Donald Trump's Approval Rating Suddenly Shifts With Gen Z
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
President Donald Trump's approval rating has rebounded with Gen Z voters, according to a new poll.
Trump's approval rating among the youngest voters remains underwater, but the latest YouGov/Economist poll, conducted between August 9-11, shows Trump's net approval rating at -28 (33 percent approve, 61 percent disapprove), a 10-point jump from last month when it was -38 (18 percent approved and 66 percent disapproved).
But his net approval rating remains far lower than it was in January, when it stood at +5 points.
Why It Matters
In the 2024 election, Trump made inroads with young voters, narrowing the Democrats' traditional lead among Gen Z—a group that has typically leaned left in recent cycles. According to AP VoteCast, voters ages 18 to 29 supported then Vice President Kamala Harris over Trump by just 51 percent to 47 percent. In 2020, Joe Biden carried the same age group by a much wider margin, winning 61 percent to Trump's 36 percent.
President Donald Trump speaks at the Kennedy Center, Wednesday, Aug. 13, 2025, in Washington.
President Donald Trump speaks at the Kennedy Center, Wednesday, Aug. 13, 2025, in Washington.
Alex Brandon/AP
What To Know
Trump's standing with Gen Z voters has improved over the past month, with notable gains on the economy, immigration, and inflation, alongside modest increases in trust and confidence in his leadership, according to the polling.
The August YouGov/Economist poll surveyed 1,635 adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. The July poll surveyed 1,680 adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percent.
On the economy, approval rose from 30 percent in July to 36 percent in August, while disapproval fell from 64 percent to 54 percent. Meanwhile, approval of his handling of inflation jumped from 23 percent to 31 percent, with disapproval dropping from 72 percent to 60 percent.
Inflation rose to 2.7 percent year-on-year in June, the highest reading since February, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
Gen Z's view of economic trends also improved. In July, 12 percent said the economy was getting better, 27 percent said it was the same, and 58 percent saw it getting worse. By August, "better" climbed to 18 percent, "same" dipped slightly to 25 percent, and "worse" fell to 51 percent.
But Trump's approval rating on the economy is still substantially lower than it was in January, when his net approval among Gen Z stood at +18 points.
Job growth slowed sharply in July, with just 73,000 new jobs added, far lower than expected. After last month's jobs report was published, Trump fired BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer. In a post, Trump accused McEntarfer—without offering evidence—of rigging the numbers to harm his administration. But that move by Trump was not popular among Gen Z voters, with only 13 percent saying the decision was justified—50 percent said they were not sure.
Despite that, the latest poll shows small but measurable gains in perceptions of Trump's character and leadership. In August, 22 percent described him as honest, up from 20 percent in July, while the share saying he is not honest fell from 67 percent to 57 percent.
But overall, Trump's honesty rating has fallen to its lowest point since he reentered the White House, with just 31 percent of Americans viewing Trump as trustworthy as he has recently faced mounting criticism for his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.
Billionaire Elon Musk has urged Trump to "just release the files as promised," while author Michael Wolff has speculated that Trump may be seeking major distractions to shift attention away from the Epstein fallout. Victims and advocacy groups remain adamant that all records be made public, arguing that the current handling of the case "smacks of a cover-up."
Public discontent is also reflected in the polls. On the Jeffrey Epstein case, only 13 percent of Gen Z voters approve of Trump's handling, while 69 percent disapprove. And 44 percent believe he knew "a lot" of Epstein's crimes before investigations began—and 32 percent think he knew "some." Trump has said that he had no knowledge of, or involvement, in Epstein's crimes.
What Happens Next
The Republican-led House Oversight Committee subpoenaed the DOJ for its files on Epstein, with a deadline of August 19 to hand them over, suggesting the issue isn't going away for the president anytime soon.
