Poll: How tariffs are tanking Trump's approval rating
In 1992, Democratic political strategist James Carville famously distilled the presidential election down to one blunt catchphrase: 'It's the economy, stupid.'
The results of a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll suggest that, more than three decades later, the start of President Trump's second term could be summed up the same way — particularly when it comes to tariffs and trade.
The survey of 1,560 U.S. adults was conducted from May 22 to May 27, following months of global economic upheaval — all of it triggered by Trump. On-again off-again tariffs as high as 145%. Retaliatory measures from major allies and trading partners. Headlines about trade wars. Market nosedives. Market recoveries. Legal confusion. Stress among small-business owners. And rising prices for ordinary American consumers.
At the same time, Trump's approval rating has steadily deteriorated. Before last November's election, a majority of Americans (51%) told Yahoo News and YouGov that they approved of the way Trump had handled his first term in office; fewer (43%) said they disapproved.
But when asked again in March how they felt about the president's performance since returning to office, those numbers had flipped: more respondents now said they disapproved (50%) than said they approved (44%) of the job Trump had done during the first two months of his second term.
A few weeks later, in April, the gap between Trump's disapproval (53%) and approval (42%) ratings had grown even wider (to 11 percentage points). And the latest Yahoo News/YouGov poll shows that gap is continuing to expand. Today only 41% of Americans approve of Trump's job performance, while 54% disapprove, putting him 13 points underwater.
Those are some of the president's worst numbers since the latter stages of his first term.
Digging deeper, more Americans disapprove than approve of how Trump is handling each major issue included in the survey: immigration (by a two-point margin); government spending (by an eight-point margin); the war between Russia and Ukraine (by an eight-point margin); diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI (by a nine-point margin); and democracy (by a 13-point margin).
But the biggest gaps between Trump's approval and disapproval ratings emerge when Americans are asked about economic issues. According to the new Yahoo News/YouGov poll, the president is now 19 points underwater on the economy in general (37% approve to 56% disapprove); 22 points underwater on trade and tariffs (35% approve to 57% disapprove); and 27 points underwater on the cost of living (32% approve to 59% disapprove).
To put those numbers in perspective, Trump's average approval rating on the economy was 49% in the middle of 2020 — at the height of the COVID-19 crash. His average disapproval rating was 45%.
Similarly, a full 57% of Americans think Trump has 'gone too far 'in "raising tariffs on imported goods' — significantly more than the share who think he's gone too far in 'cutting the federal workforce" (51%), 'arresting and deporting immigrants' (49%) or "investigating his political opponents" (45%).
Just 4% of Americans say Trump's approach to raising tariffs has 'not gone far enough.'
As a result, 40% of U.S. adults now rate the economy as 'poor' — a five-point increase since April. Among independents, that same number has jumped a full 10 points — from 35% to 45% — over the last month. All told, nearly three quarters of Americans (72%) now say the economy is either fair or poor. Just 25% consider it excellent or good.
Earlier this month, House Republicans passed Trump's 'one big, beautiful bill' — a package of tax cuts, social safety net reductions and increased border and military spending meant to deliver the bulk of his legislative agenda.
But assuming that some version of the bill survives the Senate — a big if at this point — it is unlikely to reverse the president's economic standing.
In the new Yahoo News/YouGov poll, half of respondents were asked whether they 'approve or disapprove of the federal budget just passed by the U.S. House of Representatives' — with no additional information provided.
Twenty-eight percent said they approved, 41% said they disapproved and 31% said they weren't sure.
That's hardly a ringing endorsement. But what happens when Americans learn more about Trump's budget bill?
To test this dynamic, the other half of respondents read a detailed description of the legislation before answering the same question:
The U.S. House of Representatives just passed a federal budget that extends and expands the 2017 tax cuts for Americans of all incomes, at a cost of $3.8 trillion, while partially paying for those cuts by reducing Medicaid and food stamp benefits for lower-income Americans and ending some clean energy programs. The House budget also increases military and border spending and raises the debt ceiling from $36 trillion to $40 trillion.
Among this second, more informed group of respondents, approval of Trump's budget bill stayed roughly the same (31%). But uncertainty fell by 17 points (to 14%) — and disapproval shot up by nearly as much (to 55%).
