More Americans critical of Musk role in Trump administration: Survey
More Americans are now critical of tech billionaire Elon Musk's role in the Trump administration in comparison to earlier this year, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll.
When asked if they 'approve or disapprove of the way Elon Musk is handling his job in the Trump administration,' 57 percent said they disapproved 'somewhat' or 'strongly.' That is an 8-point increase from a February poll that asked the same question.
In the new poll, 9 percent had no opinion or did not answer the question on Musk approval.
The poll found 35 percent of respondents said they 'approve strongly' or 'approve somewhat.' That reflects a 1-point increase in approval over the poll taken a month into the Trump administration.
In the Washington Post-Ipsos poll from February, 49 percent said that they 'strongly' or 'somewhat' were against the job Musk was doing, while 14 percent said they were 'not sure' and 2 percent had no opinion or did not answer the question.
Musk revealed last week that he would begin to spend less time on the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) next month. DOGE's controversial slashing of large chunks of federal spending has also come amid a difficulty to maintain public support, with it also facing multiple lawsuits. Musk's Tesla company has also taken a significant hit on the stock market since the start of the year.
Other members of the Trump administration have also reportedly had frustrations with Musk, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
The Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll took place between April 18 and 22, featuring 2,464 people and 2 percentage points as its margin of sampling error.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
22 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump administration weighs adding 36 countries to travel ban, memo says
Trump administration weighs adding 36 countries to travel ban, memo says WASHINGTON, June 15 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is considering significantly expanding its travel restrictions by potentially banning citizens of 36 additional countries from entering the United States, according to an internal State Department cable seen by Reuters. Earlier this month, the Republican president signed a proclamation that banned the entry of citizens from 12 countries, saying the move was needed to protect the United States against "foreign terrorists" and other national security threats. The directive was part of an immigration crackdown Trump launched this year at the start of his second term, which has included the deportation to El Salvador of hundreds of Venezuelans suspected of being gang members, as well as efforts to deny enrollments of some foreign students from U.S. universities and deport others. In an internal diplomatic cable signed by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the State Department outlined a dozen concerns about the countries in question and sought corrective action. "The Department has identified 36 countries of concern that might be recommended for full or partial suspension of entry if they do not meet established benchmarks and requirements within 60 days," the cable sent out over the weekend said. The cable was first reported by the Washington Post. More: Travel bans, visa crackdowns and deportations: What to know as Trump bars the door Among the concerns the State Department raised was the lack of a competent or cooperative government by some of the countries mentioned to produce reliable identity documents, the cable said. Another was "questionable security" of that country's passport. Some countries, the cable said, were not cooperative in facilitating the removal of its nationals from the United States who were ordered to be removed. Some countries were overstaying the U.S. visas their citizens were being granted. Other reasons for concern were the nationals of the country were involved in acts of terrorism in the United States, or antisemitic and anti-American activity. The cable noted that not all of these concerns pertained to every country listed. More: 'It's scary': Travelers caught off guard as travel ban rules come into effect "We are constantly reevaluating policies to ensure the safety of Americans and that foreign nationals follow our laws," a senior State Department official said, declining to comment on specific internal deliberations and communications. "The Department of State is committed to protecting our nation and its citizens by upholding the highest standards of national security and public safety through our visa process," the official said. The countries that could face a full or a partial ban if they do not address these concerns within the next 60 days are: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cote D'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Ethiopia, Egypt, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, South Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. That would be a significant expansion of the ban that came into effect earlier this month. The countries affected were Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The entry of people from seven other countries - Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela - has also been partially restricted. During his first in office, Trump announced a ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority nations, a policy that went through several iterations before it was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. (Reporting by Humeyra PamukEditing by Bill Berkrot)
Axios
24 minutes ago
- Axios
Behind the Curtain: What if they're right?
