Tag: DonaldTrump

Despite the partisan noise swirling around the impeachment hearings in Washington, D.C., supporters of at least one bill remain hopeful that the divide won’t derail its passage.

The Secure Act, as the measure is called, aims to increase the ranks of retirement savers and the amount they put away. While it cleared the House in May with broad backing from both sides of the aisle — the vote was 417 to 3 — the bill remains stalled in the Senate.

“Retirement has always been an issue with bipartisan support, and it still is,” said Paul Richman, chief government and political affairs officer at the Insured Retirement Institute, which is one of many groups — both industry and consumer — that support the legislation.

“It’s just getting caught up in the partisan politics in the House and Senate, and that has made it more complex to deal with than it would be in some other political environments,” Richman said.

The Secure Act, if passed by both chambers of Congress and signed into law by President Trump, would bring the biggest changes to the U.S. retirement system since 2006.

Among the provisions are: making it easier for small businesses to band together to offer 401(k) plans, requiring companies to let long-term, part-time workers become eligible for retirement benefits and repealing the maximum age (70½) for making contributions to traditional individual retirement accounts.

Additionally, the measure would raise the age to 72 from 70½, when the dreaded required minimum distributions, or RMDs, from certain retirement accounts must start. The bill would also allow more annuities in 401(k) plans.

It also would require most nonspouse beneficiaries to withdraw money from inherited retirement accounts within 10 years of the original owner’s death instead of spreading out withdrawals across their lifetime.

Bipartisan support hasn’t been enough to get the Secure Act across the finish line. After the bill passed the House in late May, the Senate moved to pass it under a process called unanimous consent, which would have essentially have fast-tracked the bill to passage — with no changes to it — if all lawmakers agreed.

That didn’t happen: Three Republican senators put “holds” on the bill, which remain in place. And, an effort by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, two weeks ago to consider the bill with both limited debate and amendments also was unsuccessful, with Democrats’ opposing any changes to the bill.

With those routes to passage not working, the Secure Act either has to go through the typical legislative debate process — which would consume floor time that the Senate has little of — or get attached to another bill that lawmakers view as “must-pass” legislation, Richman said.

“There are still a lot of opportunities for it to be attached to something that the Senate wants to move before the end of the year,” he said.

One possibility would be a budget bill. While Congress is expected to approve a so-called continuing resolution this week to keep the government open until Dec. 20, it means lawmakers would need to take action again before then to avoid a partial government shutdown. That could come in the form of another agreement that again temporarily funds the government, or as one large funding bill or several smaller ones that fully fund the 2020 budget (the end of the 2019 federal fiscal year was Sept. 30).

In other words, anyone opposed to the Secure Act at that point would have to oppose the budget bill — or any other, for that matter — that it was attached to. There also could be other must-pass bills, Richman said, including one that makes technical fixes to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or even a bill that establishes a new North American trade agreement.

In addition to being an election year, impeachment proceedings could also be a factor. If the Senate receives articles of impeachment from the House at some point in December — which some pundits expect — a trial would consume the Senate’s time in the early part of next year.

Richman sees that as working in the bill’s favor for passage before the calendar flips to 2020.

“Even if the House does send over articles of impeachment in late December, the Senate is talking about a January or February trial,” he said. “So they have time to act on things like the Secure Act this year.”

And could the impeachment process muck up President Trump’s assumed support of the bill? “We continue to be optimistic that the merits of this bill will weigh in the favor of passage in the Senate and the president signing it,” Richman said.

When Democrats took 40 congressional districts from Republicans in the 2018 election, the House of Representatives experienced what many considered to be a blue wave. What does this shift mean for the 2020 presidential election? To get a better sense of this, the following analysis examines the 2018 House votes distributed across the nation’s more than 3,100 counties. This provides a more fine-grained geographic assessment of how the 2018 House support for Democrats compared with votes in the 2016 presidential election.

From this perspective, the Democratic wave is all encompassing: 83 percent of the voting population lived in counties where support for Democrats has improved since 2016. This increased Democratic support was not confined to traditional Democratic base counties. It occurred in suburbs, smaller metropolitan and rural counties, and most noticeably, in counties with concentrations of older, native-born and white residents without college degrees. Moreover, at the state level, enough states flipped from Republican majorities in the 2016 presidential election to Democratic majorities in the 2018 House elections to project a 2020 Democratic Electoral College win.

83 percent of the voting population lived in counties where support for Democrats has improved since 2016

This analysis employs recently released county-based tabulations of the 2018 House of Representatives election voting results, along with results from the 2016 presidential elections. It examines changes in “Democratic minus Republican (D-R) voting margins” between these two elections at the county level in order to determine where and by how much Democratic support has shifted over this two year period. (Note: the D-R margin is defined as the percent voting Democratic minus percent voting Republican among the all Democratic and Republican voters in the area. Positive values represent a Democratic advantage. Negative values indicate a Republican advantage.)

More than four-fifths of 2018 voters reside in counties with rising Democratic support

The nationwide D-R margin favored Democrats in both the 2016 presidential election (as Hillary Clinton won the popular vote over Donald Trump) and the combined national 2018 House of Representatives vote, with the Democratic advantage increasing between the former and latter election from 2.1 to 8.6 percent.

Of course, 2018 Democratic and Republican vote advantages differ across counties, as shown in Map 1.  While Republican House votes exceeded Democratic votes in more of the nation’s counties, Democratic counties tended to be larger in size, often in major urban areas. Thus, 60 percent of the nation’s voters lived in Democratic-led counties, compared with 40 percent of voters residing in counties where Republicans held the advantage.