__________________
The Yahoo News survey was conducted by YouGov using a nationally representative sample of 1,560 U.S. adults interviewed online from May 22 to May 27, 2025. The sample was weighted according to gender, age, race, education, 2024 election turnout and presidential vote, party identification and current voter registration status. Demographic weighting targets come from the 2019 American Community Survey. Party identification is weighted to the estimated distribution at the time of the election (31% Democratic, 32% Republican). Respondents were selected from YouGov's opt-in panel to be representative of all U.S. adults. The margin of error is approximately 2.9%.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Reporter says she was fired from Trump-friendly outlet after criticizing Hegseth
A pro-Donald Trump journalist says she was fired from her job after criticizing the president's secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, over his attempts to restrict media access at the Pentagon. Gabrielle Cuccia, the former chief Pentagon correspondent for the far-right, Trump-friendly media outlet One America News (OAN), says she was terminated shortly after she published a Substack post accusing Hegseth's defense department of clamping down on press access. She had said the restrictions were disturbing, questioned the defense department's motives in tightening media restrictions, and noted that Hegseth has yet to hold a formal press conference since taking office. Cuccia claimed the shift began after the controversy known as 'Signalgate', in which Hegseth – a former Fox News anchor – allegedly shared sensitive military details in a group chat that inadvertently included a well-known journalist from the Atlantic. According to Cuccia, that scandal marked the beginning of a broader effort to limit media interaction at the Pentagon. 'Let's be honest – since January, the real leaks from the Pentagon haven't come from the press,' she wrote in her Substack. 'They've come from Hegseth's own team and other senior officials.' Alluding to Trump's Make America Great Again (Maga) movement and Russian election interference in the US, she added: 'As a MAGA girl myself, I cannot stand when we take something super serious and legitimate – such as the Russia Hoax – and conflate everything and anything that is an inconvenient truth, throw in the towel and say, 'Yep its just a Russia Hoax,' and then proceed to call people losers and liars for reporting something that was unfortunately … true.' Cuccia pointed out how there has been only one press briefing under Hegseth's leadership of the Pentagon during Trump's second presidency, which began in January. None have been held after Signalgate, which occurred in March. Her breaking point reportedly came last week, when the Pentagon instituted a new policy requiring journalists to be escorted by public affairs staff to access Hegseth's office. 'The Pentagon wants to paint a picture that journalists are freely roaming classified spaces, sneaking into [sensitive compartmented information facilities], and leaking top-secret information. And that is simply not true,' the post said. Officials justified the move by stating it would minimize the risk of accidental or unauthorized disclosures. Cuccia also highlighted her conservative background in the post, emphasizing her ongoing loyalty to the conservative movement. She recalled her time at the University of Pennsylvania, where she said she was branded a 'racist' and a 'fascist' for not joining Black Lives Matter protests. Despite her service to Maga, Cuccia told CNN that she was asked to turn in her Pentagon badge to her bureau chief after the Substack post about Hegseth's increased media restrictions. Her résumé includes a stint in the White House in 2017 and 2018, during Trump's first presidency. She then spent several years reporting for OAN and working as a government contractor. One of Cuccia's past appearances on Newsmax, another far-right outlet, went viral after she echoed Trump's lies that electoral fraudsters ensured his defeat to Joe Biden in the 2020 election. Cuccia's remarks prompted the anchor to cut the segment short.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Trump administration reportedly tightens the reins on Veterans Affairs scientists
Last week, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warned that the Trump administration might crack down on government scientists contributing to medical journals and instead create 'in-house' medical publications. And it seems the administration is wasting no time in moving forward. According to The Guardian, the administration essentially tongue-lashed two Department of Veteran Affairs scientists via email after they co-authored a report — published in the New England Journal of Medicine — highlighting how federal cuts could negatively affect patients' health. Basically, the two scientists, Texas-based pulmonologists Pavan Ganapathiraju and Rebecca Traylor, said cuts at their agency could have disastrous effects on veterans' respiratory health. And that didn't go over well with their bosses. The Guardian reported: The edict, laid down in emails on Friday by Curt Cashour, the VA's assistant secretary for public and intergovernmental affairs, and John Bartrum, a senior adviser to VA secretary Doug Collins, came hours after the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine published a perspective co-authored by two pulmonologists who work for the VA in Texas. 'We have guidance for this,' wrote Cashour, a former Republican congressional aide and campaign consultant, attaching the journal article. 