Tag: JoeBiden

The global perception of the United States has taken a significant hit since Donald Trump returned to the presidency, according to a new survey released by the Pew Research Center on June 11. The study highlights a widespread decline in approval for both Trump personally and his policy decisions across numerous countries. Out of the 24 nations surveyed, 15 reported a notable drop in their overall view of the United States.

Trump received his harshest criticism from Mexico, a nation he has frequently criticized and pressured on immigration matters. A staggering 91 percent of Mexicans expressed little or no confidence in Trump to act appropriately in global affairs. This deep skepticism was reflected in the overall image of the United States in Mexico, where public opinion has shifted significantly in a negative direction.

Canada, the United States’ northern neighbor, also exhibited a similar change in perception. Last year, during President Joe Biden’s administration, both Canadians and Mexicans generally held favorable views of the United States. However, that sentiment has reversed sharply with Trump’s return. Trump had previously made provocative comments suggesting that Canada should become the 51st U.S. state, which likely contributed to the souring of public sentiment.

The survey results showed a deteriorating view of the U.S. not only in North America but also across much of Europe. In Poland, an important ally of Ukraine and a country previously supportive of U.S. efforts, opinions of the United States have worsened considerably. This shift comes as Trump has scaled back support for Ukraine and indicated a preference for negotiating with Russia instead of confronting it.

Sweden, a country that joined NATO during Biden’s tenure in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, gave the United States the most unfavorable rating among all surveyed countries. Seventy-nine percent of Swedes reported a negative view of the U.S., signaling a dramatic erosion of trust and approval.

When evaluating Trump’s global policies, the survey uncovered widespread disagreement across key issues. Majorities in every country surveyed opposed Trump’s approaches to immigration, climate change, the conflict in Gaza, and the war in Ukraine. Furthermore, personal views of Trump were largely negative. A dominant 80 percent of respondents described him as arrogant, while only 28 percent considered him to be honest.

Still, the Pew Research Center noted that Trump’s current global image is not as dire as it was during his first term in office. In 2017, when Trump succeeded the highly popular Barack Obama, international opinion of him was at its lowest. Although he remains an unpopular figure worldwide, some nations have shown slightly improved views compared to his initial presidency.

One country that stands out in the survey is Israel, which continues to have a very favorable opinion of the United States. Eighty-three percent of Israelis view the U.S. positively, a figure that has even risen slightly under Trump’s current leadership. Israel has benefited from strong U.S. support during the conflict in Gaza, likely contributing to this favorable assessment.

In Africa, Nigeria and Kenya maintained their historically positive opinions of the United States, regardless of who holds the presidency. In India, sentiment toward the U.S. also remained relatively stable, with over half of the population continuing to see the country in a positive light.

Since his return, Trump has embarked on an ambitious and sweeping presidential agenda. He has drastically cut foreign aid and taken aggressive action on deportations. These moves, while aligned with his core supporters, have not done much to improve his standing on the international stage.

Janell Fetterolf, a senior researcher at the Pew Research Center, pointed out that Trump’s standing on economic issues globally is not significantly different from Biden’s. “The past decade has also seen the growing normalization of right-wing populists,” she explained. This normalization may explain why Trump’s negative ratings, though substantial, are not as extreme as during his first term.

The case of Brazil illustrates this trend. There, Trump’s approval has improved from 14 percent during his first term to 34 percent now. Brazil was governed by Jair Bolsonaro, a political ally of Trump, from 2019 to 2022. Although Trump’s support in Brazil remains low, the uptick indicates a broader shift in political attitudes.

The survey also shed light on demographic patterns in Trump’s global support. Generally, men viewed Trump more favorably than women, and individuals with right-wing political leanings expressed more positive opinions of him. However, the data also revealed boundaries to Trump’s influence abroad.

Even among supporters of far-right nationalist parties in countries like Sweden and France, Trump struggled to gain majority support. While these groups were more sympathetic to him than the general public, confidence in Trump still fell short of a majority.

Conducted between January and April, the annual Pew survey involved 28,333 adults across 24 countries. The research offers a sobering picture of the United States’ global reputation under Trump’s leadership and underscores the challenges his administration faces in repairing diplomatic relationships and restoring international trust.

Despite modest improvements in some regions and a less severe perception compared to 2017, Trump’s second term appears to have reignited concerns across much of the world about the direction of U.S. leadership and foreign policy. The study shows a persistent gap between Trump’s actions and global expectations, with many foreign populations remaining wary of his intentions and capabilities.

With issues like climate change, global migration, and geopolitical conflict dominating headlines, the survey’s findings indicate that Trump’s positions continue to isolate the United States from many of its traditional allies and global partners. As his presidency progresses, the administration’s ability to address these concerns may play a decisive role in determining whether U.S. favorability can rebound on the world stage.

In sum, while Trump’s current international image is not quite as low as it was during his first term, the decline in global confidence in both him and the United States is clear. This shift signals the continued influence of his policies and rhetoric on the country’s international standing, potentially shaping the geopolitical landscape for years to come.

Senate Republicans are wrestling with major internal divisions over how to reduce the cost of a House-approved bill that aims to advance  President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda. The legislation, which has been slammed by billionaire Elon Musk as a “mountain of disgusting pork,” has drawn widespread criticism from fiscal conservatives for failing to make meaningful cuts to the federal deficit.