More importantly, in a vast majority of counties—even in those won by Republicans in 2018—more voters favored Democrats in 2018 than in 2016. This can be seen in Map 2, which depicts changes in D-R margins between the 2016 presidential election and the 2018 House race. In a majority of counties (2,445 of 3,111)—irrespective of whether the final 2018 vote favored Republican or Democratic candidates—there was a positive D-R margin shift between 2016 and 2018 (meaning either a greater Democratic advantage or a smaller Republican advantage).

At one extreme are counties in the New England states—Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island—which voted Democratic in 2018 (shown in Map 1). Most of those counties also showed strong 2016-2018 gains in their D-R margins (shown in Map 2). At the other extreme are counties in Nebraska and Oklahoma which voted heavily Republican in 2018. As Map 2 indicates, most of the counties in those two states showed a greater D-R margin (meaning reduced Republican margin) between 2016 and 2018.

When viewed in terms of the numbers of voters residing in counties, Figure 2 indicates that 83 percent of all voters resided in counties that increased their D-R margins between 2016 and 2018—including 26 percent that increased their D-R margins by more than 10, and 57 percent that increased their margins by 0 to 9.

Increased 2018 Democratic support occurred in suburbs, small metros, and rural areas.

Democrats have long done well in large urban core counties, while Republicans tend to be more popular in suburbs, small metropolitan areas, and rural communities. Using an urban typology developed by the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program [2], Figure 3 shows that this characterization is valid for the 2016 presidential election, but less so for 2018 House election.

In both elections, urban core counties in large metropolitan areas exhibited strong positive D-R margins, while small metropolitan and outside metropolitan area counties showed negative (Republican favorable) D-R margins. Yet there was a shift between the 2016 and 2018 elections for suburban counties in large metropolitan areas from a negative to a positive D-R margin. Also, the D-R margin became more positive in large urban cores and less negative for counties outside large cores and suburbs.

As for the nation as a whole, most voters in each category resided in counties where D-R margins became more positive or less negative between the 2016 and 2018 elections (see Figure 4). This is especially notable for large suburbs, where 87 percent of voters resided in counties with increased D-R margins. For residents in both small metropolitan areas and outside metropolitan areas, that percentage was 81 percent.

Additionally, more than a quarter of suburban or small metro voters resided in counties where the D-R margin rose by more than 10. For example, in Hays County in suburban Austin, the D-R margin increased from -1 in the 2016 presidential election to +13 in the 2018 House election. Among voters residing outside metros, 37 percent resided in counties where the D-R margin rose by more than 10. While most of these heavily rural counties voted Republican in the 2018, the decline in that Republican advantage was fairly pervasive.

Counties with “Republican” attributes showed greatest 2018 Democratic voting margin gains.

How demographically distinct are the counties that registered the greatest increases in Democratic support (or reductions in Republican support)? To assess this, it is useful to look at attributes of residents in counties that showed a sharp rise in D-R margins.

The 2016 election exit poll results made plain the attributes that differentiated Republican (Trump) voters from Democratic (Clinton) voters. While Trump voters were more commonly categorized as being whites without college degrees, older persons and native-born Americans, Clinton voters were more strongly associated as being racial minorities, persons below age 45, and foreign-born Americans.

Table 1 examines the population attributes of U.S. counties with the objective of understanding how those with the highest 2016-2018 gains in D-R margins (gains greater than 10) differ from all counties with these attributes. It makes this comparison separately for counties that voted Democratic and those that voted Republican in 2018 because, as discussed earlier, both groups exhibited increased D-R margins (or reductions in their negative D-R margins).

Counties with increased D-R margins tend to have “Republican leaning” attributes, when compared with all counties: greater shares of non-college whites and persons over age 45, and smaller shares of minorities and persons who are foreign born. This occurs among both Democratic-voting and Republican-voting counties, and suggests that there was a shift toward Democratic support in counties that helped elect Donald Trump in 2016.

2018 Democratic margins increased in states key to the 2020 election

The victorious party in the 2020 presidential election will rely on the Electoral College rather than the popular vote. A comparison of 2018 House voting results with those of the 2016 presidential election makes plain that the there is ample opportunity for a 2020 Democratic win. Map 3 depicts states where Democrats and Republicans won the cumulative state level House votes.

It differs from the results of the 2016 presidential map wherein the Republican candidate (Trump) won more than 270 Electoral College votes, based on winning support from states such as Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Arizona. As shown in Map 3, all of those states registered Democratic advantages in their 2018 House elections. If those results hold for the 2020 election, the Democratic candidate would receive 293 electoral votes—enough to win the presidency. Moreover, in all but two states, 2018 House D-R margins showed more positive or less negative values than those for the 2016 presidential race—both in “red” Republican states and in “blue” Democratic states (download Table A). In Texas, for example, the 2016 presidential election D-R margin of -9.4 was reduced to just -3.5 in 2018.

Trump won more than 270 Electoral College votes, based on winning support from states such as Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Arizona. All of those states registered Democratic advantages in their 2018 House elections.

What does this mean for 2020?

To be sure, these 2016 to 2018 D-R margin comparisons are suggestive at best. That is, comparisons of voting margins from the 2016 presidential elections with those for the 2018 House election—at the county and state levels—conflate support for two national candidates in the former election with that of a myriad of candidates in the latter. Still, many have argued that the 2018 House elections were a referendum on President Trump. If this is the case, then the broad shifts toward greater Democratic support—spilling over into a vast majority of Trump-won counties—could be ripe for harvesting by the right Democratic challenger to Trump in 2020.

