Trump's Deportations — And Detentions — Are Incredibly Unpopular
In general, approval of his handling of the subject has plummeted in recent months as he's backed inhumane detention facilities and ramped up deportations of undocumented immigrants, many of whom have no criminal history.
According to a CBS News/YouGov poll conducted between July 16 and July 18, while 46% of U.S. adults disapproved of his approach to immigration in March, that figure has surged to 56% in July. Similarly, a CNN/SSRS poll conducted between July 10 and July 13, found that 58% of U.S. adults disapprove of his handling of immigration.
That dissatisfaction has coincided with numerous reports of abysmal conditions at immigration detention sites, and growing scrutiny of Immigration and Customs Enforcement tactics as agents conduct brutal raids and ambush immigrants at their homes and workplaces.
Public support for Trump's efforts to deport undocumented immigrants has declined since February, when 41% of Americans disapproved of these actions, per the CBS News poll. Now, 51% of Americans disapprove.
In the CNN poll, 55% of U.S. adults say that Trump has gone too far with his deportations of undocumented immigrants, a double-digit jump from 45% who said the same in February.
And a majority of Americans in the CBS poll — 56% — now think Trump is prioritizing deportations of people who are not dangerous criminals as ICE agents have targeted high school students with no criminal records and longtime small-business owners in various communities.
Popularity of immigration enforcement policies declines notably when people are asked about removing immigrants who've been in the U.S. for many years, and who don't have any criminal history, CNN notes.
Trump's policies on immigration detention also garner serious levels of pushback, which come as he's touted horrific circumstances in Florida at a state-led Everglades detention site, citing the alligators in the area that would prevent immigrants from escaping.
Per the CBS News poll, 58% of Americans oppose how Trump is using detention facilities, and in the CNN survey, 57% opposed the construction of new facilities to detain as many as 100,000 undocumented immigrants.
Trump's floundering approval numbers on the issue point to a potential opening for Democrats who now have a larger proportion of voters highlighting immigration as one of their top issues, according to CNN.
Related...
CNN Data Chief Says Americans Have 'Turned' Against Trump Over This Key Issue
The GOP's Big Bill Is Massively Unpopular — If People Actually Know About It
National Pride Is Dramatically Declining In America, Finds Stark New Poll
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
25 minutes ago
- Associated Press
A look at details of the settlement between Columbia University and the Trump administration
A deal between Columbia University and the Trump administration calls for the Ivy League school to pay more than $220 million to resolve multiple federal investigations into alleged violations of federal antidiscrimination laws. The agreement announced Wednesday clears the way for the school to keep billions of dollars in federal research money, including more than $400 million in grants canceled earlier this year. In return, the deal calls for a number of reforms in areas such as admissions, campus protests policies and its curriculum, including a number of changes the school agreed to previously in March. It is a document President Donald Trump's administration is calling a road map for settlements with other colleges accused of not doing enough to address campus antisemitism. Columbia University's acting president, Claire Shipman, said it protects the school's values and autonomy. Here's what's in the settlement: Financial payout The university will pay the federal government $200 million over three years. It will also pay $21 million to settle alleged civil rights violations against Jewish employees that occurred following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel. A pledge to end diversity programs The university agreed to end programs 'that promote unlawful efforts to achieve race-based outcomes, quotes, diversity targets or similar efforts.' Columbia, as part of the agreement, must also issue regular reports to an independent monitor assuring that its programs 'do not promote unlawful DEI goals.' The agreement pushes Columbia to limit the consideration of race even beyond the Supreme Court's 2023 decision ending affirmative action. That decision left open the possibility that universities could consider an applicant's discussion of how their race affected their life, including in college application essays. The agreement says: 'Columbia may not use personal statements, diversity narratives, or any applicant reference to racial identity as a means to introduce or justify discrimination.' Faculty and curriculum changes Columbia agreed to review its Middle East curriculum and appoint new faculty to its Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies who will 'contribute to a robust and intellectually diverse academic environment.' To further support Jewish students on campus, the agreement calls for a new administrator to serve as a liaison on antisemitism issues. Reporting on international students Columbia University agreed to new vetting for prospective international students. The agreement calls for introducing 'questions designed to elicit their reasons for wishing to study in the United States' and establishes processes to make sure all students are committed to 'civil discourse.' The university also promised to provide the government with information, upon request, of disciplinary actions involving student-visa holders resulting in expulsions or suspensions. 