The Chinese government and the Communist Party jointly issued a lengthy list of planned initiatives on Sunday to encourage people to spend more, in yet another move by Beijing to offset potential harm from its escalating economic warfare with Washington.

Their road map for economic stimulus included larger pensions, better medical benefits and higher wages — measures that could bolster China’s lagging domestic consumption. But it assigned many of these tasks to the country’s local governments, a large number of which are struggling under enormous debts and plummeting revenues from a decline in the sale of state land.

The action comes as China’s leaders are searching for ways to rebalance the economy away from its dependence on an ever-rising trade surplus, which reached almost $1 trillion last year. President Trump has already imposed 20 percent tariffs on China’s shipments to the United States. Countries in Europe, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East are also raising tariffs on China’s expansive manufactured-goods exports.

Part of the document released on Sunday seemed aimed at reassuring the Chinese public that their investments were safe, so that they would start spending money again. The authorities promised to undertake “multiple measures to stabilize the stock market” and to underpin the real estate market, which has been marred by falling property prices.

A housing market crash in the past three years has wiped out much of the savings of China’s middle class. Chinese households have responded by curtailing their spending on hotels, restaurants and other services and putting their savings into bank accounts, despite earning very little interest.

Data released by China’s National Bureau of Statistics on Monday confirmed the trend, showing that consumer spending remains weak while manufacturing, which produces goods in large part for export to foreign markets, stayed strong. Retail sales rose 4 percent in January and February compared to the same months last year, in line with what economists expected, while industrial output was up 5.9 percent, stronger than expected.

Construction continued to be China’s biggest weakness during the first two months of this year. Building started on 29.6 percent fewer apartments and other housing in January and February compared to the year before.

One bright spot of late for China has been its stock markets. In the United States, the tariffs and uncertainty caused by Mr. Trump’s policies dragged the S&P 500 last week into a correction, down more than 10 percent from its peak. But China’s markets have been up so far this year, partly on enthusiasm for the country’s progress in developing its own artificial intelligence programs.

Hong Kong’s stock market, where many Chinese companies trade, is up about 20 percent since Mr. Trump’s inauguration. Share prices continued to rise on Monday in Hong Kong but were little changed in Shanghai and Shenzhen.

The “Special Action Plan to Boost Consumption” was issued in the name of two of the highest organs of power in China: the General Office of the cabinet and the General Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. The unusual step showed that Beijing’s leaders want to signal that they are serious about addressing lackluster domestic spending.

Senior officials are scheduled to speak at a news conference on Monday afternoon in Beijing about the initiatives to increase consumption.

The plan includes many details that could prove popular with the Chinese public if implemented. It calls for local governments to issue payments or increase subsidies to “people in need” and increase retirees’ pension benefits. It also directed local governments to pay their overdue debts to businesses.

But the outline released on Sunday contained no new promises of money from the national government to help local governments pay for all of this.

China’s local governments, which are responsible for almost all social spending, raised most of their money until three years ago by selling state land to private sector developers. But these sales have collapsed because of the housing market crash.

After the dot-com bubble burst in the early 2000s, Lars Staack decided to play it safe and invest his retirement savings in S&P 500 index funds, which are diversified and carry lower risk than owning individual stocks.

It was a strategy that brought him peace of mind for more than two decades — until President Trump was elected in November. As he reviewed Mr. Trump’s comments in support of sweeping tariffs, Mr. Staack, 62, who retired two years ago, became increasingly uneasy about the savings he planned to use for the rest of his retirement.

Those nerves about how Mr. Trump’s economic policies might affect the stock market led him to start selling his index funds in January, moving them into bond and Treasury funds, which are seen as safe havens in times of volatility. About a third of his savings are still in stocks. The daily swings this past week, which included the market’s worst single day in months, have made him consider moving even more of his assets into safer bonds, he said.

“I’m fumbling about, trying to figure out what is going to be the best way to preserve my retirement savings from a volatile economy, and from upcoming inflation,” Mr. Staack said.

Many financial advisers are reiterating their usual advice during moments of angst: Do nothing and stay the course, assuming your financial plan is diversified and aligned with your goals. But the tumultuous rounds of trading have jolted people like Mr. Staack, who has an immediate need for his investments. The way he sees it, stock market index funds are no longer safe for people close to or in retirement — people who intend to use their assets in the near future and do not have the luxury of time to wait for the market to reverse course.

