Trump made gains with Latinos in 2024. New polls suggest he's squandering that momentum.
As President Donald Trump approached his 100th day in office, national polls suggested a clear drop from the 46% share of the Latino vote he received last fall, according to exit polls. Surveys from the Pew Research Center, YouGov/Economist, CNN and Reuters/Ipsos put his approval among Latino voters between 27% and 34%. Two Latino-focused polls confirmed the decline. One national survey from UnidosUS and allied groups showed 37% Latino approval for Trump. Another from the Latino Community Foundation (LCF) and Voto Latino (VL) had the number at 39%.
Trump centered his 2024 pitch to Latinos on certain pillars: First, he promised to make the economy better for them. Second, he played up the historical 'us vs. them' mentality, appealing to some groups, like Cuban Americans and even Venezuelans, while ignoring or vilifying others, betting that division would be more effective than trying to reach everyone.
That pitch convinced enough Latino voters — a voter bloc that is more politically independent than often advertised — to give him a look in 2024. It led to historic gains for the Republican Party, echoing back to a time when George W. Bush won strong Latino support in 2004. But Trump's momentum with Latinos seems to have stopped.
The first 100 days of the second Trump presidency have been loud, chaotic and calculated — and Latino voters, like everyone else, have been watching closely. The administration has ramped up mass immigration enforcement and broadcast Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids on traditional and social media. The White House lined up mug shots of arrested immigrants on the North Lawn. Reports surfaced of ICE profiling Latinos as gang members because of tattoos and baseball hats. The administration deported people with protected legal status to a prison in El Salvador. U.S.-citizen children are being deported. And Trump signed executive orders making English the country's official language and even requiring English 'proficiency' for truck drivers.
On the economy, a topic that still polls as Latinos' top issue, tariffs on imports from Mexico were announced, then switched, then announced again. The 'Liberation Day' rollout of tariffs on most countries around the world was just as disastrous. Recession fears are real, and Latinos will feel the brunt of it.
Elsewhere, Trump and Republicans seem likely to cut student loans and Medicaid, programs that disproportionately impact Latino communities. For instance, Latinos account for 30% of all Medicaid enrollees nationwide between 18 and 64 years old, a reflection of how deeply these public systems are woven into daily life for millions of families. And how can we forget about the threats of invading Panama, bullying Colombia into capitulation, praising 'manifest destiny,' and renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America?
That kind of chaos doesn't go unnoticed. And Latino voters have already started to respond.
'Latino voters from 2024 are paying close attention and are not afraid to hold leaders accountable,' said former President Barack Obama administration Cabinet member and Latino Community Foundation CEO Julián Castro. 'At LCF, we are listening closely to the voices of our communities, and what we're hearing is deep concern about the cost of living and the lack of real solutions. Economic relief was promised, and our community is still waiting. The Latino vote is not a blank check.'
The LCF/VL poll found that 63% of Latino voters believe Trump has gone too far on immigration. Forty-four percent said they were worried someone close to them could be deported. On the economy, 68% said things are getting worse or staying the same in a bad way. Forty-three percent reported that their family is struggling to keep up with everyday expenses. And among those who rated their situation as 'barely getting by,' 91% said Trump's tariffs will increase inflation. When asked to describe how they felt about the administration's first 100 days, the most common responses were 'worried,' 'angry' and 'afraid.'
The UnidosUS poll told a similar story. Nearly two-thirds of Latino voters said the country is heading in the wrong direction, and 70% of them blamed President Trump. Fifty-four percent said the economy is worse than it was a year ago, half expect things to keep getting worse and 49% blamed Trump for the rising cost of living. Sixty percent said the administration is not focused enough on making everyday necessities more affordable.
And when asked about the broader impact, two-thirds said his tariffs will reduce their economic opportunity and security by raising prices on goods and services. Latino voters are living this every day, and the promises of a second Trump administration are already collapsing under the weight of reality.
'Latino voters are frustrated that their economic priorities are being ignored and that a key promise made by President Trump during the election is not being kept. Economic discontent was the most potent driver in the 2024 election, helping President Trump increase support among Latinos. But over half of Hispanic voters feel the economy is worse now than a year ago, and nearly as many believe it will be worse a year from now,' said Janet Murguía, president and CEO of UnidosUS, in a media release about their polling.
Yet before Democrats start thinking this is a moment, Latino voters also have a warning for the opposition. The LCF/VL poll found that both major parties are viewed more unfavorably than favorably. Forty-seven percent of Latino voters had an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party, compared to 43% favorable. For Republicans, the gap was even wider: 53% unfavorable to just 37% favorable. The skepticism about the future of this country goes beyond traditional party loyalty.
