They voted for Trump. Most still back him - but not on everything
From her corner of the United States near Houston, Texas, stay-at-home mother Loretta Torres, 38, admires President Donald Trump's confidence and bargaining style. She has no complaints with his presidency. In Des Moines, Iowa, Lou Nunez, an 83-year-old U.S. Army veteran, has been horrified by Trump's cuts to federal agencies, whipsaw tariff announcements, and crackdowns on protesters. Terry Alberta, 64, a pilot in southwestern Michigan, supports most of Trump's policies but he thinks some of the slashed federal spending might have to be restored and he dislikes the president's demeanor. "I get really frustrated with him when he starts calling people names and just saying crazy things," he said. Although they all helped elect Trump in November, Torres, Nunez and Alberta have very different reactions to his presidency so far. They are among 20 Trump voters Reuters has interviewed monthly since February about the president's dramatic changes to the United States' government, trade policy and immigration enforcement, among other issues. Nunez and one of the other 20 voters now regret casting a ballot for the president. Torres and four others say they fully support his administration. But most - like Alberta - fall somewhere in between.
The 20 voters were selected from 429 respondents to a February 2025 Ipsos poll who said they voted for Trump in November and were willing to speak to a reporter. They are not a statistically representative portrait of all Trump voters, but their ages, educational backgrounds, races/ethnicities, locations and voting histories roughly corresponded to those of Trump's overall electorate. Even monthly check-ins cannot always keep pace with the breakneck news cycle under Trump. Reuters most recently interviewed the group in May, before Trump deployed U.S. service members to Los Angeles and other cities to quell widespread protests against the administration's immigration crackdown and prior to tensions erupting with Iran. Trump's efforts to tighten border security were most popular among the group. Describing their concerns about the administration, these voters most often cited the economic uncertainty triggered by Trump's federal cuts and tariffs. That tracks with the latest Ipsos-Reuters poll findings, which show Trump polling below his overall approval rating on the economy, and above it on immigration. Recent polls also show that Americans who helped elect Trump to his second term overwhelmingly like what they see so far. In a six-day Ipsos-Reuters poll that concluded on June 16, 9 out of 10 respondents who said they voted for Trump in November also said they approved of his performance in office so far. "I like the way he portrays himself as being a strong leader," said Torres. "It makes us look stronger to other countries." White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement that Trump had delivered on his campaign promises by reducing U.S. border crossings to historic lows and keeping inflation lower than expected. "The Administration is committed to building on these successes by slashing the waste, fraud, and abuse in our government and levelling the playing field for American industries and workers with more custom-made trade deals," Desai said. 'ANXIETY IS THE BUZZWORD' Most of the 20 voters interviewed say they now have qualms about some of Trump's most extreme measures.
Brandon Neumeister, 36, a Pennsylvania state corrections worker and former National Guardsman, said he disagreed with a May request by the Department of Homeland Security for 20,000 National Guard members to help detain illegal immigrants. "To deploy troops on American soil in American cities, I think that sends a very severe message," he said.
Neumeister voted for Trump hoping for lower prices and inflation, and said he knows it will take time for the president's economic policies to yield results. But people close to him have lost jobs as a result of Trump downsizing the federal government, and several friends of his are anxious about losing pensions or healthcare due to budget cuts at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. "Anxiety is the buzzword for everything right now," Neumeister said, adding that it was "hard to say" whether he's glad Trump is president.