Prominent entrepreneur Danny Gaekwad and former Florida Department of Transportation secretary Ananth Prasad are among three Indian Americans named by Governor-elect Ron DeSantis to his Transition Advisory Committee on the Economy. The third Indian American on the committee is Kumar Allady, founder of the engineering and IT services firm Radise International.

“I am very pleased to be part of the committee,” said Gaekwad, founder & CEO of the Ocala, FL, -based NDS USA and Danny G Hospitality Management. “I thank the governor-elect for this great trust he has placed in me. I am confident that under his leadership, Florida will continue to be an economic engine of the nation.”

Other members of the transition committee include former House Speaker Allan Bense, JAX Chamber president Daniel Davis, Tampa Bay Buccaneers COO Brian Ford, JAXPORT CEO Eric Green, and Gulf Power executive and retired U.S. Navy Capt. Keith Hoskins, among others.

Gaekwad, an Ocala resident, an influential campaign contributor and Republican fundraiser, was named to the Board of Trustees of the University of Central Florida by Gov. Rick Scott earlier this year.

He is an executive board member of Visit Florida, the official tourism marketing corporation of the state, and a member of the board of director of the Florida Chamber of Commerce, a 100-year-old trade body that promotes a business friendly climate and jobs creations in the state.

Prasad, a 22-year Florida Department of Transportation veteran, served as its secretary from April 2011 to January 2015. He is scheduled to assume charge as the president of the Florida Transportation Builders’ Association early next year.

DeSantis will be sworn in as governor of Florida in January, after he won a hard-fought campaign based on his sterling biography and embrace of Trumpian populism. His victory signals the endurance of Donald Trump’s Republican party in the nation’s most populous swing state, dealing a punishing blow to liberals who were fired up around a potential rebuke of their state’s support of the president almost exactly two years ago. But it was not so.

DeSantis said Trump’s support made all the difference in his defeat of Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, who was hoping to be Florida’s first black governor and the first Democrat elected governor since 1994. “I’d like to thank our president for standing by me, for standing by me when it wasn’t necessarily the smart thing,” DeSantis said after the vote count gave him the edge. “Mr. President, I look forward to working with you to advance Florida’s priorities.”

“I want to be a good role model to the emerging Indian-Americans who want to make a difference in their communities.”

Democrats dominated New York state Senate races last week, ending up winning as many as six of the chamber’s nine seats on Long Island while decimating the Republican’s historic control of the region – known as the “Long Island Nine.” One of the more unexpected results was attorney Kevin Thomas’ narrow victory over state Sen. Kemp Hannon.

Democrat Kevin Thomas has become the first Indian American to be elected to the New York Senate, from New York’s 6th district. Thomas is an attorney and an appointee of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to the New York State Advisory Committee.

“It’s a huge burden on my shoulders right now because since I’m the first,” the newly elected Indian American told the media. “I have to be a good role model to the younger generation that I’m hoping will come out and run for office from the community. Parents usually kind of push their kids into going into math, science and the legal profession. They don’t tell them go into a political career where I’m hoping with my election that’s going to change. I want to be a good role model to the emerging Indian-Americans who want to make a difference in their communities.”

Thomas’ top priorities, according to his campaign website, are education; women’s rights – as he supports the Reproductive Health Act and the Comprehensive Contraception Coverage Act, healthcare – in which he supports the Safe Staffing for Hospitals Act as well as the NY Health Act; fighting the opioid crisis; taxes; infrastructure; protecting the working class with the passing the Public Works Definition Act and Protecting the Prevailing Wage; gun control; immigration; protecting environment; civil rights and consumer protection.

On his campaign website, Thomas explains his reasoning and approach to solving issues as a Senator. Some of the issues he emphasizes on are ongoing while others have been brought up again and again through recent events such as immigration, gun control, the opioid epidemic and healthcare.

As to the reasons for his unexpected victory, he had this to say: “there were of course a number of reasons for it. One is the current political climate with Trump in office. And second, we as a state needed to be more progressive and I believe the voters in District 6 really believed that they needed change because my opponent never stepped foot in communities in the Democratic base, like in Hempstead and in Uniondale. He never touched foot there and they lost connection with him. And this is what happens when you’re comfortable being somewhere for 42 years, you forget who your constituents are.”

This is what he had to say about immigration: “As an Indian American who first emigrated to the United States as a 10-year-old, I believe every American immigrant should have the same opportunities I had. Under the current federal administration, it has never been more important to protect the rights of immigrants and ensure that all New Yorkers can pursue the promise of the American dream.”

He added: “For me, this is personal and as a State Senator, I will fight to pass the NY Liberty Act, which would protect our community from the repressive immigration enforcement and prevent cooperation between our state agencies and ICE, as well as pass the NY Dream Act, which would allow every New Yorker to get a quality college education, regardless of citizenship status.”

With the recent shootings that occurred in Pennsylvania and California, Thomas said that he is going to “support a bump-stock ban, which would prevent ordinary guns from being transformed into weapons capable of mass murder,” as well as the “passage of the Red Flag Law, which would allow police and family to petition state courts to remove firearms from persons who present a danger to others or themselves.”

