More Americans are unhappy with the way Trump is managing the government, AP-NORC poll shows
By JILL COLVIN and LINLEY SANDERS
WASHINGTON (AP) — Approval of the way President Donald Trump is managing the government has dropped sharply since early in his second term, according to a new AP-NORC poll, with much of the rising discontent coming from fellow Republicans.
The survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research was conducted after Democrats’ recent victories in off-year elections but before Congress took major steps to try to end the longest shutdown in U.S. history. It shows that only 33% of U.S. adults approve of the way the Republican president is managing the government, down from 43% in an AP-NORC poll from March.
That was driven in large part by a decline in approval among Republicans and independents. According to the survey, only about two-thirds of Republicans, 68%, said they approve of Trump’s government management, down from 81% in March. Independents’ approval dropped from 38% to 25%.
The results highlight the risks posed by the shutdown, which Trump and his administration have tried to pin squarely on Democrats, even as U.S. adults have cast blame on both parties as the funding lapse has snarled air traffic, left hundreds of thousands of federal workers without paychecks and compromised food aid for some of the most vulnerable Americans. But it could also indicate broader discontent with Trump’s other dramatic — and polarizing — changes to the federal government in recent months, including gutting agencies and directing waves of mass layoffs.
Trump’s approval on government management erodes among Republicans
Republicans have generally been steadfast in their support for the president, making their growing displeasure particularly notable.
“I’m thoroughly disturbed by the government shutdown for 40-something days,” said Beverly Lucas, 78, a Republican and retired educator who lives in Ormond Beach, Florida, and compared Trump’s second term to “having a petulant child in the White House, with unmitigated power.”
“When people are hungry, he had a party,” she said, referring to a Great Gatsby-themed Halloween party held at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Florida. “I thought he seems callous.”
The survey found an overwhelming majority of Democrats, 95%, continue to disapprove of Trump’s management of the federal government, compared with 89% in March.
Trump’s overall approval holds steady
Even with the decline in support for his management of the government, Trump’s overall approval rating has remained steady in the new poll. About one-third of U.S. adults, 36%, approve of his overall handling of the presidency, roughly in line with 37% in an October AP-NORC poll. Approval of his handling of key issues like immigration and the economy have also barely changed since last month.
Health care emerged as a key issue in the shutdown debate as Democrats demanded that Republicans negotiate with them to extend tax credits that expire Jan. 1. But Trump’s approval on the issue, which was already fairly low, has barely changed.
About one-third, 34%, of Americans said they approved of Trump’s handling of health care in the November poll, compared with 31% in October.
And many of his supporters are still behind him. Susan McDuffie, 74, a Republican who lives in Carson City, Nevada, and retired several years ago, said she has “great confidence in Trump” and thinks the country is on the right track. She blames Democrats for the shutdown and the suffering it’s caused.
“I just don’t understand how the Democrats can care so little about the people,” she said, scoffing at the idea that Democrats were trying to use the shutdown to force Republicans to address soon-to-skyrocket health care costs.
“I don’t have any patience for the Democrats and their lame excuses,” she said, arguing that people who are scared about SNAP benefits expiring and struggling to put food on the table are a more pressing issue.
Plenty of blame to go around
When it comes to the shutdown, there is still plenty of blame to go around. Recent polls have indicated that while Republicans may be taking slightly more heat, many think Democrats are at fault, too.
“I truly do believe it’s everybody. Everybody is being stubborn,” said Nora Bailey, 33, a moderate who lives in the Batesville area in Arkansas and does not align with either party.
After recently giving birth, she said, she faced delays in getting a breast pump through a government program that helps new mothers while her son was in intensive care. And she is worried about her disabled parents, who rely on SNAP food stamp benefits.
Overall, she said she is mixed on Trump’s handling of the job and disapproves of his management of the federal government because she believes he has not gone far enough to tackle waste.
“I don’t see enough being done yet to tell me we have downsized the federal government instead of having all these excess people,” she said.
It’s possible that Trump’s approval on handling the federal government will rebound if the government reopens. But the showdown could have a more lasting impact on perceptions of the president, whose approval on the economy and immigration has eroded slightly since the spring.
Lucas, the Florida Republican, said shutdowns in which civilians aren’t paid are the wrong way to address ideological disagreement.
“Air traffic controllers? Really? You want to not pay the people in whose hands your lives are every day?” she said. “We need to be addressing these conflicts like intelligent people and not thugs and bullies on the playground.”