'In several instances, the agreement codifies other practices or policies already in existence, or reviews already underway. We must always comply with government regulations regarding the international student visa program, for example,' Shipman said. The agreement says Columbia also will 'examine its business model and take steps to decrease financial dependence on international student enrollment.' International students make up about 40% of the enrollment at Columbia. Abiding Trump's interpretation on sex discrimination The agreement requires full compliance with the administration's interpretation of Title IX, the federal law barring sex discrimination in education. Trump officials have used the law to force the removal of transgender athletes from women's sports. Campus protest policies The deal calls for Columbia to abide restrictions it agreed to on campus protests, including a ban on face coverings used to conceal demonstrators' identity. It says protests inside academic buildings are not acceptable under the university's code of conduct. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Washington Post
25 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Public broadcasting is for MAGA, too
Congress approved President Donald Trump's request to cancel $1.1 billion in government funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Trump's executive order Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media said that neither PBS nor NPR 'presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.' As a former PBS producer, I take exception to his claim. Like my colleagues at PBS stations nationwide, I covered controversial stories from a wide variety of perspectives, including interviews with subjects of opposing political viewpoints, with respect and empathy. Public broadcasting is for MAGA, too. To illustrate: PBS put my documentary, 'Battle at Weber Creek,' on YouTube. It focuses on the dispute between Alaskan gold miner Joe Vogler and the National Park Service over transport of heavy mining equipment along a historic trail through the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve. Vogler had used the trail for years before the preserve was established in 1978 as part of the National Park System. His armed confrontation with the preserve's superintendent at remote Weber Creek raised serious issues for environmentalists, gold miners, National Park Service officials, elected representatives and local landowners, all of whom expressed diverse opinions to inform a national audience. The documentary was balanced to appeal to local as well as national viewers, and the response was overwhelmingly positive from a wide and highly diverse audience, including Alaska's gold-mining community. To present contrasting viewpoints on issues of interest to broad audiences around the United States is what public broadcasting does best. Its funding must be restored. Robert A. Hooper, San Diego The writer is a former producer at PBS member station KUAC in Fairbanks, Alaska. The Post's July 16 interview with PBS president and chief executive Paula Kerger, 'PBS faces 'existential' threat, its chief says,' missed an opportunity to press for facts about the impact of funding reductions to public broadcasting. The questions focused almost exclusively on the politics of the proposed cuts. Kerger characterized PBS as 'an aggregation of local stations,' to which most of the organization's funding is directed. She cited the Smoky Hills, Kansas, station, which airs 'a call-in medical show' and gets 54 percent of its money from the federal government. The Post's follow-up question: 'Will rural stations be hit hardest?' Kerger responded by mentioning PBS's 'great stations everywhere' — in D.C., New York and Boston, as well as in the small towns of Cookeville, Tennessee, and Granite Falls, Minnesota. The interviewer should have pressed Kerger on the number of viewers in rural markets; on the federal dollars spent per viewer; on whether PBS could redirect dollars from richer, big-city markets with more broadband options; whether state governments could kick in some money; or even the basic policy question of whether the federal government should be helping fund this service at all given the plethora of sources of information. Instead, the interviewer focused on whether the proposed budget cuts are 'specific to PBS and NPR and the CPB' or 'part of a larger salvo from this administration against media.' The issue of federal funding for public broadcasting is much more complicated and nuanced than presented in this interview. Taxpayers have been bombarded with 'the sky is falling' arguments over nearly every aspect of the federal budget process. Journalists can help by giving us facts instead of amplifying rhetoric. Joseph A. Capone, Oakton In 1993, a group of people, some of them refugees from countries with authoritarian regimes, were in my apartment watching David Letterman. Letterman was making various hard-hitting jokes about 'Tubby.' We were all laughing until one person in the group asked, 'Who is Tubby?' I told them it was a reference to President Bill Clinton. Suddenly, I saw shock on the faces of my guests. They thought Letterman would be off the air in minutes and dead by the next day. I explained to them that this is America. Some people are well paid for making fun of the president. Letterman went on to make fun of America and other presidents for decades to come. Today I wonder if the refugees were onto something. Charles Plushnick, New York What do good companies do when faced with declining audiences and revenue? They analyze options and make adjustments. CBS has said it was losing money on 'The Late Show With Stephen Colbert.' Is CBS different from any other company? Sometimes the simplest answer is the truth. Steve Henry, Springfield When CBS chief executive George Cheeks announced the cancellation of 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,' he called it 'purely a financial decision.' Cheeks has built his career on being genial, nonconfrontational and operationally smooth. But leadership isn't about being