He also plans to strengthen the SAFE Act, which is New York’s landmark gun control legislation that requires universal background checks, imposes tougher assault weapon bans and creates a statewide ammunitions registry. Thomas also mentions how he is concerned about the opioid epidemic in the country as “the number of opioid deaths in Long Island has skyrocketed.” He currently lives in Levittown with his wife, Rincy, who is a pharmacist, and their dog, Sirius.

President Donald Trump has interviewed Neomi Rao, administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, as a potential candidate to replace Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the federal appeals court bench in Washington, D.C., according to a media report.

Rao, 44, currently heads up the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget at the White House. She was confirmed to OIRA by the Senate on July 10, 2017. The New York Times reported that OIRA – a somewhat obscure agency created by former President Jimmy Carter’s administration to approve government data collections and determine whether agencies have sufficiently addressed problems during rule-making – is at the heart of Trump’s politically-charged agenda to overhaul government regulations.

If Rao, who had once clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is nominated to the D. C. Appeals court and confirmed by the Senate, she would join another Indian-American judge, Srikanth Srinivasan, in the same court.

Srinivasan, an appointee of President Barack Obama, was confirmed by the Senate in a 97-0 vote in 2013 and was widely reported to be a leading candidate for the Supreme Court if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency and a vacancy had occurred.

Rao’s current job also required Senate confirmation and she was confirmed by a vote of 54-41 in July 2017, with opposition coming from the Democrats. They had warned that Rao was being appointed to carry out Trump’s plans to eliminate more than 75 percent of the regulations instituted during the Obama administration under the guise of spurring economic growth.

Trump’s meeting with Rao was first reported by the online news site Axios. The DC Circuit Court is often referred to as the most powerful court in the nation, second only to the U.S. Supreme Court, because of its proximity to federal agencies.

Axios reported that – post interview – sources briefed on the meeting said Trump was not impressed by Rao. However, she may still be appointed to the court, as Trump has stated his intent to nominate a minority woman to fill the role, and a potential “feeder” to the Supreme Court. A source told Axios that Trump is reconsidering his initial impression of Rao.

“Rao’s advantages: She’s well respected at the OMB, knows regulatory law back to front, has the advantage of already being Senate-confirmed and is well-liked by several key Democratic senators,” opined the publication.

The Washington Times reported that former White House counsel Don McGahn recommended Rao to Trump for the open DC circuit court seat. The White House has declined to comment on the report, but an official told India Abroad “it is only to be expected that the president will be speaking to qualified people to fill this position now that there’s a vacancy on the D.C. court bench after the Senate confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh — now Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh.” The official had no further comment when asked specifically if Rao had been among potential candidates.

Axios, quoting unnamed sources, reported that Trump was interested in Rao so he could appoint a minority woman to Kavanaugh’s old job. But it added that while once source said Rao did not leave Trump with a good first impression, another said the president had not ruled her out.

Much of the reviews of the executive branch regulations, including that of the OIRA, is also a task the D.C. Circuit often addresses. As a nominee, Rao could expect some questioning by Democrats in the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if the Republicans hold the Senate in the mid-terms, her confirmation — like that of any other nominee — would be a formality.

As OIRA administrator, Rao is based in the White House. The agency is a statutory part of the Office of Management and Budget, which falls within the executive office of the president. Its mandate includes reviewing regulations from federal agencies and has the authority to reject rules that do not fall in line with the president’s goals as well as doing away with regulations already in place.

At George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, Rao founded and directed the Center for the Study of the Administrative State, created with pursuing the critical study of the constitutional and legal foundations of the administrative state. She was also a professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School and focused her research and teaching on constitutional and administrative law.

Rao has served in all three branches of the government. During the Bush administration, she was associate counsel to the president and then worked as counsel for nominations and constitutional law to Senate Judiciary Committee, followed by a clerkship with Thomas and Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.

Rao is the founding director of the Center for the Study of the Administrative State at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School. In an op-ed for The Washington Post last year, as the Senate was considering Rao’s confirmation to OIRA, GMU law professor Jonathan Adler termed Rao “a well-respected administrative law expert” who was a “superlative pick” for the post.

Adler noted that Rao has clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, has served in the Bush administration, and as a staffer on the Senate Judiciary Committee, effectively serving in all three branches of the federal government.

Rao is the daughter of Zerin Rao and Jehangir Narioshang Rao, both Parsi physicians from India; she was raised in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, and graduated from Yale. Rao then attended the University of Chicago Law School. She is married to attorney Alan Lefkowitz and has two children.

The “fake news” phenomenon has gone global, but the full extent of its reach remains largely a mystery. To shed light on the spread of disinformation in U.S. politics, we’re fielding, collecting and verifying instances of “fake news.” Use this database to check whether items you’ve read online are real or to get a sense of the breadth of political disinformation out there.

What is “fake news,” really?

Popularized by President Donald Trump, the term “fake news” has become ubiquitous in political discourse as an insult or to dismiss certain information. POLITICO, however, is focused on intentional disinformation – false political content created explicitly to deceive or misinform.

Collect, debunk and chronicle: By both crowd-sourcing information and scouring the internet ourselves, POLITICO will identify potential pieces of disinformation, which will be vetted by our staff. If the items fit our parameters for fakes, we will report on our findings.

How you can help: Send us any reports, websites or social media posts that you suspect may be disseminating disinformation. These reports flagged by users, along with those identified by POLITICO staffers, will be vetted and, if deemed appropriate, added and categorized into our public database of disinformation. https://www.politico.com/interactives/2018/is-this-true/about/

By Richard Wike, Bruce Stokes, Jacob Poushter, Laura Silver, Janell Fetterolf and Kat Devlin

America’s global image plummeted following the election of President Donald Trump, amid widespread opposition to his administration’s policies and a widely shared lack of confidence in his leadership. Now, as the second anniversary of Trump’s election approaches, a new 25-nation Pew Research Center survey finds that Trump’s international image remains poor, while ratings for the United States are much lower than during Barack Obama’s presidency.