“What Trump and Musk have done is unprecedented, so it seems like nothing is safe anymore,” Mr. Staack said. He lives in Poway, Calif., outside San Diego, and was a Republican voter until 2016, when he started voting for Democrats.

Over the past few weeks, Wall Street has become increasingly pessimistic about whipsawing policies from Washington. By Thursday, the S&P 500 index had tumbled 10.1 percent from a peak that it had reached less than one month before, a sell-off fueled by investors’ fears that trade wars and mass layoffs of federal employees could prompt an economic slowdown. The S&P 500 correction underscored how the two-year-long bull market is running out of steam in the early days of the Trump administration.

Policy and politics have been the key driver of concern among clients, financial advisers said. But not everyone is taking action. In fact, advisers at some of the biggest wealth management firms said their clients were, for the most part, sticking with their existing financial plans.

Most of the roughly seven million investors on the Vanguard brokerage platform have “stayed disciplined,” in line with their behavior during market downturns in the past, said James Martielli, Vanguard’s head of investment and trading services. On Monday, when Wall Street suffered its steepest decline of the year, only 2.5 percent of Vanguard’s clients placed trades, and the majority of those trades were to buy equities, rather than sell them, Mr. Martielli said.

“Most clients right now are a little bit dazed, but still relatively comfortable where they’re at and where things are going,” said Mark Mirsberger, the chief executive of Dana Investment Advisors, which manages about $8.5 billion for institutions and individuals.

In conversations with clients, it is often retirees, and those closing in on retirement, who are paying the closest attention to the stock market and expressing nervousness, said Rob Williams, the managing director of financial planning and wealth management at Charles Schwab. The question, he said, is how they respond.

For people closer to retirement, “taking some risk off the table” might make sense, but when politics becomes a factor in decisions, which seems to be happening more, Mr. Williams said, he urges clients to stick to their plans and “not respond emotionally.”

Siegfried Lodwig is more than a decade into his retirement, and the recent volatility has not changed his mind about keeping about half of his savings in the stock market, managed by a financial services firm. He said he trusted that the market would bounce back, as it always had.

Still, Mr. Lodwig, 80, said he planned to leave his estate to Amherst College, where years ago he received a scholarship. He said he had some concern about how much would be left for the school if the market continued to fall in the short term.

Andy Smith, the executive director of financial planning at Edelman Financial Engines, is cautioning his clients not to overreact to news headlines about Wall Street’s jitters. Those with diversified portfolios and enough cash on hand for their short-term needs are able to calm their nerves with greater ease, he said.

“In times of volatility, everybody gets uneasy,” said Heather Knight, a national brokerage coach at Fidelity Investments. “Stay the course — that’s the best way to weather through some of those periods of volatility.”

But for some Americans — especially those who anticipate needing access to their savings in the near future — the current economic unease feels different from market dips they have experienced in the past, prompting them to rethink their investments.

Praisely McNamara, a single mother whose 16-year-old son is a junior in high school, decided in February to withdraw half of her 401(k), the maximum amount she could, despite having to pay thousands in tax penalties to do so. Employed in health care sales, she is still contributing to a Vanguard index fund. But with mortgage and college tuition payments on the horizon, the economic instability spurred by Mr. Trump’s policies was enough for her to feel that she needed cash on hand.

As someone without a stockpile of savings, Ms. McNamara, of Newington, Conn., said uncertainty about trade wars and the outlook for the U.S. job market had fueled her decision.

“This is absolutely the first time that I have felt in any way like I’m not secure in what I’ve been told is the most secure way to prepare for retirement,” said Ms. McNamara, 40, who voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris.

The volatility has rattled even Americans who do not expect to use their savings in the near future.

Alison Greenlaw, 43, is still a couple of decades away from retiring. She and her husband bought their home in Bloomfield, Conn., a few years ago. (Ms. Greenlaw knows Ms. McNamara through a community organization.) Until three weeks ago, her 401(k) was in a Vanguard target date retirement fund, which had a pre-mixed blend of stocks and other holdings based on the assumption that she would retire around 2045.

But as economic concerns started to creep into the stock market in February, she decided to move all of her 401(k) savings into a Vanguard money market fund, which has lower-risk investments like government-backed securities.