And Trump's new nominee to run the BLS hinted at suspending the monthly release of jobs data. August's numbers are due to be published in the first week of September.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Boomers Got $50K Homes, Gen Z Gets $100K Bitcoin—Why This Crypto Evangelist Believes Digital Assets Are the New American Dream
Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below. A viral Reddit discussion has reignited the debate over generational wealth-building strategies, with younger investors increasingly viewing Bitcoin as their answer to the housing crisis that has priced many out of homeownership. The central thesis gaining traction among millennials and Gen Z investors is straightforward: while Baby Boomers benefited from purchasing homes at dramatically lower prices decades ago, today's younger generations face a different opportunity in the form of digital assets. Don't Miss: The same firms that backed Uber, Venmo and eBay are investing in this pre-IPO company disrupting a $1.8T market — — no wallets, just price speculation and free paper trading to practice different strategies. The Generational Wealth Divide The numbers tell a stark story. According to Federal Reserve data, the median home price in 1980 was approximately $47,200, while median household income was $17,710. Today, that same home costs over $400,000, while median income has grown to roughly $70,000—creating a far less favorable price-to-income ratio. 'You can't live in a Bitcoin,' critics often argue, highlighting the fundamental difference between a home as shelter and cryptocurrency as a speculative investment. However, Bitcoin advocates counter that traditional real estate comes with hidden costs: property taxes, maintenance, insurance, and what they call 'entropic decay'—the inevitable deterioration of physical assets. Bitcoin as Digital Real Estate Proponents argue Bitcoin offers several advantages over traditional real estate investment: Global Accessibility: Unlike real estate, Bitcoin can be purchased and held anywhere in the world without geographical constraints or minimum investment thresholds. No Maintenance Costs: Digital assets don't require property management, repairs, or dealing with tenants. Liquidity: Bitcoin can be sold instantly, unlike real estate transactions that can take months. Portability: Cryptocurrency holdings can move with the owner, unaffected by local market conditions or political instability. Trending: If there was a new fund backed by Jeff Bezos offering a ? The Reality Check Despite Bitcoin's recent surge past $100,000, skeptics question whether the cryptocurrency is still 'cheap' relative to its risk profile. The asset's notorious volatility means investors must stomach potential 50-80% drawdowns during bear markets—a psychological challenge that many underestimate. Financial advisor perspectives vary widely. Some view Bitcoin as portfolio diversification, recommending allocations of 1-5% of total assets. Others warn against treating cryptocurrency as a primary wealth-building strategy, emphasizing the importance of emergency funds, retirement savings, and traditional investments. Systemic Issues vs. Generational Blame The discussion reveals deeper frustrations with monetary policy and economic systems. Many participants blame Federal Reserve policies and fractional reserve banking for inflating asset prices beyond the reach of average earners, rather than targeting specific generations. 'The real enemy isn't Boomers—it's the system that debases currency and inflates assets,' one commenter noted, highlighting how monetary expansion benefits asset holders while disadvantaging new entrants to the Considerations For those considering Bitcoin as a wealth-building strategy, experts recommend: Only investing what you can afford to lose Understanding the technology and market dynamics Using secure storage methods like hardware wallets Viewing Bitcoin as part of a diversified portfolio, not a complete strategy Preparing for significant volatility and extended bear markets The fundamental question remains: Is Bitcoin the great equalizer for younger generations, or simply another speculative bubble that could leave investors worse off than when they started? As traditional pathways to wealth become increasingly difficult to access, the answer may determine the financial future of an entire generation. Read Next: A must-have for all crypto enthusiasts: . Image: Shutterstock This article Boomers Got $50K Homes, Gen Z Gets $100K Bitcoin—Why This Crypto Evangelist Believes Digital Assets Are the New American Dream originally appeared on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CNN
19 minutes ago
- CNN
New Mexico's governor called in the state's National Guard to address crime issues. Here's how they're being used
Federal agencies US military Donald TrumpFacebookTweetLink Follow In New Mexico's most populous city, National Guard troops are listening to the police dispatch calls, monitoring traffic cameras and helping to secure crime scene perimeters, tasks not usually part of the job. The New Mexico National Guard is in Albuquerque to help counter what officials have called a surge in crime, but unlike the recent deployment of troops in military fatigues by the federal government in the nation's capital and earlier in Los Angeles amid protests over immigration enforcement, the state's polo-shirted Guard troops were ordered in by the Democratic governor. And last week, New Mexico's governor declared a state of emergency in other parts of the state, which gives her the discretion to mobilize more troops. Here's how a National Guard deployment is playing out in New Mexico and why it matters. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham's state of emergency order issued for Rio Arriba County, the city of Española and area pueblos, was made at the request of the local governments, she said. The Albuquerque deployment of 60 to 70 troops came after an emergency request from the city's police department citing the 'fentanyl epidemic and rising violent juvenile crime as critical issues requiring immediate intervention.' The new declaration is aimed at helping local police respond to a 'significant surge' in violent crime, drug trafficking and public safety threats that have 'overwhelmed local resources.' Rio Arriba County has the highest overdose death rate in the state, the governor's news release said. The troops are helping police with non-law enforcement duties and are not armed, will not make arrests, detain anyone, use force or engage in any immigration-related activities, the city said. 'We understand there are concerns based on what is taking place in other parts of the country, and we want to assure the public that here in Albuquerque, the Guard's role is clearly defined, and focused on support without enforcement,' Police Chief Harold Medina said in a June news release. CNN has contacted the Albuquerque Police Department and the New Mexico National Guard about whether the deployment has been effective but did not receive a response. 'There is no question why the NM National Guard is helping out,' New Mexico National Guard spokesman Hank Minitrez said in a June Facebook post. The post described troops working behind the scenes in police offices, and conducting traffic management and manning perimeters around crime scenes when necessary. Albuquerque officials said last month they saw 'success with targeted resources' in the city's downtown. Shootings are down 20% this year compared with 2024, the city said in a news release, a figure that tracks with data provided to CNN by the governor's office. Grisham, a Democrat, criticized President Donald Trump's deployment of 800 troops in Washington, DC, as 'executive overreach' and said the contrast 'couldn't be clearer' between her state's usage of the National Guard and that of Trump's. The DC National Guard reports only to the president, while a governor acts as the 'commander in chief' of their state's troops and police agencies. Trump has suggested he could do the same in other major Democratic-led cities despite their leaders not asking for help. Meanwhile on the West Coast, questions are still lingering in a court case over the president's deployment of troops to Los Angeles in June as dramatic protests unfolded over immigration enforcement in parts of the city. The visual contrast between the troops in New Mexico and those sent to LA and the capital shows a difference in approach and intent. Grisham's office said the 'key difference' between her deployment of troops and Trump's is her order was in response to direct requests from local communities. 'While President Trump uses the National Guard to trample local leadership, New Mexico brings together local and state governments to make our communities genuinely safer,' she said. California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the federal intervention in his state 'purposely inflammatory.' Washington, DC, Attorney General Brian Schwalb called the president's actions unnecessary and pointed out violent crime in the district reached 30-year lows last year. Trump said he was going to 'look at' taking action in Chicago, New York and Los Angeles because of their crime rates when he announced his plans to take control of DC's police department this week. It is not clear what specifically Trump wants to do in other cities. New York, Los Angeles and Chicago have all seen a sustained decline in crime so far this year, according to a mid-year report from the independent nonpartisan Council on Criminal Justice. It's a 'dangerous precedent' for the federal government to start deploying troops to deal with local and state policing matters, as they are historically used for crowd control, protecting federal property and federal workers, or responding to a natural disaster, according to Jeffrey Swartz, a former National Guard member and professor emeritus at Cooley Law School. The courts in California have yet to address a claim at the center of the case brought by Newsom to block Trump's deployment of troops in the city: whether the troops violated the Posse Comitatus Act, a 19th century law prohibiting the use of the US military for domestic law enforcement. The three-day trial concluded last week, but the judge did not say when he will rule. 'When the president nationalizes a unit or a state National Guard, they now fall under the Posse Comitatus Act saying they are not allowed to be used for civil policing,' said Swartz. 'He cannot authorize federal troops to make arrests. That is solely within the power of the governor.' The National Guard can, however, take someone into custody under circumstances where there's a danger to federal property or federal officers, he added. The act reserves law enforcement functions to the states, but its language is short, which 'lends itself to vagueness and argumentation,' said David Shapiro, lecturer at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Swartz said National Guardsmen 'don't like the idea of being on the streets and being put in a position where they might have to use force against fellow citizens.' 'These people are citizen soldiers, not full-time. They have jobs. They have families,' he said. 'They signed up to protect the country against external threats, not internal ones.'