Responding to nervous investors in the bond market and Musk’s pointed remarks, Republican lawmakers are now exploring previously untouched areas of the federal budget—including Medicare, defense, and the Federal Reserve—for potential savings. Just weeks ago, these areas were considered politically untouchable.

However, every new idea seems to be generating new controversy within the party.

Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri has taken a firm stance against any reductions to Medicare spending, even though proponents argue the cuts would be limited to curbing “waste, fraud and abuse.” Expressing his reservations, Hawley stated, “I don’t like this idea of fiddling with Medicare at all. I think it’s a bad idea. We should not do that. I’ve counseled against it.”

Hawley suggested a different route for saving money, asking, “How about instead we cap the price [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] is paying for prescription drugs? Why touch Medicare?”

Other GOP members are turning their attention to Medicare Advantage, the program that allows private insurers to provide Medicare benefits. Some senators believe the program is being exploited by questionable health care providers and is costing the federal government unnecessarily.

Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas highlighted a proposal by Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana that targets overbilling by insurance companies participating in Medicare Advantage. This measure could save as much as $275 billion. “No one is more concerned about our national debt than I am. I would like to cut more money on this bill. If it was up to me, we would be going from $7 trillion a year to $6.5 trillion,” Marshall said, aiming for a $500 billion reduction over the next ten years.

Another contentious proposal involves trimming defense spending. Though the House version of the bill includes $150 billion in new funds for the Pentagon—primarily for projects like Trump’s proposed “Golden Dome” missile defense system—many conservatives argue that the defense budget is bloated and needs downsizing.

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has been particularly vocal, accusing pro-defense colleagues of using Trump’s bill as a vehicle for excessive military expenditures. “It’s a frustration for those of us who think it ought to be about fiscal restraint and/or cutting taxes, or both. It ends up becoming a spending bill, and the spending is $150 billion on top of [what] they were already increasing the military” in regular appropriations, Paul said.

“If you’re fiscally conservative, you have to be fiscally conservative everywhere. You can’t be for blowing the budget out on the military,” Paul argued.

Marshall echoed this view, remarking, “I’m one of the few Republicans that thinks that defense has more than enough money.”

Nonetheless, any suggestion to cut the Pentagon’s budget is likely to meet resistance from powerful Senate figures. Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker of Mississippi and Defense Appropriations Chair Mitch McConnell of Kentucky have both insisted that Trump’s proposed military budget is insufficient. Earlier this year, Wicker pushed for $175 billion in new defense funds but later accepted the lower $150 billion figure as the bare minimum.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is expected to face intense scrutiny from McConnell on Trump’s defense budget request in the coming days.

Meanwhile, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has offered a highly ambitious plan: halting interest payments to banks for deposits held at the Federal Reserve. Cruz argues this would save the federal government $1 trillion over the next decade. However, the banking industry is already pushing back hard. According to Bloomberg News, strategists at JPMorgan Chase & Co. warn that ending these payments would destabilize financial markets, casting serious doubt on the feasibility of Cruz’s proposal.

Some of the most controversial cuts in the House-passed bill—nearly $800 billion in Medicaid spending and $267 billion in reductions to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—have hit roadblocks in the Senate. Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Jerry Moran of Kansas have all raised concerns about the social impact of such reductions.

In addition, several senators are pushing back against provisions in the bill that would immediately end renewable energy tax credits. These tax breaks are seen as vital for clean energy investments in Republican-leaning states like West Virginia. If construction on certain projects—such as the Appalachian Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub—doesn’t start before year’s end, those investments could be lost.

Senators Thom Tillis of North Carolina, John Curtis of Utah, and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia have all warned that abruptly ending the clean energy tax incentives could hurt their local economies and result in job losses.

On the other side of the debate, fiscal conservatives like Senator Mike Lee of Utah argue that the bill doesn’t go far enough—especially when it comes to denying federal benefits to undocumented immigrants. Lee told The Hill, “We’re talking about Medicaid, we’re talking about EITC, earned income tax credit, child tax credit, and eligibility for claiming the benefits of dependents for income tax purposes. Those things should be benefits available to citizens and lawful permanent residents and not others, not illegal migrants.”

Lee insists the legislation fails to completely bar undocumented migrants from receiving federal benefits and declared, “That’s the problem.”

Senator Rick Scott of Florida is also demanding swift action to eliminate clean energy tax subsidies that were part of President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. “We got a fiscal crisis,” Scott said. “We have to balance our budget.”

He added, “We should completely eliminate the Green New Deal, that’s No. 1.”

In the end, Senate Republicans are grappling with competing priorities. Some are focused on deficit reduction through sweeping cuts, while others are trying to protect politically sensitive programs that affect their constituents. With criticism from influential figures like Elon Musk and growing pressure from conservative voters, the GOP faces a delicate balancing act as they attempt to reshape Trump’s legislative blueprint into something fiscally palatable and politically feasible.

Tech tycoon Elon Musk has stirred political debate by unveiling the results of an online poll he conducted on his social media platform X, asking whether it was time to form a new political party in the United States. The poll, which quickly went viral, revealed overwhelming support for the idea, with 80 percent of users responding affirmatively.

“The people have spoken,” Musk announced in a widely shared post. “A new political party is needed in America to representthe 80% in the middle! And exactly 80% of people agree. This is fate.”