“I know I won’t make any money there, but I’m not freaking out like everyone whose 401(k) is losing money every day,” Ms. Greenlaw said. “I’m feeling glad that I did what I did,” she added, pointing to the market’s tariff-induced swings this past week.

Ms. Greenlaw tried to make an informed decision by talking to people who work in finance and whose opinions she respects. Many of them advised her not to do anything. But she said she was not comfortable taking the traditional wait-and-see approach. She said she felt that the level of uncertainty in the United States right now was “existential.”

On Tuesday, Stephen Dinan, 55, whose children are 5 and 7 years old, moved their 529 college savings accounts from U.S. stocks and stock index funds into bonds and an international equities index fund. He also moved his 401(k), along with his wife’s, into bonds.

Mr. Trump’s unpredictable and aggressive approach to policy has stoked Mr. Dinan’s worries about instability in the stock market. A Democratic voter, he said he hoped to move his savings back into stocks when the economic outlook cleared, or when there was a change in administration down the line.

Financial experts are “focused on things that are moving within the game as it’s played,” he said. “But they’re not planning for if the board game itself is taken out from under.”

After climbing into a Tesla Model S last week, President Trump pledged to buy one. The next day, the Fox News host Sean Hannity said he had bought a Model S Plaid to support the embattled company, saying a Tesla “has more American parts in it than any other car made in our country.”

In a backlash to the backlash against the tactics of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, prominent conservatives are rallying to the side of the electric car company led by Mr. Musk. They are hoping to swing enough like-minded consumers to offset a boycott of the electric automaker by liberals and Democrats or anyone offended by Mr. Musk’s actions.

But how effective can such a rescue mission be? Analysts say it can help but only to an extent.

So many Democratic buyers appear to be fleeing Tesla that even Mr. Trump’s best sales pitch is unlikely to woo enough new customers to fill the vacuum, auto experts said. Analysts at JPMorgan predict Tesla will deliver its fewest cars in the first quarter than it had in three years.

“When you make your product unattractive to half the market, I promise you, you won’t increase your sales,” said Alexander Edwards, president of Strategic Vision, an automotive research and consulting firm.

Mr. Edwards has been surveying car buyers for decades. Since 2016, the surveys have found that electric-car owners were up to four times as likely to identify as Democrats or liberals as to identify as Republican or conservative. Among Tesla owners, the spread was consistently two to one.

The gap narrowed sharply through 2024. This year, as sales have fallen, slightly more Tesla buyers identify as Republicans than Democrats, at 30 percent versus 29 percent.

“Democrats are fleeing the brand and saying they won’t consider it in the future, so there is naturally a greater proportion of Republican and independent buyers,” Mr. Edwards said.

He said Democrats first started losing interest in Tesla when Mr. Musk bought Twitter, now X, in 2022. Then, last July, when Mr. Musk publicly backed Mr. Trump, the share of Democrats who said they would “definitely consider” a Tesla fell by half.

Overall, about 8 percent of car owners would now definitely consider a Tesla, according to Mr. Edwards’s surveys. That compares with 22 percent five years ago, when Tesla often topped rankings of luxury brands that buyers would consider.

Tesla’s slipping sales, he said, “are mostly, if not completely, attributed to the statements and behavior of Elon Musk.”

The automaker did not respond to a request for comment.

Tesla remains America’s best-selling electric vehicle brand by far with about 44 percent of the market, despite a 5.6 percent drop in U.S. sales, to about 634,000 cars in 2024, according to Kelley Blue Book. Many drivers are determined to stick with the electric vehicle pioneer, whose cars can travel several hundred miles on a charge and can be easily refueled at the company’s extensive charging network.

Josh Anders, 44, traded a gasoline-powered sport utility vehicle for a Tesla Model 3 in 2019. A resident of Fort Wayne, Ind., he was blown away by the car’s energy efficiency, technology and limited maintenance needs. He soon traded for another, and is about to take delivery of the latest Model Y S.U.V.

“Owning a Tesla was one of the best decisions I ever made, and I’m sticking by it,” Mr. Anders said. “I would love a Rivian R1S, but I can’t afford it. I’m a tech guy, and I love all the features and innovations.”

Mr. Anders, a father of four and creative director of a Christian nonprofit music and arts organization, said he leans conservative, and is uncomfortable with boycotts.

