Trump Approval Rating Plunges From Post-Inauguration High Amid Power Tripping Concerns
Trump's approval rating is down to 42% from a 47% high after his inauguration
Only 45% approve of his handling of the economy
83% of the respondents believe Trump should abide by court rulings even if he disagrees with them
59% of the surveyed said the US is beginning to lose credibility in the global stage
More than half believe Trump shouldn't attempt to run for presidency a third time
President Donald Trump's approval rating has plunged and his disapproval rating hasn't moved from earlier figures, a new Reuters-Ipsos poll revealed, highlighting the changing tone of American voters over the president's recent actions.
Trump has been waging a global trade war in recent weeks even with multiple warnings from economic experts that it will only hurt financial markets and American consumers. Trump's Approval Rating Sees Multi-Point Dip
From an approval rating of 47% in the aftermath of his inauguration in January, Trump's approval rating has dropped to 42%, which is also 1 percentage point lower than his approval rating from last month's poll.
His disapproval rating remained at 53%, the same as the previous month, but is notably higher than an earlier poll at 51%.
In terms of his handling of the economy, more than half of the respondents (51%) disapproved, which is at least a percentage point lower than the previous poll.
On immigration, Trump's approval rating continues to slide and this time, there is a multi-point plunge from the previous poll's 48% to 45%. Americans Becoming Uncomfortable With Trump's Actions
It appears more Americans are becoming uncomfortable with Trump's defiant stance over some federal court rulings.
The poll revealed that some 83% of over 4,000 respondents said the U.S. president should "obey court orders he disagrees with."
Trump has had run-ins with court orders in recent weeks, including over the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) federal downsizing and the president's takeover of the Kennedy Center.
Notably, 73% of the respondents who believed in the notion were Republicans.
One of the biggest takeaways from the poll is the finding that some 59% of the respondents – a third of Republicans included – believe that the United States has started to lose credibility on the global stage.
Finally, some 53% of the respondents, a majority of them Republican supporters, said the aged president should refrain from seeking a third term.
The latest poll's results mirror similar sentiments in a mid-March NBC News poll that found American voters were starting to feel that the U.S. is no longer headed in the right direction under Trump.
In the said poll, 53% of the respondents disapproved of Trump's foreign policies and 54% of those surveyed also disapproved of his economic decisions.
Another poll last week found that more Americans trust Democrats in Congress over their GOP counterparts when it comes to handling the economy (46% to 43%).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
DW
an hour ago
- DW
Iran-Israel conflict: 'China has no appetite to be involved' – DW – 06/17/2025
In an interview with DW, China expert William Figueroa said that Beijing lacks the capability for power projection in the Middle East, however, the Iran-Israel conflict poses some risk to China's energy security. China on Tuesday accused US President Donald Trump of "pouring oil" on the conflict as the Israel-Iran fighting raged for a fifth straight day. "Making threats and mounting pressure will not help to promote the de-escalation of the situation, but will only intensify and widen the conflict," Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Guo Jiakun said in Beijing. He was referring to a social media post by Trump before he left for the G7 Summit in Canada, in which the US president wrote: "I said it over and over again! Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!" Guo said China was calling on all sides concerned — "especially those countries with particular influence over Israel" — to take immediate measures to calm the tense situation. While the US is Israel's strongest ally, Beijing and Tehran share close ties. In a DW interview, William Figueroa, an international relations expert focusing on China-Middle East relations at University of Groningen, talks about how China sees the conflict, and what role Beijing could play to defuse the tensions. DW: How do you see China's stance on the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel? William Figueroa: China's reaction closely mirrors its stance on the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the war in Gaza. Essentially, China tends to focus on two main points: first, it largely places the blame on Israel, and second, it consistently calls for dialogue, negotiation, and de-escalation, rather than resorting to military action or coercive diplomacy. As the situation evolved, China's position continued to emphasize Iran's right to retaliate and defend itself, particularly in response to Israeli attacks. China's objections have primarily been framed around the issue of sovereignty. 