During our recent interview, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said something arresting that we just can't shake: Everyone assumes AI optimists and doomers are simply exaggerating. But no one asks: "Well, what if they're right?" Why it matters: We wanted to apply this question to what seems like the most outlandish AI claim — that in coming years, large language models could exceed human intelligence and operate beyond our control, threatening human existence. That probably strikes you as science-fiction hype. But Axios research shows at least 10 people have quit the biggest AI companies over grave concerns about the technology's power, including its potential to wipe away humanity. If it were one or two people, the cases would be easy to dismiss as nutty outliers. But several top execs at several top companies, all with similar warnings? Seems worth wondering: Well, what if they're right? And get this: Even more people who are AI enthusiasts or optimists argue the same thing. They, too, see a technology starting to think like humans, and imagine models a few years from now starting to act like us — or beyond us. Elon Musk has put the risk as high as 20% that AI could destroy the world. Well, what if he's right? How it works: There's a term the critics and optimists share: p(doom). It means the probability that superintelligent AI destroys humanity. So Musk would put p(doom) as high as 20%. On a recent podcast with Lex Fridman, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, an AI architect and optimist, conceded: "I'm optimistic on the p(doom) scenarios, but ... the underlying risk is actually pretty high." But Pichai argued that the higher it gets, the more likely that humanity will rally to prevent catastrophe. Fridman, himself a scientist and AI researcher, said his p(doom) is about 10%. Amodei is on the record pegging p(doom) in the same neighborhood as Musk's: 10-25%. Stop and soak that in: The very makers of AI, all of whom concede they don't know with precision how it actually works, see a 1 in 10, maybe 1 in 5, chance it wipes away our species. Would you get on a plane at those odds? Would you build a plane and let others on at those odds? Once upon a time, this doomsday scenario was the province of fantasy movies. Now, it's a common debate among those building large language models (LLMs) at giants like Google and OpenAI and Meta. To some, the better the models get, the more this fantastical fear seems eerily realistic. Here, in everyday terms, is how this scenario would unfold: It's already a mystery to the AI companies why and how LLMs actually work, as we wrote in our recent column, "The scariest AI reality." Yes, the creators know the data they're stuffing into the machine, and general patterns LLMs use to answer questions and "think." But they don't know why the LLMs respond the way they do. Between the lines: For LLMs to be worth trillions of dollars, the companies need them to analyze and "think" better than the smartest humans, then work independently on big problems that require complex thought and decision-making. That's how so-called AI agents, or agentics, work. So they need to think and act like Ph.D. students. But not one Ph.D. student. They need almost endless numbers of virtual Ph.D. students working together, at warp speed, with scant human oversight, to realize their ambitions. "We (the whole industry, not just OpenAI) are building a brain for the world," OpenAI CEO Sam Altman wrote last week. What's coming: You'll hear more and more about artificial general intelligence (AGI), the forerunner to superintelligence. There's no strict definition of AGI, but independent thought and action at advanced human levels is a big part of it. The big companies think they're close to achieving this — if not in the next year or so, soon thereafter. Pichai thinks it's " a bit longer" than five years off. Others say sooner. Both pessimists and optimists agree that when AGI-level performance is unleashed, it'll be past time to snap to attention. Once the models can start to think and act on their own, what's to stop them from going rogue and doing what they want, based on what they calculate is their self-interest? Absent a much, much deeper understanding of how LLMs work than we have today, the answer is: Not much. In testing, engineers have found repeated examples of LLMs trying to trick humans about their intent and ambitions. Imagine the cleverness of the AGI-level ones. You'd need some mechanism to know the LLMs possess this capability before they're used or released in the wild — then a foolproof kill switch to stop them. So you're left trusting the companies won't let this happen — even though they're under tremendous pressure from shareholders, bosses and even the government to be first to produce superhuman intelligence. Right now, the companies voluntarily share their model capabilities with a few people in government. But not to Congress or any other third party with teeth. It's not hard to imagine a White House fearing China getting this superhuman power before the U.S. and deciding against any and all AI restraints. Even if U.S. companies do the right thing, or the U.S. government steps in to impose and use a kill switch, humanity would be reliant on China or other foreign actors doing the same. When asked if the government could truly intervene to stop an out-of-control AI danger, Vice President Vance told New York Times columnist Ross Douthat on a recent podcast: "I don't know. Because part of this arms-race component is: If we take a pause, does [China] not take a pause? Then we find ourselves ... enslaved to [China]-mediated AI." That's why p(doom) demands we pay attention ... before it's too late.