The move, seen by many as a political statement, comes at a time when the billionaire entrepreneur appears to be distancing himself from President Donald Trump, with whom he once shared a strong public alliance. Musk’s provocative poll was interpreted by some observers as the latest in a string of moves aimed at reshaping the political landscape and appealing to Americans disillusioned by the two dominant parties.

Musk’s call for a centrist political party was not just a whimsical post. The timing of his remarks coincided with an intensifying online campaign against Trump, including a particularly stinging remark that shocked supporters and critics alike: “Without me, Trump would have lost the election.” Musk doubled down on his position shortly afterward by adding, “Such ingratitude.”

These sharp comments appeared to mark a turning point in the relationship between Musk and Trump, which had once seemed firmly rooted in mutual admiration and shared goals. But Trump wasted no time in responding to Musk’s criticism. Taking to his own platform, Truth Social, the president lashed out, accusing Musk of betrayal and hinting at financial retaliation.

“I was always surprised that Biden didn’t do it!” Trump wrote in a scathing post, threatening to revoke federal contracts and subsidies tied to Musk’s companies. He added, “The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.”

Trump’s remarks alluded to the long-standing financial relationship between the federal government and Musk’s enterprises, including Tesla and SpaceX. These companies have benefited from various government programs, subsidies, and contracts over the years, often drawing scrutiny from both sides of the political aisle.

Despite their current public spat, Musk and Trump were once close political allies. During Trump’s presidency, Musk was a regular presence in Washington. He served on advisory councils, participated in policy discussions, and even made appearances at high-level events. Their political bond deepened over time, particularly as Trump pursued pro-business policies that aligned with Musk’s interests.

Following a narrow escape from an assassination attempt at a Pennsylvania rally in July of the previous year, Trump received a public show of support from Musk, who declared his backing in no uncertain terms. At the time, Musk was not just a supporter; he actively contributed to Trump’s reelection efforts. He established a political action committee, took part in campaign rallies, and assumed a highly visible role in Republican fundraising and strategy.

Musk’s support was evident in his appearances at campaign events, often seen wearing MAGA hats and even traveling with Trump aboard Air Force One. His involvement extended to participating in Cabinet meetings and standing behind Trump during key public moments, including the inauguration.

However, that political closeness has since devolved into open hostility, with both men now trading barbs in public forums. What began as a prominent and seemingly strategic alliance has now become a very public feud, raising questions about its potential impact on the business interests of both parties—and the broader political landscape.

The rift between Musk and Trump seems to reflect deeper tensions in American politics, where alliances are often short-lived and driven by transactional interests. As Musk champions the idea of a centrist alternative to the two major parties, some political analysts see it as an attempt to reposition himself as a new kind of political influencer—one who defies the traditional left-right binary.

His framing of the poll results as evidence of national consensus—“A new political party is needed in America to represent the 80% in the middle!”—suggests that he sees a real opportunity to shape political discourse. At the same time, critics argue that Musk’s approach is more about spectacle than substance and question whether he has the political infrastructure to make a third party viable in the U.S. system.

Still, Musk’s influence is hard to dismiss. With millions of followers on X and control of influential companies such as Tesla and SpaceX, his words carry weight far beyond the digital sphere. And his willingness to publicly challenge Trump—once a political ally—underscores the shifting dynamics of conservative politics, especially as the 2024 election looms.

Trump’s threat to cut off government funding for Musk’s ventures could carry real consequences. SpaceX, for instance, holds critical contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense, while Tesla has received federal incentives for electric vehicle production and infrastructure. The specter of political retaliation introduces uncertainty into those relationships.

Yet it also underscores the risk of public feuds in the high-stakes arena where business and politics intersect. As both men continue to spar, the potential fallout could extend beyond their personal reputations to affect investors, federal agencies, and even voters seeking clarity in a polarized environment.

What remains clear is that the Musk-Trump split is more than a personal disagreement. It represents a clash between two towering personalities—each commanding vast resources and influence—over the direction of American politics. Whether Musk’s call for a new political party gains real momentum remains to be seen, but his latest actions suggest he’s not content to sit on the sidelines.

In an era where political loyalty often shifts with public sentiment and digital platforms can shape national debates overnight, the Musk-Trump rupture is both a reflection of the current moment and a signal of the unpredictable months ahead.

Buried within the vast pages of a multi-trillion-dollar budget proposal currently advancing through the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives lies a brief but powerful clause that could significantly limit the judiciary’s ability to compel government compliance through contempt rulings. This paragraph would weaken one of the courts’ key enforcement tools—contempt findings—against the federal government.

Although the fate of the bill remains uncertain—it recently failed a committee vote and may face opposition in both the full House and the Senate—the inclusion of this provision reveals growing anxiety among lawmakers over judicial authority as conflicts between courts and the Trump administration intensify.

Tensions reached a new high on Friday when Republican President Donald Trump lashed out at the U.S. Supreme Court after it blocked his administration from resuming swift deportations under an old wartime statute. Posting on Truth Social, Trump declared, “THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!”

Escalating Conflict with Lower Courts

The most contentious legal battles have emerged in the lower federal courts. One judge found that Trump administration officials may be subject to contempt after defying an order to halt deportation flights authorized under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. In another case, the administration ignored a ruling—upheld by the Supreme Court—to “facilitate” the return of a man wrongly deported to El Salvador.