“Elon’s not perfect, and Tesla’s not perfect, but it’s a community of dreamers and doers. I appreciate a brand that’s constantly pushing the boundaries,” he said. “I don’t need every company to share my beliefs. I just need them to share a commitment to progress.”

Still, cars have a long history of becoming part of the political fray.

The Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid introduced in 2011 after General Motors received federal government assistance, was derided by some conservatives as the “Obamacar.” The fuel-sipping Toyota Prius and the gas-guzzling Hummer from G.M. were often lauded and attacked by people on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Isaac Seliger, a business owner and grant writer in Scottsdale, Ariz., said he’d had little interest in electric vehicles even though his son, who died recently, was a devoted fan of Tesla.

Now, said Mr. Seliger, who described himself as politically independent, he is determined to buy a Tesla, because he wants to defy groupthink and polarization. A friend told him that she would stop speaking to him if he did.

“As a former lefty and antiwar guy, this all makes me want to buy a Tesla more,” Mr. Seliger, 73, said. “I’ll absolutely be making a political statement. But if I bought a Porsche Macan, that’s a statement, too, where people pigeonhole you as an obnoxious older Porsche driver.”

Mr. Seliger added that he found criticisms of Mr. Musk overblown.

“So Elon was a hero of the left, and now he’s a Nazi? That’s just crazy,” he said. “He strikes me as a smart guy who makes great stuff.”

To many people who have faith in Tesla and Mr. Musk, the company’s sales and stock price, which is down about 48 percent from a December high, will eventually recover. The stock was up 12 percent over the last four days of trading.

But some automotive experts say Tesla may struggle because the company has not regularly updated its cars or introduced new models. In addition, the company’s chargers, which once could be used only by Teslas, are opening access to nearly every major competitor, said Loren McDonald, chief analyst at Paren, an electric vehicle charging data firm. And other automakers are offering new electric models, often with notably affordable monthly payments.

“He’s rapidly losing the advantages in range, tech, value and convenience that drove people to Tesla,” Mr. McDonald said. “For a lot of people, it’s time to move on and try something new.”

Of course, most buyers don’t choose cars based on politics. But a brand’s image matters. Tesla sales slipped even as overall U.S. electric vehicle sales grew 7.3 percent in 2024, to 1.3 million. Mr. Edwards said Mr. Musk was making it too easy for people to shop elsewhere.

“People can love their Hyundai, G.M., Rivian or BMW just as much,” he said.

Republicans certainly buy electric cars, but fewer of them have made the plunge to fully electric models. Rural states, where Republicans outnumber Democrats, have fewer chargers than more urban states. Strategic Vision data shows Republicans are more likely to work outside the home, and are less willing to put up with inconveniences like long charging stops. And a 2024 Pew Research Center survey found that more Republicans than Democrats say electric vehicles cost too much and are less reliable than gasoline cars.

In the New York metropolitan area, the nation’s largest car market, new Tesla registrations fell 13 percent, to 47,000 cars, in 2024, according to S&P Global Mobility. That same year, more than 101,000 people registered a Tesla in Los Angeles, the second-largest market, a drop of 8 percent. Still, nearly one in eight new cars in Los Angeles was a Tesla. In the San Francisco Bay Area, where Tesla was founded, nearly one in five new cars was a Tesla. But sales tumbled 17 percent to 54,000 cars.

Consumers in the Houston area bought 12,000 Teslas. But Bay Area residents bought 4.5 times as many Teslas, in a smaller market for new cars overall. Some areas saw big increases, including Miami-Fort Lauderdale where sales jumped 32 percent, to nearly 23,000 cars, in 2024. Tesla sales also rose sharply in Salt Lake City, Las Vegas and St. Louis. But the company’s gains in these places could not offset steeper declines in larger, more liberal metro areas.

Experts say wealthy conservatives such as Mr. Hannity and Mr. Trump have the disposable income to make a personal automotive statement by opting for a Tesla. But they may not be able to persuade Americans of more modest means.

Mr. McDonald also noted that Mr. Trump and other conservatives had spent years vilifying electric cars, mocking climate change and criticizing former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s climate and auto policies.

“The messaging is inconsistent,” Mr. McDonald said. “Is the guy in Arkansas who drives a Ram pickup going to buy a Tesla now? How far can you go against your own beliefs to support Elon Musk?”