What Trump's presidential approval ratings say over the July 4th holiday weekend; PA poll
In just the past few weeks, Trump has earned the new nickname 'TACO' which stands for — Trump Always Chickens Out — referencing the state of his tariff-trade war negotiations; Iran's Ayatollah issued a 'fatwa' against him after he launched airstrikes against their nuclear facilities; And his very controversial 'One, Big, Beautiful Bill' hijacked the news headlines all week, as it threatens to substantially cut into Medicaid and other safety net programs.
In a Quantus Insights poll ending July 2, 47% approved of Trump's overall job as president, while 49% disapproved and 4% reported not sure.
Ahead of Fourth of July, the pollsters asked how people felt about American pride, with 77% responding they are proud to be American and 23% said not proud. Along the same vein, Americans were asked which American values they hold most dear, the response was freedom of speech, equality under the law, democracy/voting rights, the right to bear arms, and religious liberty, in that order.
Here's how Americans are feeling about Trump's presidential job performance now.
According to today's Rasmussen Reports polling, Trump's approval has slipped to 49% approval rating versus 48% that disapprove.
In a Quantus Insights poll ending July 2, 47% approved of Trump's job as president, while 49% disapproved and 4% reported not sure. Ahead of Fourth of July, the pollsters asked about American pride, with 77% responding they are proud to be American and 23% said not proud. Along the same vein, Americans were asked which American values they hold most dear, the response was freedom of speech, equality under the law, democracy/voting rights, the right to bear arms, and religious liberty, in that order.
In this week's Economist/YouGov poll, Trump's approval rating dropped to 41% as his unfavorable rating soared to 56%.
The weekend's Morning Consult poll saw an improvement in his favorability rating, now at 47% and a disapproval rating of 50%.
RealClear Polling which encompasses the average of different 15 different pollsters, including all those mentioned above, shows Trump's overall favorability declining this week to 46.3% that approve and 50.5% that disapprove. These numbers are still on improvement since his lows at the end of April, when it reached a 52.4% disapproval rating and 45.1% favorable approval rating.
Note: Polls are constantly changing and different pollsters ask different varieties of the population. These numbers were reflected as of Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 3:30 p.m.
According to Civiqs polls, updated June 26, Trump's approval ratings in Pennsylvania have dropped slightly compared to two weeks ago and after the strike on Iran.
About 54% of Pennsylvanians polled currently disapprove of the president's performance, up from 52% on June 13. Only 44% approved of Trump's performance as of this week, down a point from earlier this month.
These polling numbers were also broken down by age, education, gender, race and party.
Age: Those between 18-34 were most unfavorable of Trump (62%), while those 50 to 64 were the most favorable (54%).
Education: Postgraduate students were most unfavorable toward Trump (66%). Non-college graduates were most favorable (49%).
Gender: Men and women are split on Trump, more than half of females (59%) holding an unfavorable view and more than half of males (51%) having a favorable view of the president.
Party: Members of the Republican party were 89% favorable of Trump, compared to the Democratic party, who felt just 3% favorable of the president's performance. Half of Independent voters were unfavorable (51%).
Race: Black voters had the highest unfavorable opinion of Trump (90%), followed by other races at 62%, Hispanic/Latino at 57% and white at 47%.