There have been other incidents where the government proceeded with deportations despite judicial orders or failed to comply with judicial instructions. Dan Bongino, now serving as Trump’s deputy director of the FBI, fueled the defiance on his radio show in February when he encouraged Trump to ignore court directives. “Who’s going to arrest him? The marshals?” he asked rhetorically, before adding, “You guys know who the U.S. Marshals work for? Department of Justice.”

Administration Testing Boundaries

Despite heated rhetoric, the Trump administration has largely complied with most court rulings—especially those tied to his executive orders. Trump himself has often insisted he will follow court decisions, even as he publicly criticizes judges who oppose his policies.

Still, legal scholars note the unusually aggressive tone of the administration’s pushback. “It seems to me they are walking as close to the line as they can, and even stepping over it, in an effort to see how much they can get away with,” said Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor. “It’s what you would expect from a very clever and mischievous child.”

Mike Davis, leader of the Article III Project advocating pro-Trump judicial appointments, believes the courts’ resistance will ultimately strengthen Trump’s hand. “The more they do this, the more it’s going to anger the American people, and the chief justice is going to follow the politics on this like he always does,” Davis said.

Supreme Court Showdown and Judicial Skepticism

These tensions were on full display during an unusual Supreme Court session the day before the deportation ruling. Trump’s legal team sought to limit lower courts’ power to issue sweeping nationwide injunctions, a tactic not unique to his presidency but one that has increasingly drawn criticism. Several justices have previously questioned the frequency and scope of such injunctions.

During the session, Justice Amy Coney Barrett challenged Solicitor General D. John Sauer on whether the administration would obey an unfavorable ruling from an appeals court. “Really?” Barrett asked, highlighting the court’s concern. Sauer replied that it was standard policy at the Department of Justice to respect such rulings and assured the justices that the administration would comply.

Mounting Judicial Concerns

Some members of the judiciary have grown more vocal about the administration’s attitude toward the courts. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown-Jackson have cautioned against ignoring court orders or threatening judges. Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts publicly criticized Trump’s attempt to impeach Judge James E. Boasberg, who found probable cause of contempt after the administration defied a deportation-related ruling.

Even after the Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s order requiring the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the U.S., the official White House account posted on X: “he’s NOT coming back.” Legal experts suggest this defiance could potentially lead to contempt charges.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis has accused the administration of acting in “bad faith” as she continues to demand updates on its efforts to comply with her ruling. While contempt proceedings against the government tend to unfold slowly and are often resolved before penalties are imposed, this case could test the limits of that tradition.

Understanding Contempt of Court

Contempt of court applies when a party disobeys a judicial order. Sanctions can include fines, civil penalties, or, in extreme cases, criminal prosecution and imprisonment. The budget provision put forth by House Republicans would significantly restrict contempt enforcement in cases involving injunctions or temporary restraining orders—the very tools used most frequently to curb Trump’s executive actions—unless plaintiffs have first posted a bond. This is uncommon in lawsuits against the government.

Yale law professor Nick Parrillo, in an in-depth review, found only 67 instances of contempt rulings being upheld against the federal government, out of over 650 cases where contempt was considered. Most were overturned by appellate courts. Still, higher courts have repeatedly signaled that a future case might withstand appeals.

David Noll, a professor at Rutgers Law School, noted, “The courts, for their part, don’t want to find out how far their authority goes, and the executive doesn’t really want to undermine the legal order because the economy and their ability to just get stuff done depends on the law.”

Exploring Uncharted Legal Territory

Some legal analysts are now questioning whether courts could appoint independent prosecutors to pursue contempt or if they’d be forced to rely on the Department of Justice, which may be reluctant to act. They also wonder whether U.S. marshals would actually arrest individuals found in contempt.

“If you get to the point of asking the marshals to arrest a contemnor, it’s truly uncharted territory,” Noll said.

There remains another avenue courts can use—civil contempt—which often leads to fines. According to Justin Levitt, a former Obama administration official now advising President Biden, civil contempt may be more effective because it bypasses the Justice Department and cannot be nullified by a presidential pardon.

“Should the courts want, they have the tools to make individuals who plan on defying the courts miserable,” Levitt said, adding that government lawyers and those executing illegal orders would face the most risk.

Beyond contempt, courts possess other ways to exert pressure. Judges can reduce the Justice Department’s credibility in future cases, potentially making it harder for the government to win. Friday’s Supreme Court order showed some justices were skeptical of the administration’s claims regarding deportations.

Furthermore, public opinion appears strongly opposed to defying court rulings. A recent Pew Research Center poll found that roughly 80 percent of Americans believe the federal government must comply with a court ruling declaring a Trump policy illegal.

Ultimately, the broader picture may be less dire than a few dramatic immigration cases suggest, according to Vladeck. “In the majority of these cases, the courts are successfully restraining the executive branch and the executive branch is abiding by their rulings,” he said.

Immigration, a defining pillar of Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign and a topic on which he previously enjoyed strong public support, is now emerging as a point of vulnerability. Recent polling data reveals a noticeable dip in Trump’s approval ratings on immigration, signaling possible dissatisfaction with his approach among voters and highlighting evolving public attitudes.

A new Morning Consult survey, conducted from May 9 to 11 among 2,221 registered voters, indicates that Trump’s approval on immigration has dropped to the lowest level since he began his second term. According to the poll, 51 percent of respondents approved of his immigration stance, while 44 percent expressed disapproval. Notably, enthusiasm for mass deportations as a top policy priority has waned, with only 35 percent in favor.