The poll also finds that international publics express significant concerns about America’s role in world affairs. Large majorities say the U.S. doesn’t take into account the interests of countries like theirs when making foreign policy decisions. Many believe the U.S. is doing less to help solve major global challenges than it used to. And there are signs that American soft power is waning as well, including the fact that, while the U.S. maintains its reputation for respecting individual liberty, fewer believe this than a decade ago.

Even though America’s image has declined since Trump’s election, on balance the U.S. still receives positive marks – across the 25 nations polled, a median of 50% have a favorable opinion of the U.S., while 43% offer an unfavorable rating. However, a median of only 27% say they have confidence in President Trump to do the right thing in world affairs; 70% lack confidence in him.

Frustrations with the U.S. in the Trump era are particularly common among some of America’s closest allies and partners. In Germany, where just 10% have confidence in Trump, three-in-four people say the U.S. is doing less these days to address global problems, and the share of the public who believe the U.S. respects personal freedoms is down 35 percentage points since 2008. In France, only 9% have confidence in Trump, while 81% think the U.S. doesn’t consider the interests of countries like France when making foreign policy decisions.

Critical views are also widespread among America’s closest neighbors. Only 25% of Canadians rate Trump positively, more than six-in-ten (63%) say the U.S. is doing less than in the past to address global problems, and 82% think the U.S. ignores Canada’s interests when making policy. Meanwhile, Trump’s lowest ratings on the survey are found in Mexico, where just 6% express confidence in his leadership.

One exception to this pattern is Israel. After a year in which the Trump administration generated international controversy by moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, his positive rating jumped to 69%, up from 56% in 2017.

Around the world, publics are divided about the direction of American power: Across the 25 nations surveyed, a median of 31% say the U.S. plays a more important role in the world today than it did ten years ago; 25% say it plays a less important role; and 35% believe the U.S. is as important as it was a decade ago.

In contrast, views about Chinese power are clear: A median of 70% say China’s role on the world stage has grown over the past 10 years. Still, by a slim margin, more people name the U.S. as the world’s leading economic power (a median of 39% say the U.S., 34% say China).

And despite the unease many feel about the U.S. at the moment, the idea of a U.S.-led world order is still attractive to most. When asked which would be better for the world, having China or the U.S. as the top global power, people in nearly every country tend to select the U.S., and this is particularly common among some of China’s Asia-Pacific neighbors, such as Japan, the Philippines, South Korea and Australia.

These are among the major findings from a new Pew Research Center survey conducted among 26,112 respondents in 25 countries from May 20 to Aug. 12, 2018. Chapters 3, 4 and 5 use additional data from a Pew Research Center survey of 1,500 U.S. adults conducted from May 14 to June 15, 2018.

U.S. receives some of its most negative ratings in Europe

Although perceptions of the U.S. are on balance positive, they vary considerably among the nations surveyed. Ten of the 25 countries in this year’s survey are European Union member states, and across these EU nations a median of just 43% offer a favorable opinion of the U.S. Meanwhile, majorities in four of the five Asia-Pacific nations polled give the U.S. a positive rating, including 83% in the Philippines, one of the highest ratings in the survey. The U.S. also gets high marks in South Korea, where 80% have a positive view of the U.S. and confidence in President Trump has increased over the past year from 17% to 44%.

As has largely been the case since Pew Research Center’s first Global Attitudes survey in 2002, attitudes toward the U.S. in sub-Saharan Africa are largely positive, with Kenyans, Nigerians and South Africans expressing mostly favorable opinions in this year’s poll. The three Latin American nations polled offer differing views about the U.S., with Brazilians voicing mostly favorable reviews, while Argentines and Mexicans are mostly negative. And the two Middle Eastern nations in the study – Israel and Tunisia – offer strikingly different assessments.

The country giving the U.S. its lowest rating in the survey, and the place where the biggest drop in U.S. favorability has taken place over the past year, is Russia. Just 26% of Russians have a favorable opinion of the U.S., compared with 41% in 2017. A 55% majority of Russians say relations have gotten worse in the past year, and the share of the public with a positive view of Trump has dropped from 53% to 19%.

Good reviews for Merkel and Macron, poor marks for Xi, Putin, Trump

The survey examined attitudes toward five world leaders, and overall Donald Trump receives the most negative ratings among the five. A median of 70% across the 25 nations polled lack confidence in the American leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping also receive mostly negative reviews.

In contrast, opinions about German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron are generally positive. Both leaders are mostly popular in the EU, although there are regional divides within Europe, with Merkel and Macron receiving favorable ratings in the Northern European nations surveyed and less stellar reviews in Eastern and Southern Europe.

European attitudes toward Trump are strikingly negative, especially when compared with the ratings his predecessor received while in office. Looking at four European nations Pew Research Center has surveyed consistently since 2003 reveals a clear pattern regarding perceptions of American presidents. George W. Bush, whose foreign policies were broadly unpopular in Europe, got low ratings during his presidency, while the opposite was true for Barack Obama, who enjoyed strong approval in these four nations during his time in office. Following the 2016 election, confidence in the president plunged, with Trump’s ratings resembling what Bush received near the end of his second term (although Trump’s numbers are up slightly in the United Kingdom this year).