'The situation does pose some risk to China's energy security, and Chinese leaders are certainly aware of that,' says Figueroa Image: Privat Would you say China hasn't been so far actively involved in the situation? No, nor does China see this as an arena where it can exercise influence — Chinese state media are barely covering this issue. I believe this position reflects China's fundamental limitations in this arena. Simply put, China does not have a significant role in this conflict. It lacks the capability for power projection in the region and is not a key player in the traditional security sense. China's real competitive advantage in the Middle East lies in its economic relationships and, occasionally, in its ability to serve as a diplomatic bridge. However, in this specific conflict, Iran and Israel are not short of communication channels — they are simply unwilling to talk. This leaves China with very little room to maneuver diplomatically. Additionally, given the relatively limited exposure, I don't think China has any appetite to involve itself directly in this conflict, even if it had the capacity to do so, especially when an action carries high costs and offers little benefit. China has actively engaged in Middle East affairs in recent years, most notably facilitating the Saudi-Iran reconciliation. Do you think China will attempt to mediate in the Iran-Israel conflict as well? I believe China will maintain its current approach, which is to stay open to regionally initiated efforts. China prefers to act as a facilitator for negotiations that are generated from within the region itself. It does encourage diplomatic engagement, but China does not have the tools nor the diplomatic style to apply pressure in the way that, for example, the United States might. To put it simply: the Saudi-Iran deal was a low-hanging fruit that China was happy to pick — it involved low cost and high political reward. Any involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict would be the opposite: very high cost and very low potential gain. I do not believe China has the ability or the incentive to pursue such a role. Iranians protest Israeli strikes To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Given China's reliance on Middle Eastern oil, do you think the current situation poses a threat to China's energy security? The situation does pose some risk to China's energy security, and Chinese leaders are certainly aware of that. This is part of the reason why they want the conflict to de-escalate quickly. However, I would not characterize it as a major threat. Currently, Russia is China's largest supplier of oil, surpassing Iran. China also has substantial domestic oil reserves. So, while losing access to Iranian oil would affect supply, it would not create a critical shortage. Iran accounts for roughly 10% of China's total oil imports. Additionally, China sources oil from countries like Brazil and Saudi Arabia. I believe Saudi Arabia is relatively insulated from this particular conflict. If Iran were to attack Saudi Arabia or significantly involve it in the conflict, it would provoke a much stronger response from the United States. Such an escalation would be very costly for Iran, making it an unlikely scenario. China is the biggest buyer of Iranian oil and its largest trade partner. Could this economic relationship give Beijing meaningful influence over Iran? Generally speaking, no. I think this has been demonstrated quite clearly. For example, when Iran-backed groups attacked Israeli shipping in the Red Sea, there were calls for China to use its influence over Iran to prevent further escalation. Either China chose not to act, or they were not able to. Fundamentally, I don't believe it's in China's interest to weaponize its economic relationships. China is unlikely to say to Iran, "If you don't do what we want, we will cancel our deals." China might consider such tactics in situations where its core national interests are involved — such as matters concerning Taiwan — but not over what it considers to be regional or domestic issues in the Middle East. Even if China had significant leverage over Iran, it would be very difficult to resolve this particular issue. No country is going to persuade Iran to abandon its civilian nuclear program, and China does not even support that objective. Beijing believes Iran has the right to civilian nuclear energy. If the Iran-Israel conflict drags on, there is a possibility that the US could be drawn more deeply into it. Would such US entanglement be seen as a strategic advantage for China? Yes, I believe that would generally be seen as beneficial to China. In fact, this is a frequent point made by both mainstream scholars and popular commentators in China. They often argue that America's continued military entanglement in the Middle East drains US resources, time, and strategic attention. This is precisely why many Chinese analysts advocate for China to avoid similar military commitments and instead continue focusing on its strengths — economic development, investment, and initiatives like the Belt and Road. Even American politicians are debating this issue. Some in Congress argue that the US should prioritize competition with China in the Pacific rather than becoming further involved in the Middle East. From China's perspective, further US entanglement in Middle Eastern conflicts would likely be viewed as strategically advantageous. Israel-Iran conflict: 'Deciding factor is likely Washington' To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Given China's growing alignment with non-Western powers, do you see it moving more aggressively toward anti-Western positions in conflicts like this? There's sometimes a misconception that China will automatically align itself with an anti-Western bloc in opposition to US-backed policies. In reality, while China is diplomatically, emotionally, and perhaps ideologically supportive of the Palestinian cause, when it comes to practical influence and the