This shift comes as additional surveys reveal growing disapproval of Trump’s hardline immigration policies, which include widespread deportations and a reduction in legal immigration opportunities. A Fox News poll conducted in April found Trump with a negative approval rating on immigration for the first time: 47 percent approved of his performance, while 48 percent disapproved. However, Trump still received better marks for his handling of the border, where 55 percent expressed approval.

Similarly, the most recent AP-NORC poll, carried out between May 1 and 5 among 1,175 adults, reported that 49 percent approved of Trump’s immigration policies, while 51 percent disapproved. This showed a slight improvement from April, when the approval rating stood at 46 percent and disapproval at 53 percent.

Another survey, conducted in April by Atlas Intel, showed a net approval rating of minus 6 points for Trump on immigration. In that poll, 52 percent rated his performance as “terrible” or “very poor,” compared to 46 percent who said it was “excellent” or “good.” This marked a notable drop from March, when 51 percent viewed Trump’s immigration policies positively and only 43 percent negatively.

This decline in approval is occurring against a backdrop of increased legal scrutiny and mounting criticism over Trump’s deportation agenda. One case drawing particular attention is that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was deported from Maryland. The Department of Justice referred to his removal as an “administrative error.” Although Trump’s administration identified Garcia as a member of MS-13, a gang now classified as a terrorist organization, Garcia’s legal team and family deny any such affiliation.

Trump’s current immigration plan calls for the deportation of millions of undocumented individuals through expanded operations by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and involvement of the National Guard. His strategy involves reviving and intensifying first-term policies, constructing large detention centers, and accelerating deportations by limiting judicial review.

What stands out about the current enforcement is that it targets undocumented immigrants without criminal records. During Trump’s first 50 days back in office, ICE arrested over 32,000 people, nearly half of whom had no prior criminal record. A report by El País also revealed that by mid-February 2025, over 40 percent of deportees had no criminal background.

Public support for deportation of non-criminal undocumented immigrants appears weak. A Pew Research Center survey found that while a slim majority—51 percent—of Americans support the deportation of at least some undocumented individuals, only around one-third support mass deportation. Notably, there is overwhelming support for removing violent criminals, but approval sharply declines when it comes to deporting individuals married to U.S. citizens or those brought to the country as children.

Trump’s declining approval on immigration mirrors broader polling trends showing a general downturn in public support since the start of his second term, even though he entered it with record-high approval levels. According to Morning Consult, Trump’s overall approval rating dropped one point since April to 45 percent, while 52 percent disapproved of his performance.

Echelon Insights also documented a one-point drop in Trump’s approval between April and May, falling to 46 percent, with disapproval climbing to 52 percent. Similarly, Big Data Poll found that Trump’s approval now stands at 48 percent, down from 56 percent in January. Meanwhile, disapproval has risen to 47 percent, compared to just 37 percent in January.

Nonetheless, some recent surveys indicate a slight rebound in Trump’s approval. Newsweek’s approval tracker currently shows Trump at 46 percent approval with 50 percent disapproval. This marks a marginal improvement over the previous week, when he had a 45 percent approval rating and disapproval was firmly in the 50s.

A compilation of various polls paints a mixed picture:

Rasmussen (May 12): 52% approve, 46% disapprove

Morning Consult (May 9-11): 46% approve, 52% disapprove

Echelon Insights (May 8-12): 46% approve, 52% disapprove

YouGov (May 6-8): 42% approve, 50% disapprove

Quantus (May 5-7): 48% approve, 48% disapprove

Big Data Poll (May 3-5): 48% approve, 47% disapprove

YouGov/Economist (May 2-5): 42% approve, 52% disapprove

AP-NORC (May 1-5): 41% approve, 57% disapprove

RMG Research (April 30-May 8): 49% approve, 49% disapprove

TIPP Insights (April 30-May 2): 42% approve, 47% disapprove

While these polls show Trump’s approval rating holding relatively steady, they also reveal a subtle but consistent uptick in disapproval. For instance, the YouGov poll conducted from May 6 to 8 among 1,143 adults showed a 42 percent approval rate—unchanged from previous polling—while disapproval rose by 2 points to 50 percent. A similar pattern was seen in the Quantus Insights poll, conducted between May 5 and 7.

Comparing Trump’s current ratings with those from his first term provides additional perspective. On May 13, 2017, RealClearPolitics recorded Trump’s approval at 42 percent and disapproval at 53 percent, a net rating of minus 11 points. This suggests Trump is marginally less popular now than he was at the same point during his first term.

In comparison to Joe Biden, Trump’s current approval rating also falls short. On May 13, 2021, Biden enjoyed a 54 percent approval rating, with 42 percent disapproving, according to RealClearPolitics.

Even though Trump began his second term with his highest approval rating to date, Gallup’s initial poll for the term—conducted between January 21 and 27—showed him as the least popular incoming president since 1953, and the only one to start with an approval rating below 50 percent. Gallup noted that Biden started his presidency with a 57 percent approval rating.

Historical data from Gallup, analyzed by The American Presidency Project, underscores Trump’s low standing compared to previous presidents at the 100-day mark. Dwight Eisenhower held a 73 percent approval rating at that point. Other presidents also fared better: John F. Kennedy had 83 percent, Richard Nixon 62 percent, Jimmy Carter 63 percent, Ronald Reagan 68 percent, George H.W. Bush 56 percent, Bill Clinton 55 percent, George W. Bush 62 percent, and Barack Obama 65 percent.