In several European nations, Trump receives higher ratings from supporters of right-wing populist parties. For example, among people in the UK who have a favorable view of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), 53% express confidence in Trump, compared with only 21% among those with an unfavorable view of UKIP. Similar divides exist among supporters and detractors of right-wing populist parties in Sweden, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Germany. However, it is worth noting that, other than in the UK, there is no European country in which more than half of right-wing populist party supporters say they have confidence in Trump.

Few think the U.S. takes their interests into account

A common criticism about American foreign policy over the past decade and a half has been that the U.S. only looks after its own interests in world affairs, ignoring the interests of other nations. As Pew Research Center surveys showed, this belief was especially prevalent during George W. Bush’s presidency, when many around the world thought the U.S. was pursuing unilateralist, and unpopular, policies. Strong opposition to the Iraq War and other elements of Bush’s foreign policy led to rising complaints about the U.S. acting alone and ignoring the interests and concerns of other nations.

Opinions shifted following Barack Obama’s election, with more people saying the U.S. considers their country’s interest, although even during the Obama years the prevailing global sentiment was that the U.S. doesn’t necessarily consider other countries. Now, the Trump presidency has brought an increase in the number of people in many nations saying the U.S. essentially doesn’t listen to countries like theirs when making foreign policy.

This pattern is especially pronounced among some of America’s top allies and partners. For instance, while the share of the French public who believe the U.S. considers their national interest has not been very high at any point over the past decade and a half, it reached a low point near the end of Bush’s second term (11% in 2007), rose somewhat during Obama’s presidency (35% in 2013) and has declined once more under Trump. Today, just 18% in France say the U.S. considers the interests of countries like theirs when making policy.

Fewer, especially in Europe, say U.S. respects individual liberty

America’s reputation as a defender of individual liberty has generally been strong in Pew Research Center surveys since we first started asking about it in 2008. The prevailing view among the publics surveyed has typically been that the U.S. government respects the personal liberties of its people, and that is true again in this year’s poll. However, this opinion has become less common over time, and the decline has been particularly sharp among key U.S. partners in Europe, North America and Asia.

The decline began during the Obama administration following revelations about the National Security Agency’s electronic eavesdropping on communications around the world, and it has continued during the first two years of the Trump presidency. The drop is especially prominent in Western Europe, where the share of the public saying Washington respects personal freedom has declined sharply since 2013.

The same pattern is found among several other U.S. allies as well, including Canada, where the percentage saying the U.S. respects individual freedom has dropped from 75% to 38% since 2013, and Australia, where it has gone from 72% to 45%.

China seen as a rising power

Respondents to the survey were read a list of seven major nations, and for each one, were asked whether they think it is playing a more important, less important, or as important of a role in the world compared with 10 years ago. Among the seven countries tested, China stands apart: A median of 70% across the nations polled say Beijing plays a more important role today than a decade ago. Half or more in 23 of 25 countries express this view.

Many also say this about Russia. A median of 41% believe Moscow’s role on the world stage has grown over the past decade, and majorities hold this view in Greece, Israel, Tunisia and Russia itself. Overall, people are split on whether Germany’s role is greater than it was 10 years ago or about the same, but many in Europe see Germany’s role as more influential. On the other hand, Europeans are particularly likely to think the UK is less important now.

There is no real consensus in views of America’s prominence in world affairs. A median of 35% believe it is as important as it was 10 years ago, while 31% say it is more important and 25% say less. Japan is the only country with a majority saying that Washington plays a less important role. Meanwhile, Israelis, Nigerians and Kenyans are particularly likely to think the U.S. is more important than it used to be.

Most still want U.S., not China, as top power

In addition to being asked about whether major powers are rising, falling or staying about the same, respondents were asked the following question about whether they would prefer the U.S. or China to be the top global power: “Thinking about the future, if you had to choose, which of the following scenarios would be better for the world: the U.S. is the world’s leading power or China is the world’s leading power?” Results show that the U.S. is overwhelmingly the top choice.

The U.S. is named more often than China in every country surveyed except three: Argentina, Tunisia and Russia, although in many nations significant numbers volunteer that it would be good for the world if both or neither were the leading power.

Some of America’s allies in Asia and elsewhere are particularly likely to prefer a future in which the U.S. is the top global power. Two-thirds or more hold this opinion in Japan, the Philippines, Sweden, South Korea, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Poland and the UK.

Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in Saturday as US Supreme Court justice following the closest Senate confirmation vote in more than a century, marking a major win for President Donald Trump’s drive to move the country’s political institutions to the right.

The Senate voted 50-48 to approve Kavanaugh as protesters rallied across the country against a nominee who has been plagued by allegations of sexual misconduct as a young man and had questions raised over his candor and partisan rhetoric.

The prolonged nomination battle has roiled American politics and passions — the vote was disrupted on several occasions by angry protests from the gallery — but handed Trump one of the biggest victories of his presidency.

It drew the line under a bruising nomination process defined by harrowing testimony from a woman who says Kavanaugh tried to rape her when they were teenagers — and by his fiery rebuttal.

The two-vote margin of victory made it the closest Supreme Court confirmation vote since 1881 — and by far the most contentious since Clarence Thomas in 1991.

As Chief Justice John Roberts swore in Kavanaugh during a private Supreme Court ceremony, protesters demonstrated loudly outside, at one point rushing the steps of the court and banging on its ornate bronze doors while some sat on a Lady Justice statue.