willingness to incur costs to shift outcomes, China is like most other countries, and it is willing to do very little. If the Iranian regime were to collapse, would China quietly welcome the power vacuum? I don't think China would welcome such a scenario. China generally opposes power vacuums and chaotic transitions. China has had no significant issues dealing with the Islamic Republic and would actually prefer that the international community normalize relations with Iran. Historically, China has acted with caution in these situations. For example, in 1979, as Iran's monarchy was collapsing. China's past behavior suggests that in the event of regime collapse, it would adopt a wait-and-see approach, preferring to work with whoever emerges as the next stable authority. The interview was conducted by Jinhan Li. It has been edited for length and clarity. Edited by: Srinivas Mazumdaru
Int'l Business Times
3 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
Mike Lindell Ordered To Pay $2.3 Million For Defaming Ex-Dominion Exec Eric Coomer
A federal jury in Colorado found that Mike Lindell, the founder of MyPillow and a prominent election conspiracy theorist, defamed Eric Coomer, a former employee of Dominion Voting Systems, after the 2020 presidential election and ordered him to pay $2.3 million in damages, according to Reuters. Coomer had initially sought $62.7 million in damages, but the jury awarded a lower amount. The verdict stems from a lawsuit filed by Coomer, who claimed that Lindell's false statements ruined his ability to work in the elections industry and destroyed his career and life. Lindell had called Coomer a "traitor" and accused him of "treason" in statements made in May 2021, as reported by CBS News. Coomer's lawsuit alleged that Lindell's false statements subjected him to frequent death threats, and his lawyers argued that their client's life was devastated by the conspiracy theories spreading about him. Coomer was the security and product strategy director at Dominion Voting Systems, a Denver-based company whose voting machines became the target of conspiracy theories among allies of former President Donald Trump. Following the verdict, Lindell expressed his intention to appeal the judgment, claiming that Coomer's lawyers did not prove that Coomer had been harmed. "This is a huge victory for our country," said Lindell, according to Reuters. He also noted that the jury's finding that MyPillow, his company, was not liable was a positive outcome. Lindell, a steadfast supporter of Trump, was among many of his allies who advanced unfounded claims of fraud in the 2020 election. Reviews, recounts, and audits in battleground states affirmed Biden's victory, and Trump's attorney general at the time said there was no evidence of widespread fraud. During the trial, Lindell stood by his false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen but did not call any experts to present evidence of his claims, as reported by ABC News. He stated that his beliefs were influenced by watching the 2020 HBO documentary "Kill Chain" and by the views of Trump's former national security adviser, Michael Flynn. Lindell said he had no reason to doubt Flynn's claims since Flynn had worked for both political parties in intelligence. Coomer's lawyers argued that Lindell either knew the statements were lies or conveyed them recklessly without knowing if they were true. They contended that Lindell's statements crossed the line into defamation and that he targeted Coomer in particular. "This is hurting democracy. This is misinformation. It's not been vetted and it needs to stop," said Charles Cain, one of Coomer's attorneys, according to ABC News. Coomer testified that the conspiracy theories cost him his job, his mental health, and the life he'd built. He said that Lindell's statements were the most distressing of all. Despite the jury awarding less than the amount sought, Cain said his client was "thrilled" with the verdict, as reported by The Daily Beast. He added that the verdict serves as a deterrence for individuals working on elections from being targeted. Lindell's online media platform, formerly known as FrankSpeech, broadcast claims about Coomer that his lawyers argued were defamatory. Lindell's attorneys denied liability for statements made by others, as reported by CBS News. The jury found that eight other statements made by Lindell and others appearing on his platform were not defamatory. Lindell maintained that he would continue to speak out about election security, including criticizing the makers of election equipment like Dominion. He said the lawsuit was meant to suppress his voice and that he would not stop fighting the use of electronic voting machines in U.S. elections. Dominion Voting Systems has filed separate defamation lawsuits against several Trump allies, including Lindell. The company's lawsuit against him is proceeding in a Washington D.C. federal court. Dominion has won large settlements after suing Trump allies for defamation, including a $787 million settlement in a lawsuit against Fox News over the network's airing of false claims against the company. Lindell stated that he used to be worth about $60 million before he started speaking out about the 2020 election and is now $10 million in debt, according to The Daily Beast. He also said his financial troubles were partly due to right-wing cable network Newsmax's 2021 settlement with Coomer. Lindell told Rolling Stone, "The settlement has cost MyPillow in sales over $20 million because Newsmax will never have me on to talk about