Trump approval on immigration lowest in second term: Poll
In a two-day poll conducted this week by Reuters/Ipsos, roughly half of the respondents said they disapproved of how the president has carried out his sweeping immigration crackdown.
The White House didn't immediately comment for this story.
Protests against Trump's policies, including deportation efforts and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) workplace raids, are slated to take place across the country Thursday.
According to the latest poll, attitudes have soured on the Trump administration's handling of immigration since demonstrations broke out in Los Angeles last month following an uptick in ICE raids in California.
More than half of the people surveyed in a similar February poll said they approved of Trump's handling of immigration — a high mark for his second term, but the number dropped as the administration has ramped up aggressive measures to arrest and deport migrants.
A separate poll from The Associated Press-NORC Research Center released Thursday mirrored the Reuters poll's findings of a decline in support for Trump's immigration policies.
Immigration has consistently been one of Trump's strongest issues in polls since his return to the Oval Office in January. The White House revealed this month that ICE arrested 100,000 people in the first half of the year.
That two-day poll also found that some of the administration's tactics could be drawing backlash.
Less than a third of respondents said they support conducting ICE arrests at workplaces. Republicans were divided on the issue, with 56 percent in favor of workplace raids, 24 percent opposed and about 20 percent unsure.
Democrats, meanwhile, overwhelmingly opposed the workplace arrests at 82 percent,' according to the survey.
Most respondents, 53 percent, said they disagreed with conducting ICE arrests 'like military operations,' while 42 percent said they opposed ICE officers wearing masks.
A separate Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released Monday found that Trump continues to receive high marks for other tactics. About 60 percent of voters surveyed said they supported the president's beefed up border security efforts, for example, while 75 percent supported the administration's efforts to deport criminals who are in the country illegally.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted July 15-16 among 1,027 U.S. adults and has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Did money or politics cause Colbert cancellation? Either way, the economics are tough for TV
CBS says its decision to end Stephen Colbert's late-night comedy show is financial, not political. Yet even with the ample skepticism about that explanation, there's no denying the economics were not working in Colbert's favor. The network's bombshell announcement late Thursday that the 'Late Show' will end next May takes away President Donald Trump's most prominent TV critic and the most popular entertainment program in its genre. The television industry's declining economic health means similar hard calls are already being made with personalities and programming, with others to be faced in the future. For the late-night genre, there are unique factors to consider. As recently as 2018, broadcast networks took in an estimated $439 million in advertising revenue for its late-night programs, according to the advertising firm Guidelines. Last year, that number dwindled to $220 million. Once a draw for young men, now they've turned away Late-night TV was a particular draw for young men, considered the hardest-to-get and most valuable demographic for advertisers. Increasingly, these viewers are turning to streaming services, either to watch something else entirely or catch highlights of the late-night shows, which are more difficult for the networks to monetize. More broadly, the much-predicted takeover of viewers by streaming services is coming to pass. The Nielsen company reported that during the last two months, for the first time ever, more people consumed programming on services like YouTube and Netflix than on ABC, CBS and NBC or any cable network. Networks and streamers spent roughly $70 billion on entertainment shows and $30 billion for sports rights last year, said Brian Wieser, CEO of Madison & Wall, an advertising consultant and data services firm. Live sports is the most dependable magnet for viewers and costs for its rights are expected to increase 8% a year over the next decade. With television viewership declining in general, it's clear where savings will have to come from. Wieser said he does not know whether Colbert's show is profitable or not for CBS and parent company Paramount Global, but he knows the direction in which it is headed. 'The economics of television are weak,' he said. In a statement announcing the cancellation, George Cheeks, Paramount Global's president and chief executive officer, said that 'This is purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night. It is not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount.' Cheeks' problem is that not everyone believes him. Colbert is a relentless critic of Trump, and earlier this week pointedly criticized Paramount's decision to settle Trump's lawsuit against CBS over a '60 Minutes' interview with Kamala Harris. He called Paramount's $16 million payment to Trump a 'big fat bribe,' since the company is seeking the administration's approval of its merger with Skydance Media. On Friday, the Writers Guild of America called for an investigation by New York's attorney general into whether Colbert's cancellation is itself a bribe, 'sacrificing free speech to curry favor with the Trump administration as the company looks for merger approval.' CBS' decision made this a pivotal week for the future of television and radio programming. Congress stripped federal funding for PBS and NPR, threatening the future of shows on those outlets. Journey Gunderson, executive director of the National Comedy Center, called the decision to end Colbert's show the end of an era. 