Why do economic shocks lead men to favor protectionism (e.g., tariffs and border walls) but women to prefer welfare policies? We argue that this gendered divergence arises from an overlooked household model of politics, where voters account for family members’ economic risks with significant gender heterogeneity in policy responses. Using U.S. General Social Survey data (1996–2014), we construct a novel measure of family exposure to economic shocks by integrating respondents' and their family members’ (spouses, fathers, and mothers) trade exposure from the NAFTA trade shock. This measure reveals substantial within-household variation in labor market risk, and drives significant policy differences by gender: men turn toward protectionism, especially migration barriers, while women prioritize family-focused welfare policies, notably childcare. Direct trade exposure through respondents’ own jobs narrowly increases support for protectionism while family exposure significantly amplifies support for both welfare and protectionist policies. Critically, these household effects shape electoral outcomes, bolstering support for anti-globalization populists and diverting demand away from left candidates. Our findings highlight the necessity of moving beyond individual voter characteristics to fully understand political behavior in the face of globalization-induced economic risks.