Time Magazine
24 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
With a Distracted U.S., Hong Kong Intensifies Its Democratic Crackdown
There's so much going on in the world—a new war between Israel and Iran, ongoing wars in Gaza and Ukraine, tariffs upending the global economy, riots in Los Angeles, planes falling out of the sky, political violence and terrorist attacks —it can be hard to know where to look. Experts say that's what authorities in Hong Kong may be counting on, as they intensify a democratic crackdown in the semi-autonomous Chinese region, quietly building off of moves that began years ago to align the once-democratic stronghold with the more authoritarian government of Beijing. On June 12, Hong Kong authorities conducted a joint operation with China's national security officials in the city, raiding the homes of six people and the office of an organization suspected of 'collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security.' Just days before, Hong Kong police warned against downloading a 'seditious' mobile video game deemed to be 'endangering national security.' And on June 10, the city's leader, John Lee, said Hong Kong will ramp up 'national security' screenings of food and entertainment establishments. Since the Chinese Central Government passed a controversial law in 2020 in response to widespread anti-establishment protests the year before, Hong Kong has steadily transformed from a place known for freer expression to one that Benedict Rogers, a British human rights activist focused on Asia, described last month as a ' police state.' When the law, which penalizes a swathe of actions deemed critical of Hong Kong and China, was passed, officials from both parties in the U.S. at the time saw it as an infringement on democratic rights, and the U.S. imposed sanctions to try to mitigate the effects. Trump's second-term Administration, however, has said little about what's unfolding in Hong Kong. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in March that 'Beijing has broken its promises to the people of Hong Kong' amid the crackdowns, and on March 31, the State Department sanctioned six individuals related to the erosion of freedom in Hong Kong, including national security officials and the city's former police commissioner. But critics say the U.S. response seems to end there, and the latest wave of actions in June have not been addressed. The turmoil around the globe may be proving helpful for Hong Kong to fasttrack its crackdown. Eric Yan-ho Lai, a research fellow at the Georgetown Center for Asian Law, tells TIME that 'the rising geopolitical tensions, particularly between the U.S. and China, has favoured the Hong Kong government to expand national security governance in the city.' Lai also said the latest developments show that Hong Kong officials have since shifted to 'executive-led' regulatory approaches to quell dissent, rather than arrests en masse. Under Trump's second-term Administration, U.S. policy has so far focused on China, with Hong Kong often lumped in with the mainland. For example, enhanced scrutiny of Chinese students' visas also covered those from Hong Kong. Hong Kong was also included in U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods. Experts previously told TIME that Trump's second-term Administration, in hopes of negotiating with China on priorities like trade, may avoid measures aimed at non-economic areas, such as China's domestic democratic and human-rights concerns, that could potentially ruffle Trump's relationship with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Ja Ian Chong, associate professor of political science at the National University of Singapore, tells TIME he thinks members of the Trump Administration like Rubio are 'aware' of what's happening in Hong Kong but that the Administration is 'most focused' at the moment on its own domestic issues. On that front, Beijing may also benefit, observers have noted in recent days, as increasingly authoritarian-resembling moves by the Trump Administration, including sending troops to quell protests in Los Angeles earlier this month and hosting a military parade over the weekend, cast the U.S. as comparatively hypocritical and weak, according to Chinese media. Said one state-run outlet about Saturday's lackluster parade: 'Democracy is struggling in the mud.' As Alex Colville and David Bandurski of the China Media Project put it: 'Trump's assault on democratic norms is an unexpected gift for China's leaders, and one that may in the long term prove costlier than any trade war or diplomatic standoff.'
