confidence Declines

The University of Michigan’s Index of Consumer Sentiment dropped to 53.3 in March, its lowest reading since December. Joanne Hsu, director of the surveys, attributed this decline to financial market volatility following the Iran conflict, particularly affecting middle and higher-income households.

Hsu mentioned that while households do not expect energy costs and stock declines to be permanent, this outlook could shift if the conflict becomes protracted. Gus Faucher, chief economist at PNC Financial Services, stressed that consumers need tangible improvements, such as lower gas prices and a stable stock market, which likely requires a definitive conflict resolution, not just presidential statements.