This article originally appeared on NorthJersey.com: Trump's current presidential approval rating 2025; Latest poll numbers
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - We have filed the case that could overturn Wickard and limit Commerce Clause powers
Roscoe Filburn owned a wheat farm in rural Montgomery County, Ohio. When he used his own farm to feed his own family, he fell under the hammer of the federal government. It was 1938, and America was in the throes of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. Agricultural commodity prices—and specifically, wheat prices—fluctuated wildly, costing farmers their fortunes, farms, and families. In an effort to stabilize wheat prices, the federal government intervened and artificially capped the amount of wheat each farmer could grow. It sought to shrink the wheat supply while demand remained the same, and thereby increase the wheat price. Under this federal policy, the government eventually fined Filburn. Justifiably skeptical that this was within the federal power, Filburn challenged the fine in court. The case was Wickard v. Filburn — one that lives in infamy and whose effects are felt strongly to this day. Unlike the state governments, the federal government is one of limited and enumerated power: It possesses only the powers specifically granted in the Constitution, and no others. As such, it based its wheat scheme on Congress's power 'to regulate Commerce … among the several States.' Widely known as the 'Interstate Commerce Clause,' as its text indicates, this federal power is restricted to commerce that takes place between states. Wheat and similar commodities are often bought, shipped, and sold across state lines, and their availability within one state can affect markets in others. On its face, then, intervention into the wheat market could seem a reasonable expression of the power to regulate interstate commerce. But the federal government went much further than that. Filburn's case began in 1940, when the federal government had imposed a wheat cap for Filburn's farm. He abided by that cap for wheat he sold on the market, but he retained some additional wheat to feed his family and his animals. Despite this wholly local, non-commercial use of his own wheat, the federal government fined him for exceeding his quota. After two years of proceedings, the Supreme Court notoriously sided with the government. The court's reasoning? By eating wheat he grew himself, Filburn was failing to buy wheat on the national market, and by not buying wheat on the national market, he was engaging in an activity which, if others were to follow suit, could affect that national market. The federal government could therefore regulate even Filburn's family activity on his own farm in Ohio because it could hypothetically affect interstate commerce. Congress and federal agencies have taken that reasoning and run with it ever since. Under the logic of this precedent and ensuing cases, the federal commerce power has stretched to reach virtually every activity under the sun. To this day, the federal government uses these cases to assert a nearly limitless sweep of power. The Commerce Clause has become a catch-all justification for thousands of federal laws and regulations. Agricultural production? Interstate commerce. Public health? Interstate commerce. Obscure spider species? Interstate commerce. Real estate disclosures? Also, somehow, interstate commerce. For decades, public-interest lawyers like ourselves have sought to rework this line of jurisprudence. In April, our firm, the Center for the American Future, filed Corley v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, with the aim of restoring the Constitution's proper balance of power in this space. The plaintiffs in that case, a real estate attorney and a property owner in Lubbock, Texas, want to transfer residential real estate into a legal entity. This should be as simple as filling out the deed, handling the closing details, and signing the paperwork — that is how it has always worked. And real estate is about the most 'local' activity there is. It does not cross state lines, and each property is intrinsically unique. It is a stretch to say that such an activity, especially when no financing has been secured and no money has changed hands, falls within interstate commerce. But, predictably, the federal government has argues otherwise. The Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, known as 'FinCEN,' has put in place roadblocks, rules, penalties, and paperwork for this simple intrastate activity. These extra steps require the disclosure of sensitive information, such as social security numbers, birthdates, closing costs, financing, and other data. FinCEN's claimed purpose is to combat money laundering, but its restrictions apply to every single person making a covered real estate transfer, regardless of whether he or she is suspected of a crime. Most importantly, the regulations apply with no regard to interstate commerce. Even if the property is next-door and is transferred for free, according to FinCEN, the agency can reach it under the Commerce Clause. Our Constitution is clear in restricting federal power. Whether Congress legislates or an executive agency regulates, no part of the federal government may expand beyond the powers set forth in the Constitution. For more than 80 years, those restrictions have been ignored as the federal commerce power has been pushed beyond the bounds of reason. But the Center for the American Future, through carefully crafted legal arguments, hopes to restore the Constitution's careful balance of power. Clayton Calvin is an attorney with the Texas Public Policy Foundation's litigation arm, the Center for the American Future. Matt Miller is a senior attorney in the Center for the American Future. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Los Angeles Times