Federal workforce reductions are also wearing on Robert Billups, 34, an accountant in Washington state currently searching for his next job. He has seen federal positions disappear from job sites, and he frequently gets worried calls from his mother, who is a contractor with the Internal Revenue Service. "This is more than my mom has ever reached out to me. I feel like it's freaking her out," he said. ETHICAL CONCERNS Several Trump voters in the group also said they were uneasy about actions by Trump that critics say overstep his presidential authority. Don Jernigan, 74, a retiree in Virginia Beach, said he likes the outcomes of most of Trump's policies but not the way he sometimes pushes them through, such as his record number of executive orders or his imposition of tariffs on other countries, a power that Jernigan says belongs to Congress. Nor does he like the fact that Trump accepted a jet given to the United States by Qatar, which Jernigan views as an enemy nation. "Trump works off of ideas. He doesn't work off of principles. He has no principles," Jernigan said. Overall, however, he thinks Trump is protecting U.S. borders and deterring threats against the nation better than the other candidates for president would have. Trump's acceptance of the Qatari jet also struck Amanda Taylor, 51, an insurance firm employee near Savannah, Georgia, as potentially unethical. "It just seems a little like he can do whatever he wants to without repercussion," she said. Taylor, who voted for former President Joe Biden in 2020, says it is too early to tell yet whether Trump is an improvement. She likes Trump's pledges to deport criminals and gang members. But she has been most closely watching economic indicators, especially interest rates, because she and her husband closed on a new house this month. CHANGES THEY HOPE TO SEE Among Trump voters with fewer complaints about the president's second term, there are still areas where they hope to see some change. David Ferguson, 53, hoped the Trump administration would revitalize U.S. manufacturing, and so far he is "pleased with the groundwork" and "at least the direction that they're communicating." At the industrial supply company in western Georgia where he works as a mechanical engineer and account manager, Ferguson has seen Trump's tariffs drive up prices on a range of products, from roller bearings to food-processing equipment. He does not expect the prices to fall as quickly as they've risen. Ferguson would like the administration to offer tax incentives to companies like his that are making it possible for more things to be made in the United States. "It would help encourage businesses that are already domesticating manufacturing and give them some relief from the tariffs, kind of reward their good behavior," he said. Several other Trump voters voiced support for a policy that might surprise left-leaning voters: a clearer legal immigration pathway for aspiring Americans who are law-abiding and want to contribute to the U.S. economy. Gerald Dunn, 66, is a martial-arts instructor in New York's Hudson Valley and "middle-of-the-road" voter who said he is frustrated by extremism in both U.S. political parties. Dunn said he knows people who have tried to enter the United States legally but encountered "horrendous" red tape. People with skills and stable employment offers could become "assets to the country" instead of liabilities if it were easier for them to immigrate, Dunn said.
In Charlotte, North Carolina, engineer Rich Somora, 61, said he supports Trump's efforts to deport criminals but he also recognizes that immigrants are increasingly doing key jobs that U.S. citizens don't want to do, such as building construction. "If somebody's contributing, give them a pathway, you know? I got no problem with that," Somora said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
22 minutes ago
- NDTV
No Suit In White House, Zelensky Goes Formal For Latest Trump Meet
KYIV: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has returned his wardrobe since a disastrous Oval Office meeting with Donald Trump in February, switching his typical khaki military-style tee-shirts and long-sleeved tops for more formal, but still rugged, black suit-style jackets and shirts. The media-savvy leader had wanted to show solidarity with the troops fighting Russia on the frontline. But he was chided by a US reporter for not wearing a suit at the White House event, which descended into a shouting match over whether he was showing sufficient gratitude for U.S. wartime support. Since then, Zelensky has worked to rebuild relations with Washington, whose military help Kyiv still badly needs, even though the U.S. president has shown no sign of resuming the donations of weaponry that his predecessor Joe Biden, had instituted. When Zelenski met Trump at Pope Francis's funeral in Rome in April, he wore a heavy black field jacket and black shirt buttoned to the collar, with no tie. He sported a similar look when meeting British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in London on Monday, and again at the dinner hosted on Tuesday by the Dutch king that preceded Wednesday's NATO summit in The Hague. Although he was not invited to the meeting itself, he met with Trump afterwards, with an agenda including a wish-list of arms purchases. The subtle switch, stopping short of a white shirt or tie, has captured attention on social media and from the Ukrainian edition of ELLE magazine, which on Wednesday described his changed look as "visual diplomacy of a new kind". The negative focus on Zelenskiy's attire at the White House was widely criticised by Ukrainians, who have largely rallied around their leader since Moscow's February 2022 invasion. A communications adviser for the president's office did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
Hindustan Times
22 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
US announces policy changes for offshore mineral development