Trump pens letter to Israeli president requesting pardon for Netanyahu
by Laura Kelly
The office of Israeli President Isaac Herzog announced Wednesday it had received a letter from President Trump requesting a pardon for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is currently standing trial for bribery, fraud and breach of trust.
Trump, who was convicted in a criminal case on 34 felony counts in 2024, has called several times for Netanyahu to be pardoned by Herzog — most recently during a speech to the Israeli Knesset in October celebrating a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and the return of living hostages.
In a statement from Herzog’s office, the Israeli president voiced appreciation for Trump’s “unwavering support for Israel” and contributions to the ceasefire and hostage release deal but pointed out that pardon requests must be carried out through “established procedures.”
“Alongside and not withstanding this, as the Office of the President has made clear throughout, anyone seeking a Presidential pardon must submit a formal request in accordance with the established procedures,” the statement read.
A clemency request can be filed online.
A White House official confirmed to The Hill that Trump sent the letter to Herzog but did not immediately address a follow-up question over whether the White House or the president had filled out a request online.
Trump, in his letter, said that while he “respects the independence of the Israeli Justice System, and its requirements,” the case against Netanyahu is “a political, unjustified prosecution.”
He also criticized the corruption cases against Netanyahu as diverting the prime minister’s attention “unnecessarily,” and raising that it impacts Trump’s efforts to follow through on his plan for peace in Gaza and expanding the Abraham Accords to add more countries that recognize Israel.
“As the great State of Israel and the amazing Jewish people move past the terribly difficult times of the last three years, I hereby call on you to fully pardon Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been a formidable and decisive Wartime Prime Minister, and is now leading Israel into a time of peace, which includes my continued work with key Middle East leaders to add many additional countries to the world changing Abraham Accords,” the letter reads.
Trump, addressing the Israeli president by his first name, said that now that the hostages were returned from captivity and that Hamas was being kept “in check,” Israel could pardon Netanyahu and allow the country to be united.
His peace push in the Gaza Strip is on shaky ground as the U.S. leader has given Hamas permission to reassert control in areas from which Israeli troops have withdrawn, and he is reportedly struggling to find a pathway to move from a cessation of hostilities to reconstruction in the strip — with open questions remaining on how to disarm Hamas; what acceptable governing body can take over; whether a Palestinian police force can exercise control; and the potential role of a yet-to-be-created “International Stabilization Force.”
Top Trump administration officials have visited Israel in a steady stream in what the administration is reportedly referring to as “Bibi-sitting,” referring to Netanyahu’s nickname, Bibi, and holding him to account on maintaining the ceasefire.
Netanyahu’s political allies welcomed Trump’s letter, with National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir urging Herzog to “listen to President Trump!”
But Israeli opposition politicians focused their criticism on the prime minister soliciting international interference in domestic Israeli affairs.
“We are a proud nation, we are a sovereign nation, we are not a protectorate state. The Prime Minister cannot keep running to President Trump every time to ask for help,” Yair Lapid, head of the opposition party, said in a speech at the Knesset. “A proud nation, with national dignity, does not behave like this.”
Lapid, in a post on the social platform X, wrote, “Reminder: Israeli law stipulates that the first condition for receiving a pardon is an admission of guilt and an expression of remorse for the actions.”
Despite President Trump's waves of pardons for allies and supporters who sought to overturn his 2020 election loss and his clemency for all Capitol riot defendants, at least one federal case with tethers to the 2020 election still lingered.
By Scott MacFarlane
Now, a federal judge in Houston has sentenced Abigail Shry to 27 months in federal prison, followed by two years of supervised release, after she pleaded guilty to phoning a vulgar, violent and racist threat to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in August 2023.
The threat was made hours after Chutkan was assigned to oversee Mr. Trump's criminal case for allegedly conspiring to overturn his 2020 loss, of which Jan. 6 was a component.
In court Wednesday before Judge Keith Ellison, Shry apologized to anyone who was subjected to hearing her "abhorrent" voicemail, saying that it "was not and is not reflective of my character or beliefs."
In charging documents, the Justice Department said Shry, 45, left a voicemail for Chutkan in which she threatened to kill anyone who "went after President Trump."
The document alleged Shry referred to Chutkan as a "slave," used a racial epithet and made threats against a Texas Democratic congresswoman, "all Democrats" and the LGBTQ community.