Looking ahead, Trump’s approval ratings may fluctuate depending on several critical developments, such as the outcome of the Russia-Ukraine war, changing dynamics in international trade, and increasing economic uncertainty linked to potential recession fears.

President Donald Trump took center stage at the White House during an ‘Invest in America’ event this afternoon, highlighting his administration’s efforts to boost domestic investment. The event attracted top executives from major corporations, including tech giant Nvidia. Those interested were able to follow the event live through a broadcast link provided on the official platform.

Earlier in the day, Trump convened a Cabinet meeting with his senior leadership team, where he lauded the impact of tariffs on strengthening the American economy. He praised businesses that have committed to investing within the United States, asserting that these actions were signs of a healthy and resilient economy despite recent concerns.

This series of public engagements came on the heels of a troubling new economic report indicating that the U.S. economy contracted at an annual rate of 0.3% during the first quarter of the year. This downturn, attributed to companies stockpiling imports ahead of Trump’s tariffs, marks the first time the economy has shrunk since 2022. The move to accumulate imports was widely seen as a preemptive strategy by firms anticipating cost increases due to upcoming tariff policies.

Despite the contraction, President Trump remained steadfast in his defense of tariffs and dismissed suggestions that his trade policies were to blame. Instead, he shifted the focus to his political opponent, President Joe Biden. “Bad numbers” on Wall Street, Trump claimed, “have nothing to do with tariffs.” His comments suggest an effort to reframe the economic narrative, distancing himself from the contraction and placing blame squarely on the Biden administration.

While Trump’s comments dominated the headlines, another significant development unfolded more quietly in the background. The United States and Ukraine have reached a major economic agreement concerning the development and management of rare earth minerals, a critical area in both geopolitical and technological terms. According to information obtained by the BBC, the two nations have agreed to form an economic partnership designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery and bolster U.S. access to strategic resources.

A press release issued by the U.S. Treasury Department confirmed this, stating that both countries would collaborate through the creation of a “Reconstruction Investment Fund.” The purpose of the fund is to ensure that “mutual assets, talents, and capabilities” can be leveraged to expedite Kyiv’s recovery and contribute to long-term regional stability. This fund marks a new chapter in U.S.-Ukraine relations, reinforcing economic ties while addressing strategic concerns about resource dependency.

Meanwhile, Trump used the ‘Invest in America’ platform to make a series of economic claims, particularly about consumer prices under his leadership. One of his key assertions was that gasoline prices have declined since he took office. However, recent fact-checking by BBC Verify found that this claim does not align with current data.

According to the American Automobile Association (AAA), the average national price for regular gasoline now stands at $3.16. This figure actually represents a slight increase from the $3.125 average on the day Trump assumed office. Despite Trump’s repeated claims that gas prices “just hit $1.98 in a lot of states,” BBC Verify was unable to find any evidence supporting this. Data from AAA confirms that no state currently has an average gas price lower than $2.67.

Another economic metric highlighted by Trump was the price of eggs. During his White House remarks, he insisted that egg prices had fallen since he became president. BBC Verify reviewed this statement and, again, found no supporting data.

When Trump entered office in January, the average national retail price for a dozen large Grade A eggs was about $4.95. Since then, the cost has not gone down but instead reached a record high of around $6.23 per dozen in March, based on the most recent available data. This contradicts Trump’s public statements and underscores a disconnect between his messaging and verified consumer price trends.

The White House, in its defense, has pointed to wholesale prices as evidence of improvement in the egg market. According to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, wholesale prices for large white eggs have decreased significantly. From a high of $6.55 per dozen in January, prices have dropped by approximately 52%, landing at $3.15 in the past week. This drop, while notable, reflects wholesale trends rather than retail prices experienced directly by consumers.

These contradictions between the president’s statements and independent data have raised questions about the administration’s broader economic messaging strategy. While Trump continues to paint a picture of economic strength, citing falling prices and increasing domestic investment, analysts and fact-checkers warn that the reality is more complex.

Still, Trump’s core message appears focused on long-term growth through protectionist policies and strong international partnerships. By praising businesses that reinvest in American infrastructure and forming economic alliances with key global players like Ukraine, he aims to project confidence in his administration’s economic vision, despite immediate challenges.

Trump’s day at the White House was marked by a dual focus on promoting domestic investment and defending his economic policies in the face of troubling data. He offered strong support for tariffs, insisted consumer prices were improving, and announced a strategic deal with Ukraine. However, some of these claims, especially regarding gas and egg prices, do not stand up to independent verification. The contrast between political rhetoric and economic data continues to be a defining feature of the current discourse, as Trump positions himself for future challenges.

On January 20, Donald Trump began his second term as President of the United States, declaring that he would deliver “the most extraordinary first 100 days of any presidency in American history.” For decades, the 100-day benchmark has served as a symbolic moment to evaluate a new administration’s achievements. The early data from Trump’s second term offers insight into the progress he has made on his key promises—ranging from imposing global tariffs and arresting migrants to making deep cuts to federal spending.

One of the most telling indicators of a president’s early performance is the public’s approval rating. Gallup, the U.S. polling firm that has long tracked presidential approval at the 100-day mark, shows Trump faring poorly compared to his predecessors. Trump, now the first post-war president to serve two non-consecutive terms, has seen low ratings in both his presidencies. Historically, presidents such as John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan enjoyed strong support with 83% and 67% approval ratings, respectively. Joe Biden and Bill Clinton were also above 50%. In contrast, both of Trump’s terms saw him with under 50% approval at this milestone, making him the only post-war president with this distinction.