agreeable in times of turbulence. It's about taking a stand when the stakes are cultural, not just financial. Colbert wasn't just a talk show host. He was, for millions, a moral compass cloaked in comedy. And that's the real reason he's gone. There were other options. Cheeks could've shortened the production week, trimmed the budget or renegotiated Colbert's contract. George Cheeks didn't make a tough call. He made a weak one. Jeffrey Barge, Cleveland Ryan Zickgraf's July 18 Friday Opinion essay, 'The scroll never stops. Will we?,' captures Neil Postman's prescient warning that democracy is being overentertained rather than overthrown. But although the argument about tech's grip on our attention is right, it misses the deeper issue: We are not just distracted; we are reprogramming our very understanding of truth. Zickgraf points to Gen Z's retreat into more 'analog' pursuits as a sign of hope, but this is a passive rebellion, walking away from problems instead of confronting them. This opt-out mentality isn't enough. The real crisis is a society that no longer demands critical thought. Instead, we have substituted spectacle for reason, performance for debate and outrage for reflection. If democracy is to survive this digital haze, it's not enough to just delete apps or 'go back to basics.' We need a resurgence of reasoned, intentional discourse — something that challenges the very algorithms shaping our worldview. If Zickgraf's two tribes of Gen Z offer a glimpse of a future, it's one where we'll need to do more than retreat: We'll need to actively reclaim the spaces where thought can flourish, beyond the scroll. Regina Nappo, Triangle, Virginia Issues such as the Jeffrey Epstein case, though of ethical, moral and perhaps legal concern, are no more than distractions and deflections. They won't motivate people to vote in 2026 or beyond. Though titillating and potentially capable of increasing the audience share for news networks, at the end of the day, they likely will not significantly impact the outcome of the election. Notes Dan Rather: 'It is easy to stay swept up in the Epstein tsunami. … If the story is having an effect on Trump's political viability, then it is worth reporting on and reading about. But not at the expense of life-and-death stories with global consequences.' As someone who studied political communication for 45 years, I am convinced that the Epstein case is essentially a 'not Trump' message and therefore will remain rhetorically ineffective. So, let me say it again: While talking about this issue is fair game, Democrats must offer vivid and compelling reasons why their vision and concrete plans for America are in the best interests of voters. After that, they can contrast their message to the policies of President Donald Trump and his Republican acolytes. Democrats must be disciplined and their messages tightly focused. Richard Cherwitz, Carmas, Washington Hunter Biden's claim that George Clooney and other high-profile Democrats undermined his father's bid for reelection does not hold up to scrutiny. On the contrary, President Joe Biden and his enablers undermined their own campaign by attempting to conceal Joe Biden's diminished mental acuity from voters. Voters deserve to know the truth about their leaders so they can make informed decisions. When George Clooney spoke the truth about Biden's mental capabilities, he was speaking truth to power. If only more high-profile Democrats had done the same. A few months ago, Joe Biden went on 'The View' to claim he would have beaten Donald Trump. Polls show otherwise. Now, Hunter is peddling his father's same misguided blustery machismo. If they would take the advice, please, of the legendary 'Mini-Me' character of Austin Powers movie fame, this Democrat and so many other Democrats would be happy. 'Zip it.' Bruce Kirby, Rockville Post Opinions wants to know: What would you add to a time capsule to represent America today? Share your response, and it might be published as a letter to the editor.
New York Times
28 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Sues New York City Over Sanctuary Laws
The Justice Department on Thursday sued Mayor Eric Adams, claiming that New York City's immigration policies are hindering the Trump administration's enforcement of the law, in an escalation of efforts to crack down on the country's largest sanctuary city. In a 37-page lawsuit filed in Federal District Court in Brooklyn, the Trump administration said the city's policies had violated the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which it said gives the administration 'well-established, pre-eminent and pre-emptive authority to regulate immigration.' 'New York City has long been at the vanguard of interfering with enforcing this country's immigration laws,' the administration said in its suit. 'Its history as a sanctuary city dates back to 1989, and its efforts to thwart federal immigration enforcement have only intensified since.' In 2014, Mayor Bill de Blasio signed bills into law that all but stopped the police and jail officials from helping federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents deport undocumented immigrants. The law expelled ICE from offices it had maintained at the Rikers Island jail complex and strictly limited the communication allowed between ICE and the city's Department of Correction. The measures also restricted city agencies from honoring ICE's requests to detain undocumented immigrants who had been charged with crimes so that they could be deported. Under the law, the city could honor requests to detain only those who had been convicted of 'violent or serious' crimes — a list of more than 170 offenses that includes rape and murder. ICE also now had to present a warrant signed by a federal judge with each request. Efforts to reach New York officials on Thursday afternoon were not immediately successful. This is a developing story and will be updated.