'Late-night television has historically been one of comedy's most audience-accessible platforms — a place where commentary meets community, night after night,' Gunderson said. 'This isn't just the end of a show. It's the quiet removal of one of the few remaining platforms for daily comedic commentary. Trump celebrates Colbert's demise Trump, who has called in the past for CBS to terminate Colbert's contract, celebrated the show's upcoming demise. 'I absolutely love that Colbert got fired,' the president wrote on Truth Social. 'His talent was even less than his ratings.' Some experts questioned whether CBS could have explored other ways to save money on Colbert. NBC, for example, has cut costs by eliminating the band on Seth Meyers' late-night show and curtailing Jimmy Fallon's 'Tonight' show to four nights a week. Could CBS have saved more money by cutting off the show immediately, instead of letting it run until next May, which sets up an awkward 'lame duck' period? Then again, Colbert will keep working until his contract runs out; CBS would have had to keep paying him anyway. CBS recently cancelled the 'After Midnight' show that ran after Colbert. But the network had signaled earlier this year that it was prepared to continue that show until host Taylor Tomlinson decided that she wanted to leave, noted Bill Carter, author of 'The Late Shift.' 'It is a very sad day for CBS that they are getting out of the late-night race,' Andy Cohen, host of Bravo's 'Watch What Happens Live," told The Associated Press. 'I mean, they are turning off the lights after the news.' Colbert, if he wanted to continue past next May, would likely be able to find a streaming service willing to pay him, Wieser said. But the future of late-night comedy on the entertainment networks is genuinely at risk. Trump, in fact, may outlast his fiercest comic critics. Jon Stewart, once a weeknight fixture, works one night a week at 'The Daily Show' for Paramount's Comedy Central, a network that seldom produces much original programming any more. ABC's Jimmy Kimmel, who was chided on social media by Trump on Friday — 'I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next' — has a contract that also runs out next year. Kimmel, 57, openly wondered in a Variety interview before signing his latest three-year contract extension how long he wanted to do it. He's hosted his show since 2003. 'I have moments where I go, I cannot do this anymore,' Kimmel told Variety in 2022. 'And I have moments where I go, what am I gonna do with my life if I'm not doing this anymore?' It's a very complicated thing ... I'm not going to do this forever.' Colbert, Kimmel and Stewart were all nominated for Emmy awards this week. ___ AP journalist Liam McEwan in Los Angeles contributed to this report. David Bauder writes about the intersection of media and entertainment for the AP. Follow him at and Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why isn't Fox News covering the Wall Street Journal's bombshell scoop of the Trump-Epstein letter?
The political media world was thrown into chaos Thursday night when the Wall Street Journal published a bombshell story about a birthday letter Donald Trump apparently wrote to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, prompting the president to sue the publication and Rupert Murdoch, the paper's owner and founder of Fox News. On Friday, the president filed a libel lawsuit against the right-wing media mogul and The Wall Street Journal's parent companies, News Corp and Dow Jones, following the newspaper's publication of Trump's alleged birthday letter to Epstein. However, regular consumers of Fox News may be oblivious to this blockbuster report – that sparked outcry from MAGA supporters and seemingly prompted the president to ask Attorney General Pam Bondi to release 'pertinent' grand jury testimony in the Epstein case – because the conservative cable giant has avoided mention of it. At the time of publication, based on a review of transcripts of Fox News' on-air coverage since the WSJ published the story, the network only once briefly hinted at the report on the president's alleged 'bawdy' card to Epstein in 2003. And in that instance, the host never delivered the promised segment about the story. Midway through her program on Thursday evening, Laura Ingraham groused that 'Democrats pretend to care about an issue that has the podcast world going crazy' before noting that they're 'asking for transparency.' At that point, she teased that 'we have new news coming on about this as well from The Wall Street Journal, a new report tonight.' However on returning from her commercial break, Ingraham only focused on criticizing Democrats for becoming fixated on Epstein and the Trump administration's memo earlier this month, which had concluded that the disgraced financier kept no 'client list' of high-profile figures and died by suicide. Fox News has avoided discussing the Wall Street Journal's blockbuster story about Donald Trump's alleged 'bawdy' birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein. ((AP Photo/Evan Vucci)) In the end, there was no 'new news' about the WSJ story – and that has been the case in the Fox News universe since. Fox News did not immediately respond to a request for comment. On the network's digital site, the only two Epstein-related stories that have been published since Thursday evening are both on Trump's directive to Bondi to work on releasing some portions of the Epstein grand jury transcripts. Both articles sidestep any mentions about the WSJ's eye-popping story. In the past 24 hours, the network's hosts and commentators have occasionally discussed the Epstein saga, but only to either boast of how a recent poll found that Trump is still massively popular with Republicans, despite the turmoil in MAGA world over the Epstein memo, or to report on the president's promise to release 'pertinent' grand jury testimony in the case. 