However, looking at approval through a partisan lens tells a more complex story. Trump’s second term shows the most extreme polarization to date, with 90% of Republicans supporting him and just 4% of Democrats. This 86-point gap marks the largest partisan split ever recorded at the 100-day point. “The longer the line, the more polarised the support,” Gallup’s polling analysis notes.

The most recent Gallup poll, conducted from April 1–14 during a time of market volatility triggered by Trump’s tariff announcements, recorded his approval at 44%. This figure, drawn from over 1,000 interviews, reflects stable ratings consistent with the first quarter of his term.

Throughout his campaign, Trump promised swift action on top issues. He said he would lower prices, end the war in Ukraine, and pardon individuals tied to the January 6 Capitol attack. While not all promises have been fulfilled, Trump has been extremely active in terms of executive action. He has issued more executive orders in 100 days than any president in the last 100 years. In fact, he has already signed more than half the number of orders from his entire first term and nearly 90% of the total executive orders Joe Biden issued in four years.

Some of these executive orders have been high-impact. On his first day, Trump announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the UN’s Paris Climate Agreement, calling it an unfair burden on Americans. He also declared a national energy emergency to boost domestic oil production. Other actions have been less weighty but symbolic, such as lifting the ban on plastic straws.

Despite this flurry of executive activity, Trump has not shown much interest in working with Congress. He has signed only five bills into law in his first 100 days—a lower number than any new president in 70 years, according to Punchbowl News. His aggressive use of executive authority has also sparked legal backlash. Over 200 of his orders have been challenged in court, and judges have blocked several of them, as reported by the legal publication Just Security.

Economically, Trump’s platform centered on lowering prices and creating jobs. His pro-business rhetoric was initially welcomed by Wall Street, reflected in a spike in S&P 500 stock prices following his election. But as Trump escalated his threats of tariffs, investor confidence waned. The markets dipped sharply on April 2 when Trump imposed sweeping global tariffs. Though he softened some tariffs a week later, global markets remained jittery, and his trade policies were blamed for economic disruptions.

Consumer confidence has also declined. The University of Michigan’s Consumer Sentiment Index, a long-running measure of public economic outlook, dropped for four straight months. April’s score was the second-lowest on record. The lowest came in June 2022 during Biden’s presidency, amid inflation concerns following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In April 2025, Americans voiced worries about an impending trade war, reporting deteriorating expectations for inflation, income, and personal finances. Trump hasn’t ruled out a recession but remains confident in the long-term benefits of his policies.

Inflation trends remain uncertain, but the U.S. Federal Reserve has warned that Trump’s tariff strategy could drive prices upward again. On trade, Trump argues that global tariffs will help bring jobs and manufacturing back to the U.S. while reducing the trade deficit. He criticizes America’s long-standing trade imbalance as a sign of other countries “ripping off” the U.S., frequently citing China.

According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, America continued to import more goods and services than it exported through 2024. After Trump’s re-election in November 2024, importers rushed to bring in products before tariffs could take effect. By January 2025, imports hit a record high of $329 billion—the highest monthly total since records began in 1992. Although Trump paused many of his harshest tariffs in early April, reports suggest Americans have been stockpiling goods, fearing price hikes. Tariffs on Chinese imports remain, but Trump has signaled he is open to reducing them if a deal can be made.

On immigration, Trump returned to the presidency vowing large-scale deportations and an end to birthright citizenship. Although he has faced legal blocks on birthright citizenship, one area where he claims success is at the southern border. In March 2025, just over 7,000 arrests were made at the U.S.-Mexico border—down significantly from the 137,000 arrests in March 2024 during Biden’s presidency.

While the number of deportations remains lower than promised and legal challenges persist, Trump points to rising internal detentions and strong cooperation with local law enforcement as evidence of success. ICE raids have increased, with many targeting individuals with criminal records. Trump’s team is also promoting what it calls “unprecedented” collaboration with police departments across the country.

However, with detention facilities nearing capacity, experts warn of potential overcrowding issues. The future of Trump’s immigration policies—and their legality—will likely be shaped by court rulings in the coming months.

Looking ahead, Trump’s broader agenda depends heavily on what unfolds in the next 100 days. Public perception of his actions on the border, trade decisions, and economic outcomes such as food prices will help determine whether Trump maintains his reputation as the most polarizing president in modern history.

A growing number of Americans believe that  President Donald Trump’s policies have negatively impacted the nation’s economy, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS. The survey reveals that 59% of the public now thinks Trump’s economic approach has worsened conditions in the country, a noticeable increase from 51% in March. This figure matches the lowest approval numbers President Joe Biden received regarding his economic handling during his tenure.

The poll reflects widespread dissatisfaction with the state of the U.S. economy. There is little excitement among Americans for the White House’s sweeping new trade initiatives, with most respondents pessimistic about the direction things are headed. Although many of Trump’s recently announced tariffs are yet to be implemented, 60% of those surveyed already say his policies have raised the cost of living in their communities. Only 12% believe that Trump’s actions have actually helped reduce prices.