These polling numbers are reflections of how quickly trust can erode when campaign promises meet lived experience. Trump's message in 2024 worked on some level with Latinos, but governing, especially in this chaotic format, is far different from campaigning, and Latino voters have shown they're not interested in giving him the benefit of the doubt.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
33 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Political violence is threaded through recent U.S. history. The motives and justifications vary
The assassination of one Democratic Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband and the shooting of another lawmaker and his wife at their homes are just the latest addition to a long and unsettling roll call of political violence in the United States. The list, in the last two months alone: the killing of two Israeli Embassy staffers in Washington, D.C.; the firebombing of a Colorado march calling for the release of Israeli hostages; and the firebombing of the official residence of Pennsylvania's governor — on a Jewish holiday while he and his family were inside. Here is a sampling of other attacks before that — the assassination of a healthcare executive on the streets of New York City late last year; the attempted assassination of Donald Trump at a Pennsylvania rally during his presidential campaign last year; the 2022 attack on the husband of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) by a believer in right-wing conspiracy theories; and the 2017 shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) by a gunman at a congressional softball game practice. 'We've entered into this especially scary time in the country where it feels the sort of norms and rhetoric and rules that would tamp down on violence have been lifted,' said Matt Dallek, a political scientist at Georgetown University who studies extremism. 'A lot of people are receiving signals from the culture.' Politics have also driven large-scale massacres. Gunmen who killed 11 worshipers at a synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018, 23 shoppers at a heavily Latino Walmart in El Paso in 2019 and 10 Black people at a Buffalo, N.Y., grocery store in 2022 each cited the conspiracy theory that a secret cabal of Jews was trying to replace white people with people of color. That has become a staple on parts of the right that support Trump's push to limit immigration. The Anti-Defamation League found that from 2022 through 2024, all of the 61 political killings in the United States were committed by right-wing extremists. That changed on the first day of 2025, when a Texas man flying the flag of the Islamic State group killed 14 people by driving his truck through a crowded New Orleans street before being fatally shot by police. 'You're seeing acts of violence from all different ideologies,' said Jacob Ware, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who researches terrorism. 'It feels more random and chaotic and more frequent.' The United States has a long and grim history of political violence, including presidential assassinations dating to the killing of President Abraham Lincoln, lynchings and other violence aimed at Black people in the South, and the 1954 shooting inside Congress by four Puerto Rican nationalists. Experts say the last few years, however, have reached a level not seen since the tumultuous days of the 1960s and 1970s, when political leaders the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., President Kennedy, Malcolm X and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated. Ware noted that the most recent surge comes after the new Trump administration has closed units that focus on investigating white supremacist extremism and pushed federal law enforcement to spend less time on anti-terrorism and more on detaining people who are in the country illegally. 'We're at the point, after these six weeks, where we have to ask about how effectively the Trump administration is combating terrorism,' Ware said. One of Trump's first acts in office was to pardon those involved in the largest act of domestic political violence this century — the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol by a pro-Trump mob intended to prevent Congress from certifying Trump's 2020 election loss. Those pardons broadcast a signal to would-be extremists on either side of the political debate, Dallek said: 'They sent a very strong message that violence, as long as you're a Trump supporter, will be permitted and may be rewarded.' Often, those who engage in political violence don't have clearly defined ideologies that easily map onto the country's partisan divides. A man who died after he detonated a car bomb outside a Palm Springs fertility clinic last month left writings urging people not to procreate and expressed what the FBI called 'nihilistic ideations.' But each political attack seems to inspire partisans to find evidence the attacker is on the other side. Little was known about the man police identified as a suspect in the Minnesota attacks, 57-year-old Vance Boelter. Authorities say they found a list of other apparent targets that included other Democratic officials, abortion clinics and abortion rights advocates, as well as fliers for the day's anti-Trump 'No Kings' parades. Conservatives online seized on the fliers — and the fact that Boelter had apparently once been reappointed to a state workforce development board by Democratic Gov. Tim Walz — to claim the suspect must be a liberal. 'The far left is murderously violent,' billionaire Elon Musk posted on his social media site, X. It was reminiscent of the fallout from the attack on Paul Pelosi, the former House speaker's then-82-year-old husband, who was seriously injured by a man wielding a hammer. Right-wing figures falsely theorized the assailant was a secret lover rather than what authorities said he was: a believer in pro-Trump conspiracy theories who broke into the Pelosi home echoing Jan. 6 rioters who broke into the Capitol by saying: 'Where is Nancy?!' No prominent Republican ever denounced the Pelosi assault, and GOP leaders including Trump joked about the attack at public events in its aftermath. On Saturday, Nancy Pelosi posted a statement on X decrying the Minnesota attack. 'All of us must remember that it's not only the act of violence, but also the reaction to it, that can normalize it,' she wrote. After mocking the Pelosis after the 2022 attack, Trump on Saturday joined in the bipartisan condemnation of the Minnesota shootings, calling them 'horrific violence.' The president has, however, consistently broken new ground with his bellicose rhetoric toward his political opponents, whom he routinely calls 'sick' and 'evil,' and has talked repeatedly about how violence is needed to quell protests. The Minnesota attack occurred after Trump took the extraordinary step of mobilizing the military to try to control protests against his administration's immigration operations in Los Angeles during the last week, when he pledged to 'HIT' disrespectful protesters and warned of a 'migrant invasion' of the city. Dallek said Trump has been 'both a victim and an accelerant' of the charged, dehumanizing political rhetoric that is flooding the country. 'It feels as if the extremists are in the saddle,' he said, 'and the extremists are the ones driving our rhetoric and politics.' Riccardi writes for the Associated Press.