'Donald Trump won seven swing states and the popular vote. His approval rating went up significantly in spite of the Epstein scandal talk going on and people anticipated his numbers would go down,' host and Trump confidant Sean Hannity declared on Friday morning's broadcast of Fox & Friends, the president's favorite morning show. It would be the only mention of Epstein during the entire three hours of the program. White House correspondent Peter Doocy would briefly point out during his on-air dispatches Friday that Trump had made a 'public call' for Bondi to move to release grand jury testimony, adding that the Justice Department's next step would be to assign a judge in New York to review the transcripts. Shannon Bream, the network's chief legal correspondent, also appeared for a segment to discuss the legal procedures required for the publication of grand jury testimony. Laura Ingraham briefly teased a segment about the Wall Street Journal's report — but never came back to it after a commercial break. (Fox News) The lack of Fox News coverage on a sister publication's big scoop probably shouldn't come as much of a surprise, considering the symbiotic relationship Fox News has with Trump and how the channel's programming has largely been tailored not to anger him. With the president declaring war on Fox News' owner, it was basically a given that the story would be ignored on the network's airwaves. 'I look forward to getting Rupert Murdoch to testify in my lawsuit against him and his 'pile of garbage' newspaper,' Trump blared on Truth Social Friday. 'That will be an interesting experience!!!' Rather than tempt fate and further inflame the president and his top loyalists by placing their anchors and pundits in the awkward position of defending the WSJ and their boss amid the MAGA pile-on, it appears the network has erred on the side of caution and won't touch it – at least for the time being. Of course, that's essentially been the network's modus operandi since the Epstein controversy blew up early last week, and particularly after the president first ordered his supporters to 'stop talking about' the deceased sex offender last weekend. The Monday after Trump's Truth Social tirade, the network only mentioned Epstein eight times on its airwaves. The network's avoidance of the Epstein saga has even led other right-wing outlets and personalities to mock Fox News for being 'terrified' of covering the story because they 'don't want to p*** off' Trump. Still, there are some Murdoch employees who are willing to bring up the WSJ story. Riley Gaines, the culture warrior who hosts a podcast for Murdoch-owned Outkick and regularly appears on Fox News, backed Trump's legal threats against the newspaper and her boss. 'Sue them into oblivion,' she tweeted Thursday night.
Associated Press
25 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Iowa attorney general to end lawsuit against a sheriff over his immigration post
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa's attorney general on Friday said she will withdraw her lawsuit accusing a sheriff of discouraging compliance with federal immigration law, ending a monthslong public dispute between the two Republicans days after the sheriff's northeast Iowa constituents rallied in his defense. Attorney General Brenna Bird sued Winneshiek County Dan Marx in March over his Facebook post saying his department doesn't always need to detain people at the request of federal immigration authorities. Bird sued even though Marx deleted the post and an investigation from her office showed that Marx fully complied with each of the nearly two dozen requests he had received from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold someone suspected of immigration violations. Marx had declined to post a conciliatory message the attorney general's office had scripted. Bird alleged the original post violated state law by impeding and discouraging cooperation with federal immigration officers. The lawsuit jeopardized state funding to the county. As President Donald Trump took office and initiated his campaign of mass deportations, Marx told constituents on Feb. 4 that he shares some of their 'mistrust and many of your concerns with the legitimacy of how these federal agents conduct business' and that requests to hold individuals without a court order are 'violations' of constitutional rights. At the same time, there was a legislative push in states across the country to support Trump's immigration efforts and curtail ' sanctuary cities ' that generally limit cooperation with immigration authorities. The Trump administration had also begun taking legal action against governments that have adopted policies inhibiting ICE arrests and deportations. Marx said in a statement Friday that he met with Bird in person and explained it was 'never my intent to discourage immigration enforcement.' Marx also thanked his constituents for their patience and 'outpouring of support through this situation,' he said. When Bird visited the county Monday, dozens of people showed up to support Marx and criticize the lawsuit as a bullying tactic, television station KGAN reported. Bird said Friday she intended to dismiss the case because the county has 'now fully complied.' 'Winneshiek County and Sheriff Marx are in compliance with 27A,' she said in a statement, referencing the chapter in Iowa code that ensures cities and counties fully comply with federal immigration law. 'They have committed to continue to honor ICE detainers and cooperate with federal immigration authorities.' Marx's February post echoed critiques of what are known as ICE 'detainer' requests that ask local or state law enforcement agencies to hold individuals until they can be taken into custody by federal authorities. Marx said those requests often clash with the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which bars against unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals without a warrant based on probable cause. If federal agents' 'actions or paperwork are not within constitutional parameters,' he wrote, 'then we will make every effort to block, interfere and interrupt their actions from moving forward.'
