Poll: Trump's immigration approval rating at an all time low in second term
A Reuters/Ipsos poll, conducted between July 15 and July 16, found that 41% of Americans approve of Trump's immigration policies while 51% of Americans disapprove.
In comparison, Trump's approval rating on immigration was 43% in a June 21-23 poll, 44% in a June 11-16 poll, and 47% in two May polls, Reuters reported.
The latest survey was conducted after Trump sent National Guard troops in June to quell protests against immigration enforcement in the Los Angeles area, against California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's wishes. Additional protests against the Trump administration's immigration actions have broken out across the country.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have conducted raids outside schools, at or near churches and in other areas targeting undocumented migrants.
The poll found that 54% of adults oppose immigration arrests at places of work. Fifty-three percent of adults disapprove of arrests 'carried out like military operations,' while 42% disapprove of immigration officers wearing masks.
The survey was conducted among 1,027 adults with a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hill Republicans brace for another grueling fight over Trump's spending cuts
Congressional Republicans have passed Donald Trump's $9 billion rescissions package, capping a painful ordeal that put even members who supported it in a tough spot. Now, many Republicans are wincing at the prospect of having to do it all over again. White House budget director Russ Vought said Thursday that a second request to rescind congressionally approved spending is likely coming soon. That will mean another bitter go-round on an issue that inflamed GOP institutionalists who worry about the administration's steady encroachment on Congress' power of the purse — even as many fiscal hawks embraced the move to cut spending in any way possible. Some Republicans think next time will be different. They believe the White House understands, after multiple warnings from lawmakers, that another norm-shattering rescissions package couldn't land in GOP laps without a lot more transparency around what, exactly, the administration wanted Congress to cut. 'I think we'll probably take a different approach,' Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) said in an interview Thursday, adding, 'I think the lesson on this one is, we need to be including the chair and making sure we're working together.' Mullin was referring to Sen. Susan Collins, the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Maine Republican was so piqued that she voted against the package alongside just one other GOP senator, fellow appropriator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. The Appropriations Committee chair cited qualms with both the nature of the original, $9.4 billion spending cut request and the information deficit around the scale and scope of that request. 'There can't be too much communication; there can't be too much information with senators. … We've got to obviously make sure that everybody feels like they're getting all the information they need,' Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), who spearheaded the rescissions process in the Senate, said in an interview Thursday about lessons learned. This was something former Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell was clamoring for. He ultimately supported the rescissions bill on final passage, but made his irritation with the administration clear after opposing a procedural vote to advance it. 'OMB is the problem. They won't tell us how they're going to apply the cut,' the Kentucky Republican said of the Office of Management and Budget this week. 'I want to make it clear I don't have any problem with reducing spending. … They would like a blank check is what they would like, and I don't think that's appropriate.' But it's not clear whether the White House is, in fact, prepared to change its approach. At a Christian Science Monitor breakfast with reporters Thursday morning, Vought appeared unrepentant about the posture the OMB had taken in spearheading the $9 billion spending cut request, which would slash public broadcasting and global health initiatives. 'The appropriations process has to be less bipartisan,' Vought said. Without a course correction from the administration, there's no guarantee Republicans would welcome another interruption of their legislative agenda to conduct another exercise that exposes them to Democratic attacks or forces them to potentially cross the president. That Congress is now entering the pivotal weeks before the Sept. 30 deadline to avoid a government shutdown could further diminish the enthusiasm for another rescissions package. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) was noncommittal this week when asked about Congress signing off on additional funding cuts, pointing instead to the appropriations process as his top priority. 'We'll see what the future holds, but the goal right now is to get into the appropriations process. Let's start marking up bills, trying to get them on the floor,' Thune said. 'So my hope would be that that's the way we deal with a lot of these issues.' Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, also suggested his priorities were shifting as the funding cliff deadline approaches. Asked what appetite his colleagues had for more rescissions packages, Hoeven said it 'depends who you ask.' While they could try to do rescissions and appropriations, 'I want to get the approps process going,' Hoeven said. Even Schmitt, who confirmed that 'additional rescissions are being contemplated,' conceded the Senate is now facing a major scheduling crunch. Democrats are also warning that pursuing more GOP-only rescissions packages could blow up bipartisan government funding talks, with trust between the two parties already eroding in light of Vought's latest comments. Top Senate Appropriations Democrat Patty Murray (Wash.), during an Appropriations Committee meeting after Vought's comments, called the GOP's multi-part rescissions push a 'dangerous new precedent.' 'Bipartisanship does not end with any one line being crossed,' she said. 