The confirmation means Trump has succeeded in having his two picks seated on the court — tilting it decidedly to the right in a major coup for the Republican leader less than halfway through his term.

During an evening rally in Topeka, Kansas, Trump was greeted by prolonged cheers on what he called a “truly historic night.”

“I stand before you today on the heels of a tremendous victory for our nation, our people and our beloved Constitution,” he told supporters after signing Kavanaugh’s commission aboard Air Force One.

A separate, public swearing-in ceremony is planned for 7:00 pm (2300 GMT) Monday in the White House’s East Room.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has railed against Kavanaugh’s critics, said he was “proud” of his colleagues while Vice President Mike Pence, who presided in the Senate during the vote, called it a “historic day for our country.”

It reflects a high water mark of the Trump presidency: Republican control of the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives and the judiciary’s top court.

But the Kavanaugh spectacle, fueled by extraordinary accusations and counter-claims in nationally televised hearings, and tense battles over an 11th-hour FBI investigation to address the assault allegations, has inflamed political passions.

‘Shame!’

Hours before the vote, scores of protesters broke through barricades and staged a raucous sit-in protest on the US Capitol steps.

As protesters chanted “Shame!” and “November is coming!” police took several dozen demonstrators down the steps and put them in plastic flex-cuffs.

With tensions simmering, Pence got an earful from activists who booed and chanted “Vote them out!” as he walked to his motorcade.

Kavanaugh’s confirmation process has laid bare the partisan gridlock on Capitol Hill and the political polarization of America just a month before midterm elections.

“You don’t hand matches to an arsonist, and you don’t give power to an angry left-wing mob. That’s what they have become. The democrats have become too extreme and too dangerous to govern,” Trump said.

“Republicans are the party of law and order and justice. And we really have become even more so than ever before the party of opportunity and wealth.”

Democratic senators, who had battled hard to block the 53-year-old judge, insisted the caustic battle over Kavanaugh would galvanize Democrats at the polls.

“It is a sad day, but the recourse will have to be on election day,” Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar told reporters.

Kavanaugh’s confirmation had already been all but sealed Friday, when he won the support of key Senate Republican Susan Collins and conservative Democrat Joe Manchin.

‘Presumption of innocence’

The choice of Kavanaugh to replace retired justice Anthony Kennedy was controversial from the start — but the initial focus was solely on the conservative views held by the married father of two.

His ascent to the Supreme Court was thrown into doubt last week after university research psychologist Christine Blasey Ford testified that he had sexually assaulted her at a Washington area gathering in the early 1980s.

The brutal hearing sparked a supplemental FBI dive into Kavanaugh’s background and a weeklong delay of the Senate vote.

While many Republicans said they were satisfied with the FBI probe, Democrats and Blasey Ford’s lawyers called the investigation insufficient.

‘Praying for the country’

Kavanaugh’s nomination seals a conservative majority on the nine-seat high court, possibly for decades to come.

Hundreds of protesters were arrested on Capitol Hill this week — including several dozen in the hours leading to the final vote.

Authorities took the rare step of putting up low metal fencing around the Capitol, keeping the public some distance from the building. But protesters overran the barricades and defiantly claimed the Capitol steps.

After the confirmation, activists gathered in their hundreds on the steps of the Supreme Court, chanting slogans and banging on its closed front doors.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, the only Republican to oppose Kavanaugh, said it was time for the Senate — and Americans — to “heal” after such a divisive few weeks.

She acknowledged the anguish of the protesters who interrupted the historic Senate vote, telling reporters afterward that “I was closing my eyes and praying. Praying for them, praying for us and praying for the country.”

Supporters of Republican and Democratic candidates in the upcoming congressional election are deeply divided over the government’s role in ensuring health care, the fairness of the nation’s economic system and views of racial equality in the United States.

And these disagreements extend to how the U.S. should approach allies and whether or not other countries “often take advantage of the United States.”

The latest national survey by Pew Research Center, conducted Sept. 18-24 among 1,754 adults, including 1,439 registered voters, finds wide differences in the views of Republican and Democratic voters across 13 different issues and policy areas, though the size of the partisan gaps vary.

An overwhelming majority of registered voters who support Democratic candidates for Congress this November (85%) say that it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage. In contrast, only a quarter of Republican voters (24%) say this is the government’s responsibility, while nearly three times as many (73%) say it is not. (For more on Americans’ views of the government’s role in providing health care, see “Most continue to say health care coverage is government’s responsibility”.)

The partisan gaps on many of these values and issues are in line with those seen in previous Pew Research Center reports, including in last year’s major report on trends in the public’s political values. That study found that the partisan gaps across a number of political values – especially on race and immigration – have widened over the past decade. In the new survey, 85% of Democratic voters say the country needs to continue to make changes to give blacks equal rights with whites, compared with 29% of Republican voters.

There also are significant gaps on views of whether abortion should be legal, the factors that make people rich and poor and the fairness of the U.S. economic system.

Two specific Trump-era policies – increased tariffs between the U.S. and its trading partners, and the 2017 tax bill – are viewed much more positively by GOP voters than by Democratic voters. Overall views of the tax law remain largely unchanged from early this year: In the new survey, 78% of voters who support the GOP candidate in their district approve of the tax law, compared with just 11% of Democrats.

And the partisan differences are about as wide in views of the Trump administration’s decision to increase tariffs on imported goods from a number of countries. Nearly three-quarters of GOP voters (72%) say increased tariffs will be good for the United States, about five times the share of Democratic voters who support higher tariffs (14%).