The findings further show that 69% of Americans believe an economic recession within the next year is at least somewhat likely. Of that group, 32% think a recession is very likely. In terms of general economic outlook, only 34% of Americans describe themselves as enthusiastic or optimistic, while 29% are pessimistic and 37% say they feel afraid. Among those under the age of 45, 70% express pessimism or fear. This sentiment is shared even more strongly among Americans of color, with 76% reporting similar concerns.

This increasing dissatisfaction marks a notable change for Trump, who during his first term was often credited with strong economic management. In fact, Trump’s 2024 campaign heavily emphasized economic recovery, with the promise to “immediately bring prices down, starting on Day One.” He was particularly successful with voters who ranked economic concerns as their primary motivation, according to CNN’s exit poll data.

One Republican respondent, a 59-year-old from Georgia, expressed his anxiety over the current market turbulence and how it has impacted his retirement plans. “Everything I worked for all my life is rapidly [disappearing],” he wrote. “It will probably take years to recover what I have lost due to what’s going on.”

Despite this, Republican sentiment regarding the economy has improved slightly over the past month. Many within the GOP remain hopeful that the newly announced tariffs will have a long-term positive effect on the economy.

However, most Americans remain skeptical about Trump’s tariff strategy. A 55% majority says his tariff actions so far this term have been poor policy, while just 28% view them positively. Another 17% consider them neither good nor bad. Tariffs imposed specifically on Chinese imports are viewed a bit more favorably, though still mostly negatively: 53% say they are bad policy and 32% consider them good.

The poll was conducted between April 17 and April 24, shortly after the White House first announced a wave of new tariffs targeting dozens of countries, only to pause many of them shortly thereafter. During the survey period, the administration issued multiple contradictory statements about the state of international trade talks and the intended goals of the tariff plan. Overall, 58% of respondents say they do not believe Trump has a clear strategy for introducing and managing tariffs, while 42% believe he does.

Most Americans predict the tariffs will harm the economy in the short term. Specifically, 72% expect negative consequences for the U.S. economy, 60% foresee damage to the country’s global standing, and 59% believe their personal finances will be adversely affected. Fewer than 30% expect the tariffs to help in any of these areas.

Looking at the long-term picture, 53% think the tariffs will ultimately hurt the U.S. economy, compared to 34% who believe they will be beneficial. This view reflects a cautious optimism among some Republicans, who believe the initial damage could eventually lead to gains. Among GOP respondents, 47% think the tariffs will hurt the economy in the near future, but roughly three-quarters anticipate eventual benefits.

John Metcalf, a Democrat from Michigan, expressed concern about the unpredictability of Trump’s tariff policy. “I’m not an economics guy, but I can kind of see with what he’s doing with tariffs,” he said. “It’s just causing confusion. If you are a business owner and you’re thinking about the future, how in the world can you make decisions when he flips back and forth every other day?”

Public perception of the broader economy continues to be bleak. Only 28% describe current economic conditions as good, while 71% say they are poor. These numbers have remained virtually unchanged since fall 2023. Meanwhile, 47% of Americans are satisfied with their personal finances, which also shows little movement over recent years.

Underneath these stable numbers, there is growing partisan division. The percentage of Republicans who call the economy good has increased by 10 points since March, whereas Democratic approval has continued to decline. Republicans are now over ten times more likely than Democrats to say they are enthusiastic or optimistic about the economy.

Nonetheless, signs of discontent are emerging within the GOP. While 94% of Republicans say they trust Trump to manage the economy, only 63% believe his policies have improved conditions, and just 23% credit him with lowering living costs in their communities. Nearly as many Republicans think his tariff policies will hurt their personal finances (28%) as those who believe they will help (33%).

A Republican respondent from New Jersey observed, “The prices for energy, medical services, higher education, repair and maintenance continue to [rise]. I think that Pres. Trump’s program will help once they are given a chance.”

When asked to name their family’s biggest economic challenge, most Americans cite costs and inflation. That includes 28% who specifically mention inflation, 15% the overall cost of living, and 16% food prices. Those figures are largely unchanged from June 2024. However, some newer concerns are emerging: 9% cite tariffs, 7% mention investment or stock market worries, and 4% each say Trump’s policies and general economic uncertainty.

One Democrat from Pennsylvania wrote, “My wife lost her job due to the Trump administration DOGE cuts. We are suddenly down an income with costs rising all around us. My own job is at risk due to NIH grant cuts. Our retirement accounts are plummeting in value. Everything is just so, so much worse than it was before Trump took office.”

Among working Americans, half believe Trump’s tariff plans will hurt their industries, while just 11% say the impact will be beneficial. A respondent from Massachusetts explained, “I make board games and they can’t be made in the US. I have preorders I need to fulfill but can’t afford to with the tariffs. The profit I would have gotten from sales would have allowed my business to grow into a studio, hire people, etc. Now I will lose money.”

Even as the Trump administration promotes tariffs as a strategy to create new manufacturing jobs in the U.S., the public remains unconvinced. By a margin of 73% to 26%, Americans say they would personally prefer an office job to a manufacturing job with equal pay. Men are slightly more inclined toward manufacturing work, with 37% expressing that preference, which rises to 43% among Republican men.

The CNN poll surveyed 1,678 adults nationwide using online and telephone interviews. Conducted between April 17 and 24, the sample was drawn from a mix of probability-based online panels and registration-based sources. Initial contact was made via mail, phone, or email. The margin of error for the full sample is plus or minus 2.9 percentage points.