'These people did not follow it.' The Guardian reported further: The article sparked an immediate rebuke from Trump's political appointees, according to internal emails obtained by the Guardian. 'We have noticed a number of academic articles and press articles recently,' Bartrum wrote, attaching a copy of the journal article. 'Please remind the field and academic community that they need to follow the VA policy.' Cashour, the assistant secretary, wrote that approval for publication in national media was delegated to his office. Local and regional directors were to inform Washington 'as soon as possible' when situations exist 'that have the potential for negative national exposure'. The issue here seems obvious. I think Americans should want experts working for them who can offer scientifically based critiques or recommendations on U.S. policy, especially if their work is laid out sanely in a respected medical journal. The idea of such views potentially being suppressed not out of primary concern for public health but rather 'the potential for negative national exposure,' as Bartrum suggested in his email, is worrisome. This kind of restriction seems to fit within the administration's broader attack on scientific expertise, such as its rescission of federal research grants that is driving some scientists out of the country. The VA's press secretary, Peter Kasperowicz, said in a statement to MSNBC that requiring approval for contributions to medical journals is 'VA policy that has been in place for several years across both Democrat and Republican administrations' and 'requires VA employees to properly coordinate with public affairs staff prior to speaking with the media.' He added that 'virtually every organization both inside and outside government has similar policies.' That claim was disputed by one of the authors, Ganapathiraju, who said his co-authored article was in full compliance and that VA rules encourage — but don't require — coordination with public affairs professionals at the agency. It certainly looks like the Trump administration is engaging in academic censorship. And the fact that the administration's major 'in-house' health report has been a complete disaster doesn't exactly paint this White House as trustworthy on the matter of scientific research. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk Is Realizing He Made a Huge Mistake
Tesla has been put through the wringer during CEO Elon Musk's absence. The EV maker saw earnings plummet in the first quarter of this year, with net income cratering an astonishing 71 percent since the same period last year. The root of all the trouble was Musk himself, as he embraced far-right ideologies and took on a position gutting the federal government — hugely unpopular moves with Tesla's left-leaning customer base that spawned an international protest movement against the company and eviscerated sales across key markets. Musk's new buddies in Washington weren't helping his business fundamentals either. The Trump administration is planning to revoke EV tax credits and kill incentives for battery production in the US with its latest budget, not to mention its tariff war that's rattled international markets, directly undermining critical supply lines for Tesla. And as Electrek reports, Musk finally seems to be realizing that his time in government is causing huge problems for his business interests. Take those energy credits. In a statement posted to Musk's social media platform X-formerly-Twitter last week, Tesla wrote that "abruptly ending the energy tax credits would threaten America's energy independence and the reliability of our grid." Instead, the carmaker argued for a "sensible wind down" of residential and investment-based clean energy tax credits. In a separate post, Musk pointed out that "there is no change to tax incentives for oil and gas, just EV/solar," underlining the Trump administration's staunch anti-clean energy stance. Musk has also called out the Trump administration's tax and spending bill for increasing the budget deficit, tweeting that it "undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing." It's a surprising moment of clarity for a businessman who willingly threw hundreds of millions of dollars behind Trump. The president has vowed to "drill, baby, drill," called climate change a "hoax," and shocked even oil and gas CEOs with his plans to roll back environmental rules. For a time, Musk seemed to support those anti-environmental initiatives. Late last year, he publicly called on the government to scrap all electric car subsidies. "I think we should get rid of all credits," he said at the time. "Take away the subsidies," he tweeted back in July. "It will only help Tesla." But now that Tesla is facing an existential crisis, Musk is seemingly having second thoughts about Trump and the GOP's aggressive anti-clean energy policies. Could this be the beginning of Musk re-embracing his carmaker's original-but-since-deleted "Secret Master Plan" climate manifesto? Or could all of this be grandstanding to put on the appearance that Musk has finally come to his senses to appease enraged Tesla investors and would-be customers? The damage has certainly been done. Musk's actions have set Tesla's brand on fire, making it synonymous with an extreme right-wing worldview and torching desirability for its rapidly aging offerings. Meanwhile, Musk's political allies are taking aim at the future of the EV and clean energy sector, potentially making matters even worse for the embattled carmaker. Tesla's shares rallied last month, indicating widespread enthusiasm for Musk's return. But soon he'll have to show results. More on Tesla: Elon Musk Reportedly Owes Donald Trump a Colossal Sum of Money