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Bolivia votes in elections expected to empower the right wing for first time in decades
LA PAZ, Bolivia (AP) — After a lackluster campaign overshadowed by a looming economic collapse, Bolivians voted on Sunday for a new president and parliament in elections that could see a right-wing government elected for the first time in over two decades. The vote, which could spell the end of the Andean nation's long-dominant leftist party, is one of the most consequential for Bolivia in recent times — and one of the most unpredictable. In the run-up to Sunday, a remarkable 30% or so of voters remained undecided. Polls showed the two leading right-wing candidates, multimillionaire business owner Samuel Doria Medina and former President Jorge Fernando 'Tuto' Quiroga, locked in a virtual dead heat. Voting is mandatory in Bolivia, where some 7.9 million Bolivians are eligible to vote. 'I have rarely, if ever, seen a situational tinderbox with as many sparks ready to ignite,' said Daniel Lansberg-Rodriguez, founding partner of Aurora Macro Strategies, a New York-based advisory firm. Bolivia could follow rightward trend The election is being closely watched across Latin America for its potential impact on the economic fate and political stability of this long-restive, resource-rich nation. It also marks a watershed moment for the Movement Toward Socialism, or MAS, party, whose founder, charismatic ex-President Evo Morales, rose to power as part of the 'pink tide' of leftist leaders that swept into office across Latin America during the commodities boom of the early 2000s. Now shattered by infighting, the party is fighting for its survival in Sunday's elections. The outcome will determine whether Bolivia — a nation of about 12 million people with the largest lithium reserves on Earth and crucial deposits of rare earth minerals — follows a growing trend in Latin America, where right-wing leaders like Argentina's libertarian Javier Milei, Ecuador's strongman Daniel Noboa and El Salvador's conservative populist Nayib Bukele have surged in popularity. A right-wing government in Bolivia could trigger a major geopolitical realignment for a country now allied with Venezuela's socialist-inspired government and world powers such as China, Russia and Iran. Bolivians bitter as they vote for the 'lesser evil' The somber mood of the election was clear as voting kicked off at polling stations in downtown La Paz, Bolivia's capital, and a steady stream of voters began to trickle in. Bolivians waiting to vote at three different high schools across the city expressed confused, cynical and bitter emotions, fed by an annual inflation rate of more than 16% last month (compared to 2% less than two years ago), a scarcity of fuel and absence of hope for swift improvement. Several said they were voting for 'el menos peor,' the lesser evil. The right-wing opposition candidates bill the race as a chance to chart a new destiny for Bolivia. But both front-runners, Doria Medina and Quiroga, have served in past neoliberal governments and run for president three times before — losing at least twice to Morales. 'People were waiting for a new, popular candidate, and in this, the opposition failed us,' said Ronaldo Olorio, a farmer from the coca-growing Yungas region who once identified as a fervent Morales supporter. 'My vote is one of anger, of discontent. I don't like Doria Medina or Quiroga. But I have to vote for one of the two.' Right-wing candidates vow to restore US relations Doria Medina and Quiroga have praised the Trump administration and vowed to restore ties with the United States — ruptured in 2008 when Morales expelled the American ambassador. They also have expressed interest in doing business with Israel, which has no diplomatic relations with Bolivia, and called for foreign private companies to invest in the country and develop its rich natural resources. After storming to office in 2006, Morales, Bolivia's first Indigenous president, nationalized the nation's oil and gas industry, using the lush profits to reduce poverty, expand infrastructure and improve the lives of the rural poor. After three consecutive presidential terms, as well as a contentious bid for an unprecedented fourth in 2019 that set off popular unrest and led to his ouster, Morales has been barred from this race by Bolivia's constitutional court. His ally-turned-rival, President Luis Arce, withdrew his candidacy for the MAS on account of his plummeting popularity and nominated his senior minister, Eduardo del Castillo. As the party splintered, Andrónico Rodríguez, the 36-year-old president of the Senate who hails from the same union of coca farmers as Morales, launched his bid. Ex-president Morales casts a null vote Rather than back the candidate widely considered his heir, Morales, holed up in his tropical stronghold of Chapare and evading an arrest warrant on charges related to his relationship with a 15-year-old girl, has urged his supporters to deface their ballots or leave them blank. Dozens of coca-growing union activists formed a human chain around Morales to protect him from arrest as he cast his null-and-void ballot in Chapare, in central Bolivia. A large wreath of coca leaves hung around his neck. He flashed a rare smile as he left the polling station, shaking hands with supporters who showered him in white confetti. 'I'm convinced that if there's no fraud, the null vote will win,' he told reporters after voting. Conservative candidates say austerity needed Whoever wins faces daunting challenges. Doria Medina and Quiroga have warned of the need for a painful fiscal adjustment, including the elimination of Bolivia's generous food and fuel subsidies, to save the nation from insolvency. Some analysts caution this risks sparking social unrest. 'A victory for either right-wing candidate could have grave repercussions for Bolivia's Indigenous and impoverished communities,' said Kathryn Ledebur, director of the Andean Information Network, a Bolivian research group. 'Both candidates could bolster security forces and right-wing para-state groups, paving the way for violent crackdowns on protests expected to erupt over the foreign exploitation of lithium and drastic austerity measures.' If, as is widely expected, no presidential candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, or 40% of the vote with a lead of 10 percentage points, the top two candidates will compete in a runoff on Oct. 19 for the first time since Bolivia's 1982 return to democracy. All 130 seats in Bolivia's Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of Parliament, are also up for grabs, along with 36 in the Senate, the upper house.