USA Today
34 minutes ago
- USA Today
'No Kings' organizers say protests drew large crowds: Here are their estimates
'No Kings' organizers say protests drew large crowds: Here are their estimates Show Caption Hide Caption Millions march in 'No Kings' protests across country Millions marched in cities and towns across the U.S. in "No Kings" protests to rally against the Trump administration. Organizers of the "No Kings" rallies that swept across the nation June 14 said the protests drew large crowds that marched against the Trump administration. The American Civil Liberties Union, a part of the coalition that put on the demonstrations, said in a late Saturday, June 14 statement that more than five million people participated in over 2,100 rallies and protests. Political organizing group Move On, who was a partner in the "No Kings" rallies, echoed the 5 million person estimate in a fundraising email. Jeremy Pressman, the co-director of the Crowd Counting Consortium – a Harvard University and University of Connecticut project that estimates political crowds – told USA TODAY June 15 that it will take "some time" to complete an estimate on the "No Kings" rallies. The Los Angeles Times reported that "tens of thousands" of people demonstrated in the city roiled by Trump's recent immigration enforcement. The New York Post reported that 50,000 people showed up in New York City, where President Donald Trump was born. "Today's protests are a resounding message that people across the nation will not be intimidated by President Trump's fear tactics," ACLU Chief Political & Advocacy Officer Deirdre Schifeling said in the statement. "Americans are brave, democracy loving people and will not sit idly by as the Trump administration feeds our Constitution into the shredder — nor will the ACLU." 'No Kings' protests across US largely peaceful The mostly calm marches, organized under the theme that no individual is above the law, coincided with the day Trump presided over a military parade on the streets of the nation's capital. A demonstration in Northern Virginia, about 70 miles from Washington, D.C., was met with violence when a man intentionally drove an SUV through a crowd of departing protesters, striking at least one person, police said. Police in Los Angeles hit protesters with batons, fired tear gas and ordered a large crowd in downtown to disperse; authorities said they were responding to people throwing "rocks, bricks, bottles," and "fireworks" at officials. In Minnesota, organizers canceled protests across the state out of an abundance of caution after a shooter targeted local lawmakers, killing one and her spouse at their home and injuring another lawmaker and his spouse at their residence. In a statement, the "No Kings" group said it was adhering to guidance from Minnesota State Patrol and Gov. Tim Walz, who urged people not to attend any rallies Saturday. Contributing: N'dea Yancey-Bragg, Sarah D. Wire, Jeanine Santucci, Jonathan Limehouse, Jay Calderon, Brian Day, USA TODAY.
Washington Post
37 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump wanted a military spectacle. Instead, he got a history lesson.