40 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Ukraine says it struck a Russian air base as Russia sent hundreds of drones into Ukraine
LONDON — Ukraine said it struck a Russian air base on Saturday, while Russia continued to pound Ukraine with hundreds of drones overnight as part of a stepped-up bombing campaign that has dashed hopes for a breakthrough in efforts to end the more than 3-year-old war. Ukraine's military General Staff said that Ukrainian forces had struck the Borisoglebsk air base in Russia's Voronezh region, describing it as the home base of Russia's Su-34, Su-35S and Su-30SM fighter jets. Writing on Facebook, the General Staff said it hit a depot containing glide bombs, a training aircraft and 'possibly other aircraft.' Russian officials did not immediately comment on the attack. Such attacks on Russian air bases aim to dent Russia's military capability and demonstrate Ukraine's capability to hit high-value targets in Russia. Last month, Ukraine said it destroyed more than 40 Russian planes stationed at several airfields deep in Russia's territory in a surprise drone attack. Russia fired 322 drones and decoys into Ukraine overnight into Saturday, Ukraine's air force said. Of these, 157 were shot down and 135 were lost, likely having been electronically jammed. According to the air force, Ukraine's western Khmelnytskyi region was the main target of the attack. Regional Gov. Serhii Tyurin said Saturday that no damage, injuries or deaths had been reported. Russia has been stepping up its long-range attacks on Ukraine. Waves of drones and missiles targeted Kyiv overnight into Friday in the largest aerial assault since Russia's invasion of Ukraine began. On Saturday, Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko said the number of people killed in the assault had increased to two. A further 31 people were wounded. The fresh wave of attacks came after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Friday that he had a 'very important and productive' phone call with U.S. President Donald Trump. The two leaders discussed how Ukrainian air defenses might be strengthened, possible joint weapons production between the U.S. and Ukraine, and broader U.S-led efforts to end the war with Russia, according to a statement by Zelenskyy. Asked Friday night by reporters about the call, Trump said, 'We had a very good call, I think.' When asked about finding a way to end the fighting, Trump said: 'I don't know. I can't tell you whether or not that's going to happen.' The U.S. has paused some shipments of military aid to Ukraine, including crucial air defense missiles. Ukraine's main European backers are considering how they can help pick up the slack. Zelenskyy says plans are afoot to build up Ukraine's domestic arms industry, but scaling up will take time. Russia's Defense Ministry said it shot down 94 Ukrainian drones overnight into Saturday, along with 45 further drones Saturday morning and early afternoon. No casualties were reported, but local officials in the Saratov region said 25 apartments were damaged by Ukrainian drones in the city of Engels. Four Ukrainian drones were shot down while approaching Moscow on Saturday, according to Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin. Air traffic was briefly halted as a precaution at one of Moscow's airports, Sheremetyevo, Russia's aviation authority Rosaviatsiya said. Morton writes for the Associated Press.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Musk calls Bannon a ‘fat, drunken slob' and says he should be arrested as their feud rages on
Elon Musk and Steve Bannon escalated their feud over the July Fourth weekend by exchanging fiery insults over their respective platforms. On Bannon's podcast War Room, the former Trump adviser raged against Musk for polling his X followers about starting a new political party in the United States, saying Musk was being disingenuous and should be deported. 'Only a foreigner could do this,' Bannon said. 'Think about it, he's got up on Twitter right now a poll about starting an American Party – a non-American starting an American Party. No, brother, you're not an American; you're a South African.' 'If we take enough time and prove the facts of that, you should be deported,' Bannon stated. Bannon, a devoted Trump loyalist who went to federal prison for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena, believes Musk has ulterior motives for being close to the president. He's called for Musk to be investigated multiple times. On Musk's X account, the tech billionaire responded by calling Bannon a 'fat, drunken slob' who should be in prison for committing crimes. 'The fat, drunken slob called Bannon will go back to prison and this time for a long time. He has a lifetime of crime to pay for,' Musk wrote. Musk has been a United States citizen since 2002. Despite the two men being close to Trump at various periods, they have little in common. Unlike Trump's first administration, Bannon does not have a formal role in the White House. But he has still used his platform to bolster Trump and defend him against all attacks. Bannon has been vocal about his disdain for Musk, advocating for the revocation of his government contracts and questioning his citizenship status. Musk, who helped get Trump elected with generous donations, spent several months in the administration before a bitter falling out with the president over their different perspectives on Trump's signature legislation. As a result of the recent falling out, Bannon appears to have upped his attacks on Musk. The hostile relationship between the two escalated specifically because Musk polled his 221 million X followers about launching a new political party, called the 'America Party,' on Independence Day.