Shry's voice message also said, "If Trump doesn't get elected in 2024, we are coming to kill you, so tread lightly," according to the Justice Department's court filings.
Investigators say they linked the message to Shry after determining her cellphone number was used to make the threatening call.
Shry pleaded guilty in November 2024 to a federal charge of transmitting an interstate threat. Her sentencing hearing had been postponed multiple times before Wednesday's court date. Prosecutors requested a sentence of 33 months.
On the day of Shry's guilty plea, the Justice Department offered further details on its investigation, saying Shry admitted that she made the call and "noted that she had no plans to travel anywhere to carry out anything she stated." But she also allegedly told investigators that "if the congresswoman ever traveled to her city, then 'we need to worry.'"
Shry's case was one of a fast-rising number of threats made against federal judges in the past few years. Reports from the U.S. Marshals Service, which protects federal judges, said more than 560 threats have been investigated so far this year. That's more than all of 2024 and on pace to match or surpass 2023 levels.
A federal judge had briefly ordered Shry to remain in pretrial detention in the case. In a May 2024 hearing, a Justice Department prosecutor argued, "My greatest concern in this case is that she starts watching FOX News again, gets herself spun up, she goes out, she gets a case of beer, continues to get herself spun up. There's no way to gauge what's going to happen here, except to look at what she's done in the past six months."
A federal judge later released Shry, under the condition that Shry not possess firearms or consume alcohol.
According to a sentencing report submitted by the Justice Department in Shry's case, Shry faced a maximum of five years in prison. Federal defendants are typically sentenced to less than the maximum prison term.
High-profile Jan. 6 defendant facing charges of kidnapping and sexually assaulting woman
By Scott MacFarlane
A U.S. Capitol riot defendant who was accused of firing a gun into the air while among the mob on Capitol grounds on January 6, 2021, now faces charges of sexual assault and kidnapping in Utah.
Prosecutors allege John Banuelos, 40, attacked a woman in the Salt Lake City area in 2018, three years prior to his alleged involvement in the Capitol siege, according to court filings obtained by CBS News.
A DNA test conducted in August linked Banuelos to the 2018 sex assault, prosecutors allege in a charging document filed in Utah.
Banuelos' charges in his U.S. Capitol riot case were dismissed and he was released from custody in January 2025, after President Trump granted clemency to the more than 1,500 people convicted of charges stemming from the Capitol attack.
According to court filings in Utah, Banuelos allegedly invited the victim of the attack, referred to in the court filings only as S.J., to his home in June 2018, falsely claiming there was a party at the house. According to charging documents, Banuelos beat the victim after she entered his house.
Prosecutors said the victim told investigators that Banuelos "hit her in the face and told her he was going to kill her. Banuelos then grabbed her by the shirt and dropped her on the floor, causing her to hit her head. (The victim) recalled feeling like Banuelos was going to kill her."
The victim also told police that Banuelos sexually accosted her, the court documents say. The victim told investigators, "Banuelos was aggressively kissing her and punched her in the head. She said when she tried to punch him back, he got 'really angry,'" according to the charging documents from prosecutors. The charging papers also said the victim said that Baneulos "grabbed her shorts, pulled them off, and threw her, causing her whole body to fly in the air."
The charging documents allege Banuelos strangled the victim, who told investigators he "used a pressure of '10 out of 10' for a couple of seconds. (The victim) said that while strangling her, he told her that she was 'gonna be quiet' and she thought she was 'gonna die.'"
Banuelos faces charges of aggravated kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault. A warrant was issued in Utah for Banuelos's arrest on Oct. 1.
Police reports obtained by CBS News under the Freedom of Information Act said Cook County, Illinois sheriff's investigators found Banuelos at a Burger King in the Chicago suburb of Cicero on Oct. 17. The sheriff's department said Banuelos acknowledged his identity to officers when they stopped him as a passenger in a ride-share car minutes later.
He has no listed defense attorney in his case in Utah and was not reachable for comment. It was not immediately clear if he was still being held in Illinois or if he had been transferred to Utah.
Banuelos was among the later waves of arrests in the U.S. Capitol siege case. He was charged in his federal Jan. 6 case in March 2024, more than three years after the attack. Banuelos' case was unique among the tonnage of Capitol riot prosecutions, because he was the only defendant accused of pulling and firing a gun while on Capitol grounds.