Looking at voters’ priorities for immigration policy, there is some common ground among partisans. When asked whether the policy priority should be “creating a way for immigrants already here illegally to become citizens if they meet certain requirements,” or “better border security and stronger enforcement of our immigration laws” – or whether both should be given equal priority – nearly half of Republican voters (48%) and about as many Democratic voters (45%) say both should be given equal priority.

Still, far more Democratic voters (49%) than Republican voters (11%) say the priority should be on creating a way for those in the U.S. illegally to become citizens if they meet certain conditions. By contrast, far more Republican voters (39%) than Democratic voters (5%) say the focus should be on better border security and enforcement.

(For more on how voters view the importance of immigration, health care, taxes, trade and other issues, see “Voter Enthusiasm at Record High in Nationalized Midterm Environment.”)

Shifting priorities for dealing with illegal immigration

Since 2016, the share of adults in the general public who say border security should take priority over creating a way for those in the country illegally to become citizens has decreased. Two years ago, about a quarter (24%) said stronger law enforcement should be the priority for dealing with illegal immigration. Today, about two-in-ten (19%) say this.

During that same period, the share who prioritize creating a pathway for illegal immigrants to gain citizenship has increased modestly – from 29% in 2016 to 33%.

A plurality (46%) continue to say that both of these should be given equal priority.

Today, significantly more Republicans say both border security and legal pathway should be given equal priority (48%) than say the priority should be border security (38%), a shift from recent years.

About half of Democrats and Democratic leaners (51%) now say creating a way for immigrants who are currently here illegally to become citizens should be prioritized – the largest share saying this since the question was first asked in August 2010; 43% say border security and a pathway to citizenship should be given equal priority. Just 5% say border security should take the higher priority.

There are large demographic differences within the general public on priorities in dealing with illegal immigration.

Women are much more likely to prioritize a legal pathway to citizenship than men (40% to 27%).

Though a plurality of whites say both should be equally prioritized, whites (23%) are far more likely than blacks (6%) and Hispanics (9%) to say better border security should take priority.

About half of Hispanics (47%) say a pathway for legal citizenship should be the priority, while 43% say both should be equally prioritized. Among blacks, 53% say both should be equal priorities, while 37% say the priority should be creating a way for those in the country illegally to become citizens.

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to prioritize stronger law enforcement, while Democrats are more likely to prioritize a path to citizenship for those currently in the U.S. illegally.

Americans’ views of relationships with other nations

A majority of Americans (55%) continue to say that the U.S. should take into account the interests of its allies in foreign policy, even if it means making compromises with them. Fewer say the U.S. should follow its own national interests, even when its allies strongly disagree (38%).

Since 2017, the public has become slightly less likely to say compromising with allies is preferable (59% then, 55% now). This downtick is also more in line with opinions measured in years prior to 2017.

As was true a year ago, Republican and Democratic views differ. Currently, a 38-percentage-point gap separates partisans on whether the U.S. should take into account the interests of allies – one of the largest partisan gaps measured in the past 15 years.

On balance, more adults say that other countries often take unfair advantage of the U.S. (51%) than say that other countries treat the U.S. about as fairly as we treat them (42%). In the 1990s, Americans were much more likely to view other countries’ treatment of the U.S. as unfair than they are today.

When the question was last asked nearly two decades ago, 70% said that other countries take advantage of the U.S. while just 24% said that other countries treat the U.S. with mutual fairness.

These changes are largely attributable to a shift in views among Democrats and Democratic leaners. In 1999, about two-thirds of Democrats (68%) said other countries often take unfair advantage of the U.S.; just 28% say that today. By comparison, 80% of Republicans now say that other countries take unfair advantage (up from 73% in September 1999). As a result, today there is a wide divide between Republicans and Democrats in these views, when there had been little partisan difference in the 1990s.

Among both parties, there are ideological divisions in these views. Conservative Republicans are more likely than moderate and liberal Republicans to say there is unfair treatment (85% to 67%, respectively). Liberal Democrats are more likely than conservative or moderate Democrats to say other countries treat the U.S. fairly (75% vs. 57%).

Opinions on tariffs, tax bill little changed

Overall, the public continues to say that increased tariffs between the U.S. and its trading partners – first imposed by the Trump administration earlier this year – will be bad for the country.

In July, roughly half of the public said they thought increased tariffs would be bad for the U.S. Today, a similar share also says this (53%).

Partisans continue to hold opposing views on this policy; 70% of Republicans say they think tariffs will be good for the U.S. Conversely, nearly eight-in-ten Democrats (79%) say they will be bad for the U.S.

Nine months after passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, views of the sweeping tax law are little changed. More say they disapprove (46%) rather than approve (36%) of the law; about two-in-ten adults (18%) do not offer an opinion either way.

Americans with family incomes of $75,000 or continue to more offer more positive views of the law than those with lower incomes. Among Americans with annual family incomes of less than $75,000, the balance of opinion is negative (48% disapprove, 31% approve), while views of those with higher incomes are more divided (49% approve, 41% disapprove).

Partisan views of the bill are also similar to those measured just after its passage: 72% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say they approve of the tax legislation, compared with just 12% of Democrats and Democratic leaners.

Republicans are somewhat divided along ideological lines. A 79% majority of conservative Republicans say they approve of the bill, while a narrower majority (61%) of moderate or liberal Republicans say the same. Among Democrats, there are no significant differences in these views by ideology.