June 25 - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration on Wednesday announced policy changes it said would speed up the search and development of offshore critical minerals. US announces policy changes for offshore mineral development The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement are updating policies across all stages of development to "reduce delays, improve coordination and provide greater certainty for industry", the U.S. Interior Department said in a statement. WHY IT'S IMPORTANT The move is a part of the Trump administration's goal of reshaping a critical mineral industry dominated by China, the top U.S. economic rival. The policy update announced by the Interior Department follows an executive order by Trump in April aimed at boosting the deep-sea mining industry in an attempt to improve U.S. access to nickel, copper and other critical minerals used widely across the economy. DETAILS For early-stage exploration, BOEM will apply existing streamlined environmental reviews whenever appropriate, and it plans to extend the duration of early-stage exploration permits to five years from three, the Interior Department said. The administration will minimize "unnecessary paperwork and compliance steps" to fast-track approvals for mapping, testing, and site development. BOEM will also start identifying potential areas for development without first issuing a formal request for information or forming a joint task force with state and federal agencies to speed up the leasing process, the department said. The U.S. Geological Survey will provide the bureaus with scientific data on critical mineral resources, as well as potential environmental impacts and hazards associated with seafloor development. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Indian Express
22 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Funding freeze to court reprieve, the Harvard vs Washington case to academic autonomy
A US court has blocked the Trump administration's attempt to bar international students from enrolling at Harvard University, handing the Ivy League institution a crucial legal victory. But even as Harvard celebrates the reprieve, the deeper confrontation over academic freedom, political interference, and institutional autonomy continues to escalate. The ruling by US District Judge Allison Burroughs offers immediate relief to nearly 7,000 international students, including approximately 800 from India, who had been caught in a geopolitical crossfire. Yet the university remains at the centre of a campaign by the US government to assert control over its admissions, curriculum, and funding, raising questions that go well beyond immigration policy. Judge Burroughs, who issued the preliminary injunction, described the administration's actions as a likely violation of the First Amendment, characterising the crackdown as retaliatory and ideologically driven. 'Freedom of thought, expression, and speech,' she wrote, 'are pillars of a functioning democracy and an essential hedge against authoritarianism.' The ruling halts enforcement of a presidential proclamation that sought to suspend Harvard's ability to host international students and threatened visa revocations. That executive order, issued under the guise of national security, followed a broader campaign against Harvard. The Trump administration is intensifying talks with Harvard University and anticipates reaching an agreement by the end of June to resolve its ongoing dispute with the nation's oldest and wealthiest university, according to The Washington Post on Wednesday. Speaking on Friday, Trump suggested that a resolution to the months long standoff sparked by the administration's decision to cut billions in grants and block the admission of international students could be announced 'within the next week or so.' While the injunction secures short-term protection for students and scholars, still, Harvard remains under duress. Its research grants are frozen, its tax exemption threatened, and investigations into foreign ties are ongoing. The university has filed two ongoing lawsuits seeking to unfreeze $2.5 billion in federal funding and to block future immigration actions targeting its student body. Seven legal scholars told The Harvard Crimson that Harvard's case is 'likely to succeed,' with UNC Law Professor Michael Gerhardt calling the government's demands 'egregiously illegal'. Geoffrey R Stone, former dean at Chicago Law, added: 'The government actions are a pretty conspicuous violation of the First Amendment'. An amicus brief from organisations including the ACLU and Cato Institute warned against an 'ideological takeover of private institutions,' asserting that the First Amendment 'prohibits the government from imposing ideological admissions, hiring, and programmatic requirements'. These voices reinforce the court's conclusion: Harvard appears to be defending not just itself, but a constitutional principle. Internally, debate is intensifying. Some university officials have discussed negotiating a settlement with the administration to stabilise its finances and global programs. Others argue that even appearing to yield would erode Harvard's credibility as a bastion of academic independence. An alumni group, Crimson Courage, has urged the university to stand firm: 'We cannot defend truth if we are willing to bend it under pressure.' At the heart of the dispute is a stark ideological divide. The Trump administration has accused Harvard of promoting antisemitism, coordinating with the Chinese government, and failing to uphold 'viewpoint diversity.' Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's revocation of Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification was issued without concrete evidence, sparking alarm across the academic world. Other elite institutions have responded differently. Columbia, Brown, and Princeton have avoided court battles, opting for quieter negotiations. Harvard stands alone in choosing confrontation, turning the university into both litigant and lightning rod. In March, the Task Force announced it was reviewing approximately 256 million dollar in federal contracts awarded to Harvard, along with an additional 8.7 billion dollar in what it described as 'multi-year commitments.' The inquiry stemmed from allegations that the university had failed to adequately address antisemitic harassment on campus. Following this, the government sent two letters to Harvard on April 3 and April 11 outlining a range of 'broad, non-exhaustive areas of reform' it deemed essential for the university to continue receiving federal funds. Among the proposed measures were the elimination of all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, disclosure of disciplinary actions related to antisemitic incidents since October 7, 2023, and the identification of students considered 'hostile to American values.' In response on April 14, Harvard President Alan Garber rejected the demands, saying that the reforms infringed on the university's First Amendment rights and institutional autonomy. He condemned the federal government's approach of tying funding to compliance, arguing that the proposed conditions bypassed legal standards and due process required by law. 'The government's terms also circumvent Harvard's statutory rights by requiring unsupported and disruptive remedies for alleged harms that the government has not proven through mandatory processes established by Congress and required by law,' Garber wrote. Two days later, on April 16, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) informed Harvard that it was freezing 2.2 million dollar in multi-year grants and suspending a separate 60 million dolalr contract.