The Army's 250th birthday parade was not the grand military spectacle that many anticipated, and for that Americans can breathe a momentary, measured sigh of relief. It was a family-friendly conclusion to a celebratory day, with events on the Mall and fireworks at the end. What had been billed as an overwhelming display of military might turned out to be a linear history lesson, from the early days of revolution to the age of robotic dogs and flying drones. A narrator made sense of it all over loudspeakers and for those watching the live stream on television, with a script that rarely strayed from the Army's disciplined sense of itself as a lethal fighting machine in the service of democracy and the Constitution. The tone was reminiscent of the wall texts and exhibits at the National Museum of the United States Army, which opened on the grounds of Fort Belvoir in November 2020, during one of the most dangerous moments in recent American history. Like Saturday's parade, the museum celebrates the Army's history, but it does so with the temperance and nuance of serious professional historians, and a well-crafted historical and cultural narrative that largely steers clear of propaganda. It opened in the waning days of President Donald Trump's first term, after he lost reelection, and only days after he fired his defense secretary, Mark T. Esper. There was, at the time, considerable anxiety that Trump might attempt to use the Army to sustain his false claims of election fraud. That Army, which has a keen sense of its own aesthetics, had been embroiled in Trump's efforts to politicize it earlier in his first administration. In June 2020, a photograph of members of the D.C. National Guard on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial went viral, during the unsettled days of national protests after the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. That picture, of troops seemingly deployed and ready for combat, standing in an orderly phalanx on the steps of the memorial, recalled the horror of the 1970 Kent State shootings, when Ohio National Guard troops fired on unarmed student protesters, killing four of them. It also seemed to presage a new age of domestic militarism, with the U.S. Army loyal not to the Constitution, but to Trump personally. The same anxiety preceded Saturday's parade, especially after a speech earlier in the week by Trump at Fort Bragg, during which uniformed troops booed mentions of former president Joe Biden and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and cheered Trump's partisan MAGA message. But on Saturday, at least, the Army stuck to its familiar themes of service, sacrifice and duty. The result was a display of civics, not power. The president was supposedly inspired to demand a military parade, an exceptionally rare event in recent U.S. history, after seeing a very different display on Bastille Day 2017, on the Champs-Élysées in Paris. Given Trump's admiration for strongman leaders in Russia and China, there was worry that the Army parade might hew to the authoritarian geometry of military spectacles in totalitarian countries, especially the absurdist mix of camp and menace favored by the regime in North Korea. But the soldiers who paraded past the presidential reviewing stand on Constitution Avenue walked with a loose-limbed gait, disciplined but not robotic, with individual soldiers integrated into the collective without losing their identity. Those riding by on tanks, trucks and other combat vehicles waved and smiled, engaging with an enthusiastic crowd. The announcer often sounded as if he were narrating a fashion show for machines rather than a military parade. The Bradley Fighting Vehicle: 'It is fast, it is tough, and it is lethal.' Parades always come with a message, which is why so many people were wary. When the American painter Childe Hassam painted a series of patriotic events, including a Fourth of July parade, before America's entry into World War I, he offered an innocent, exuberant vision of red, white and blue, all but overwhelming the individual marchers, as if flags, banners and bunting were sufficient to win a battle. But he was also positing an image of a unified America, during a period of considerable anxiety over mass immigration from European countries not deemed sufficiently Anglo-Saxon to fit a racist model of the country's emerging imperial identity. The impressionist blending of colors mimics the blurring of origins in the proverbial American melting pot. The last big U.S. military parade in Washington, held in 1991 after the Gulf War, wasn't just a welcome-home for the troops, but also an effort to allay the alienation of many Americans from their armed forces following the debacle in Vietnam. Since at least World War II, the Bastille Day review in Paris has been an even more complicated affair, a Gaullist effort to prioritize visions of orderly state power over leftist memories of modern France's birth in revolution and bloodletting. In Leni Riefenstahl's 1935 Nazi propaganda film, 'Triumph of the Will' — a terrifying compendium of parades and military spectacles — there is a scene in which Adolf Hitler walks through a vast empty space flanked by hundreds of troops. They have been reduced to the fascist ideal, mechanical dots on a relentless grid, remote and so distant from the leader to affirm the vast difference in their status: One man alone has agency, all the rest are part of the machine. Riefenstahl's image reminds us of a basic rule of thumb for analyzing a military parade: Look to the edges. Is the army of and among the people, or does it cut its own space, cleaving the throng, inhabiting its own power separate from civilian society? The U.S. Army has complicated edges; it is professional and thus apart from the civilian world, but it is also voluntary, and thus integrated into the fabric of American society. Heavy security on Saturday kept the people apart from the troops, but individual service members often seemed intent on bridging the distance, with waves and smiles. That offered a sharp contrast with the presence of California National Guard troops in Los Angeles, where the governor insists that they are not wanted or needed, where the edges of their presence are sharp and dangerous, and could be cutting. This year marks not just the 250th anniversary of the Army's birth, but also the 50th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War, which was the all-time nadir of the military's reputation in the United States. The parade on Saturday could have done exceptional damage to a decades-long effort to climb out of that hole. The current president is extraordinarily good at creating situations that force unique message discipline on his critics. Thus, people who are deeply troubled by the unprecedented federal use of the National Guard on the streets of Los Angeles were invited to hate on an unnecessary and costly (up to $45 million estimated) but mostly benign Army celebration in Washington. But the Army proved even better at message discipline, keeping attention on its history, its service and its members. One early warning sign of a shift in the Army's allegiance will be a fraying of how it tells its own story: If it fires its historians — or attempts to coerce their compliance, as seems to be happening in other institutions, including the Smithsonian — there will be even more serious trouble ahead. But on Saturday, it kept that history in the foreground, and even the president looked bored during much of it, which isn't surprising. The Army made it about the country, not the man.
