President Donald Trump’s policies abroad are becoming an economic vulnerability at home as Americans face higher costs linked to the war against Iran and his broad tariff programme. With the midterm elections approaching, that connection threatens Republicans’ hold on Congress. Trump and his allies are seeking to move the political discussion elsewhere, while the pressure on household finances makes foreign policy harder to separate from the economic concerns that usually shape these contests.

The Nov. 3 elections will test how voters respond to costs that are both an economic problem and a consequence of presidential decisions abroad. There are increasing indications that Americans are making the connection, adding to the electoral risk for Republicans. The issue therefore extends beyond whether voters approve of Trump’s international approach in isolation. It also concerns whether their experience of rising expenses becomes a basis for judging that approach—and his fellow Republicans.

Foreign affairs do not usually determine the outcome of US midterm elections; economic conditions generally carry more weight in voters’ decisions. This campaign complicates that distinction. The Iran war and the tariff campaign are international policies with consequences for Americans’ expenses, bringing foreign affairs directly into the pocketbook debate. For Republicans, the difficulty is that a discussion of household costs can therefore become a discussion of Trump’s foreign policy without voters having to choose between the two.

Read more: Arab-majority parties weigh support for Netanyahu’s opponents

The two policies create separate points of exposure within the same economic argument. The war against Iran is pushing up costs, as is the administration’s sweeping use of tariffs. Neither issue can therefore be understood solely through its international dimension in this election campaign. Their political significance also rests on whether Americans connect their higher expenses to those policies. That gives the economic consequences of Trump’s decisions a relevance extending beyond voters whose main concern is the conduct of foreign affairs.

The emerging connection in voters’ thinking adds a political dimension to the higher costs. An increase in expenses does not, by itself, establish whom voters will hold responsible. But indications that Americans are linking those expenses to Trump’s choices suggest that the economic debate and the president’s record abroad are becoming intertwined. The risk for Republicans is that voters judge the policies partly through the pressure those policies put on household finances.

Trump and his allies are trying to redirect the campaign discussion as the elections draw closer. That effort is unfolding alongside signs that voters are connecting higher costs to the president’s foreign policy. Its effectiveness remains uncertain. A change in political emphasis would not itself remove the higher costs Americans are facing, and the electoral significance of those costs depends in part on whether voters connect them to presidential decisions.

Read more: U.S. reduces embassy staffing as warnings of Iranian threats intensify

The competing pressures are therefore over both responsibility and attention. For Republicans, a campaign focused on the domestic expense of Trump’s international policies could carry electoral risks. Voters concerned about their finances, meanwhile, have an economic basis for considering those policies when assessing the administration’s record. These are not necessarily separate debates. The more closely Americans associate the war and tariffs with their own costs, the less room there may be to discuss economic conditions without also examining presidential choices.

Control of Congress gives that argument consequences beyond Trump’s personal standing. The president’s approach could weigh on fellow Republicans even though the policies at issue are identified with him. That is the broader electoral danger: an international agenda becoming a liability across a domestic congressional contest. It remains a risk rather than a settled outcome, however. Signs that voters are drawing a connection between policy and prices do not establish how decisively that connection will influence their eventual choices.

Nor does the economic dimension mean foreign policy has displaced the concerns that normally dominate midterms. It may instead be making those concerns more politically difficult for Republicans. In this case, attention to affairs abroad and attention to household finances can reinforce one another. That connection could complicate an effort to shift the subject, because the international policies at issue are bound up with the costs voters are experiencing.

As Nov. 3 approaches, one question is how efforts by Trump and his allies to redirect attention will fare alongside the financial consequences of his foreign policy. For Republicans, retaining control of Congress is at stake. For voters, the choice could include an assessment of how decisions on war and trade have affected expenses at home. The campaign’s closing debate will test whether the president can redirect attention while those economic pressures remain part of his record.