'It erodes over time, bit by bit. And frankly I am alarmed by how quickly that erosion is happening.' At the same time, GOP leaders may have no choice but to plow ahead, especially in the House. Speaker Mike Johnson, his top lieutenants and Trump himself have repeatedly promised votes on an elaborate patchwork of more rescissions packages, party-line reconciliation bills and spending cuts in government funding measures. They did so to appease fiscal hawks who balked at the trillions in new spending in the just-enacted Trump megabill. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), a close ally of Trump, said in an interview earlier this month that she's discussed with the president and Republican leadership a 'multi-step plan' to cut spending that includes 'massive rescissions' and more reconciliation bills. Vought indicated the White House is well along in planning the next rescissions package. While Mullin said that Republicans are 'not putting the cart too far before the horse' in planning what could be included, some members have had 'high-level brainstorming' sessions with the White House budget chief on the subject. Vought has also already started calling GOP senators and is getting an eager reception from some of his Hill allies. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said in an interview Thursday that he pushed Vought during a closed-door lunch Tuesday to send additional spending cut packages to Capitol Hill. The budget director, he added, called him on Wednesday morning and said, according to Kennedy, 'another is coming your way.' 'I'm ready to gobble them up,' Kennedy added, before imitating a turkey: 'Gobble, gobble.' Cassandra Dumay, Jennifer Scholtes and Katherine Tully McManus contributed to this report.
USA Today
10 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump built GOP into a big tent. Conservatives now threaten to tear it down.
While social media feuds over Donald Trump may seem trivial, they provide an interesting view of how some of the right's most outspoken supporters view this presidency. President Donald Trump's decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites in June didn't just risk war − it posed a grave threat to his political capital within the conservative coalition he built. Anti-war and nationalist conservatives strongly condemned the move and foreign policy hawks supported it. The clash threatened to pry apart the 'big tent' Republican Party. The same is happening again − and with even more anger and dissent − over the administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein controversy. There's plenty of heat rising from inside Trump's big tent. The discord alone isn't cause for concern. It's good that Trump has an array of well-meaning voices weighing in. However, many influencers seized the opportunity to devolve into tribalism. Supporters of conservative politics should try to encourage thoughtful, productive debate without resorting to these tactics. Once it became evident Trump would be the 2024 Republican candidate, conservatives rallied around him, along with Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, health-focused Robert F. Kennedy Jr. supporters and anti-war Tulsi Gabbard fans. Trump was always destined to lead a personality cult. His brash demeanor, blunt words and disdain for establishment politics carried him through prosecutions, assassination attempts and a gut-punch loss in 2020 before delivering a second presidential term. Trump 2024 was a truly remarkable example of consensus building among diverse interest groups. This alliance works only if debate is tolerated, and the Iran operation threatened to bring the house down. Those inside 'big tent' must respect each other's differences In the aftermath of the Iran bombing, hawks like Sens. Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz praised the decision, while pundit Tucker Carlson condemned it harshly. These leaders debated the move across cable news and podcasts, each making defensible cases for or against striking the Islamist regime. Online discourse, however, was far less reasonable. Personal attacks on dissenters and pronouncements of allegiance to Trump replace thoughtful responses in the personality cult. Your Turn: Trump is unsuitable for office. But he was right to bomb Iran. | Opinion Forum Immediately, the Trump loyalists drew the lines. If you dared question whether striking a sovereign nation would lead to another disastrous Middle East war, you were labeled a 'Panican,' a disloyal Republican who dared to doubt the Trump administration. Activist Laura Loomer broadcast to her 1.7 million followers that those who questioned the strike were grifters and flip-floppers. Podcaster Luke Rudkowski responded to the 'loyalists' by compiling his own list of 'real ones,' or voices he perceived as sufficiently anti-intervention. The Hodgetwins influencer duo even contradicted themselves, posting a pro-bombing message for their 6.5 million Facebook followers while criticizing the move on X in an attempt to appease both sides. Political loyalty doesn't preclude policy disagreements While social media feuds may seem trivial, they provide an interesting view of how some of the right's most outspoken supporters view this presidency. Entire elements on the right tout their 'loyalty' to Trump as some kind of badge. Trump's big-tent party worked because of the tension between its elements. People felt there was room for discussion, and they could move the needle within their party by pleading their cases, either online or directly to the president. Opinion: Trump used Epstein files to manipulate MAGA. Now he must ask their forgiveness. The shameful gatekeeping the online conservatives engaged in recently risks mirroring the ideological rigidity of the Democratic Party: oppressive, homogenous and intolerant to the point of casting out New York City Mayor Eric Adams, Gabbard and even Kennedy. Online conservatives will squander their popularity on social media and in popular culture if we keep up the circular firing squads. Let's Make America Graceful Again by challenging people when we disagree and then welcoming them back without grudges. Reject the personality cult outright and hold our leaders accountable. Be loyal to the United States above all else, not to any one person or party. Ethan Watson is a Young Voices contributor and incoming O'Connor Fellow at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University.