MyPillow products anymore!" Coomer denied that there was any agreement to block Lindell under his settlement with Newsmax. In 2021, Newsmax apologized to Coomer for airing false allegations against him. Coomer acknowledged that his Facebook posts disparaging Trump were "hyperbolic" and had been a mistake, as reported by CBS News. Lindell's attorneys argued that Coomer's reputation was already damaged before Lindell mentioned him, partly due to Coomer's own social media posts. Earlier this year, Lindell announced that two law firms defending him in his lawsuits with Dominion and Smartmatic had quit because he couldn't pay them. In February, a federal judge upheld an arbitration panel's determination that Lindell had to pay $5 million to a man who successfully disproved his claims that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, as reported by The Daily Beast. Coomer's attorneys argued that Lindell's false statements caused harm, subjecting him to threats and damaging his reputation. They said that Lindell's claims were made recklessly and without regard for the truth. The jury found that two of Lindell's statements about Coomer, including calling him a traitor and accusing him of stealing the election, were defamatory, as reported by CBS News. However, they found that eight other statements made by Lindell and others appearing on his online media platform were not defamatory. Lindell's attorneys argued that the statements were about a matter of public concern—elections—and therefore protected by the First Amendment. They contended that Coomer's reputation was already in tatters by the time Lindell mentioned him. Coomer said he hopes the verdict will send a message discouraging attacks on election workers. "Individuals who are singled out can get vindication in the courthouse," said Cain, according to The Daily Beast.
Int'l Business Times
4 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
Why Stablecoins Are Gaining Popularity
Stablecoins -- a form of cryptocurrency backed by traditional assets -- are gaining traction, with the US Senate set to vote Tuesday on a bill to regulate such digital tokens. But as stablecoins move closer to the financial mainstream, experts warn that weak regulation could leave investors and the financial system vulnerable. Stablecoins play a key role in crypto markets, enabling users to trade digital assets without relying on traditional banks, instead using a decentralised register known as blockchain. Unlike volatile cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, stablecoins track the value of traditional assets -- such as the US dollar or gold -- enabling greater stability. Tether and USDC, for example, are pegged to the dollar, backed by reserves held by their issuing companies. They are useful internationally because they enable "fast, low-cost cross-border payments", Dessislava Aubert, analyst at crypto insights firm Kaiko, told AFP. This is "especially valuable in emerging markets where access to hard currency and traditional banking services is often limited", Aubert added. Examples include Argentina, Nigeria and Turkey, The market value of stablecoins soared to $246 billion in May, up from $20 billion in 2020, according to Deutsche Bank. And the total number of transactions in 2024 surpassed those of Visa and Mastercard. USDC's issuer, Circle, made a splash this month when it was listed on the New York Stock Exchange. To ensure the stability of stablecoins, the United States is pushing for issuers to hold sufficient low-risk, liquid assets -- such as dollars and Treasury bills. This could also boost demand for US debt and the greenback. The proposed legislation would require major stablecoin issuers to undergo regular audits and make it tougher to launch new tokens. These safeguards became more urgent after the collapse of the Terra stablecoin in 2022, which showed how these tokens can "depeg", or lose the link to the asset they are meant to track. There's a risk that an organisation may not be trustworthy or could be hacked, making audits and checks vital, explained Murat Kantarcioglu, a computer science professor at Virginia Tech University in the United States. Another possibility is that a loss of trust in the stablecoin may ripple beyond the crypto world, hitting the assets that back these tokens. "The new rules could make it harder for start-ups to issue stablecoins, creating a risk that a few big companies -- such as tech giants -- could dominate the market," Aubert told AFP over email. According to the Wall Street Journal, Amazon and Walmart are considering issuing their own stablecoin, which their customers could use for purchases. Democrats opposing the bill say risks of speculation, money laundering and political conflicts of interest associated with stablecoins are not sufficiently addressed. Notably, President Donald Trump's family has helped launch a stablecoin called USD1, used by Emirati fund MGX. And even with new regulations, in the event of issuer bankruptcy, stablecoin losses "are not explicitly covered by government insurance programs", unlike "bank deposits, which are insured up to $250,000", Aubert pointed out. In Europe, regulation on cryptocurrencies (MiCA), effective since the end of December, provides a framework for issuing stablecoins. The UK, South Korea and Brazil are moving forward with regulations. China banned cryptocurrencies in 2021 and is instead developing its own central bank digital currency, the e-yuan. Russia is considering a stablecoin backed by the rouble or friendly currencies such as the yuan.