USA Today
10 minutes ago
- USA Today
Will your grandmother go hungry? Future of Meals on Wheels is uncertain.
Federal investment in programs like Meals on Wheels has neither kept pace with the skyrocketing demand from America's aging population, nor with the rising costs of food, fuel and labor. For 60 years, Meals on Wheels has ensured that older Americans get the nutrition they need in the safety and comfort of their home. But the future of this essential program is far from secure. Despite decades of bipartisan support, federal investment in programs like Meals on Wheels has neither kept pace with the skyrocketing demand from America's aging population, nor with the rising costs of food, fuel and labor. Today, one in three Meals on Wheels providers have a waiting list, and many others are being forced to reduce meal deliveries or cut back on visits. That's not just a service gap; it's a warning sign. Approximately 90% of our local providers rely on federal funding, and for 60% of them, that funding accounts for at least half of their budgets, underscoring the critical role federal support plays in sustaining one of the nation's most worthwhile and efficient programs. Despite serving 2.2 million older adults annually, the need has never been greater. The number of older adults facing food insecurity has quadrupled, emblematic of a growing crisis that demands immediate action. Federal funding is essential to keep the wheels rolling While donations and volunteers are essential to keep our wheels rolling, they simply cannot fill the widening gap left by continually insufficient federal support. Without sustained and increased investment, this indispensable safety net will continue to fray. In 1965, Congress passed and President Lyndon Johnson signed the Older Americans Act − the first federally funded nationwide program designed to preserve the dignity, independence and well-being of older adults. Opinion: Getting old doesn't have to be a pain. But we need to invest in aging Americans. For six decades, the law has provided for meal deliveries to shut-ins; adult day care and respite care for caregivers; transportation to doctors' offices; social connections, health and wellness activities at senior centers; and protection from elder abuse and fraud. But the lack of sufficient funding puts those services at risk even as the population of older Americans grows. Meals on Wheels provides food and social connection for older Americans We simply cannot continue to overlook the needs of older adults in this country or treat them as afterthoughts. Our country is projected to include more than 97 million people over the age of 60 by 2040 and, as our population ages, we need to scale programs that are trusted, proven and have withstood the test of time. Programs like Meals on Wheels keep older adults healthier, reduce strain on our health care system and support caregivers and families across every zip code in America. This powerful network of providers delivers nutritious meals and, perhaps as importantly, moments of connection to seniors throughout the year for roughly the same cost as one day in a hospital or 10 days in a nursing home. More than meals: Meals on Wheels keeps rolling at 50, bringing food, connections and sunshine to seniors This is just one example of the incredible return on investment made possible by this successful public-private partnership that also delivers care and compassion to people who may be socially isolated and lonely, which 56% of older Americas are. In fact, the Meals on Wheels staff or volunteer knocking on the door may be the only person a senior sees in a day, or even a week. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. These brief interactions can be preventative, often catching small health issues before they become critical and expensive medical emergencies, thus helping to avert unnecessary trips to the emergency room, hospital admissions and long-term care placements. Policymakers face a clear choice: invest in preventative, community-based solutions now, or pay far more later, in avoidable institutional and emergency care. The math is simple; the morality is even clearer. On the 60th anniversary of the Older Americans Act, let's do more than celebrate a legacy. Let's commit to securing its future by funding what works. Ellie Hollander is the chief executive officer for Meals On Wheels America. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