The Justice Department alleged "Open-source media and CCTV captured Banuelos allegedly raising the gun over his head and, at approximately 2:34 p.m., firing two shots into the air. Banuelos returned the firearm to his waistband and climbed down the scaffolding, rejoining the crowd below."
Banuelos pleaded not guilty in his Jan. 6 case, but never stood trial because of the dropped charges.
During 2024 court proceedings in his Capitol riot case, Banuelos openly and brazenly predicted he'd be cleared of charges because of the reelection of Mr. Trump.
When urged by Washington, D.C., federal judge Tanya Chutkan to be careful about what he said in open court, Banuelos told the judge, "Trump is going to be in office in six months, so I have nothing to worry about."
Banuelos is the latest in a growing series of Jan. 6 defendants to be arrested on unrelated charges after they were released from custody following Mr. Trump's Jan. 20, 2025, pardons.
Zachary Alam, a convicted Capitol rioter from Virginia who was released from prison after the Trump pardons, was arrested in May for breaking and entering at a home near Richmond, Virginia. Alam was found guilty of the charge last month.
Christopher Moynihan, a Capitol siege defendant from upstate New York, was arrested last month for allegedly threatening to murder House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Moynihan has pleaded not guilty.
President Trump is reaping dividends from cryptocurrency. The Wall Street Journal reports the Trump family has pocketed about 5 billion dollars through the launch of a virtual cryptocurrency. MSNBC’s Ari Melber reports and is joined by Justin Wolfers, economics professor at The University of Michigan.
The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to pause a lower court order requiring the government to distribute $4 billion in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.
By Gabe Whisnant
Justice Department lawyers requested a temporary reprieve by 9:30 p.m., arguing the emergency stay is needed while the administration pursues its appeal.
Why It Matters
Because of the federal government shutdown, the Trump administration had initially said SNAP benefits would not be available in November. The food program serves about 1 in 8 Americans, mostly with lower incomes.
The legal fight has extended weeks of uncertainty for low-income Americans. Under SNAP, an individual can receive up to about $300 a month in food aid and a family of four nearly $1,000, though most get less based on their income.
What to Know
Two federal judges ruled last week that the administration could not skip an entire month of payments, including U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr., who on Thursday ordered the government to pay full benefits. In those cases, the judges directed the administration to draw from an emergency reserve fund holding more than $4.6 billion for November and allowed officials to tap other available money to cover the full monthly cost of between $8.5 billion and $9 billion.
On Monday, the administration said it would not use additional funds beyond the reserve, arguing it was up to Congress to appropriate more money for SNAP and that remaining accounts were needed to support other child hunger programs. McConnell’s order rejected the administration’s plan to pay only 65% of the maximum benefit, a move that could have left some recipients with no aid at all this month.
The Trump administration said in a memo to states Friday that it is working to comply with a federal court order requiring full November SNAP payments. The Agriculture Department (USDA) said it would “complete the processes necessary” to make funds for SNAP available later in the day.
Officials in at least six states said some SNAP recipients received their full November benefits on Friday.
However, in a filing Friday asking the Supreme Court to step in, the Justice Department argued that the directive to fully fund November SNAP benefits violates the Constitution by forcing the executive branch to reshuffle congressionally appropriated funds.
Attorneys for the cities and nonprofits challenging the administration’s stance have said the government has ample money available and urged the courts “not [to] allow them to further delay getting vital food assistance to individuals and families who need it now.”
What People Are Saying
US Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court in his filing, “Such a funding lapse is a crisis. But it is a crisis occasioned by congressional failure and one that can only be solved through congressional action. The district court’s ruling is untenable at every turn.”
Democracy Forward President and CEO Skye Perryman said in a statement: “It shouldn’t take a court order to force our President to provide essential nutrition that Congress has made clear needs to be provided. But since that is what it takes, we will continue to use the courts to protect the rights of people.”
What Happens Next
Under the emergency filing, the Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to halt two temporary restraining orders issued by Judge McConnell that require full November SNAP payments. It is also seeking an immediate administrative stay by 9:30 p.m., a move that would spare the government from having to shift about $4 billion into the food aid program later Friday night while the justices consider the case.
New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani celebrated the city’s immigrant population in his victory speech on Tuesday night, speaking about “Yemeni bodega owners, Mexican abuelas, Senegalese taxi drivers, Uzbek nurses, Trinidadian line cooks and Ethiopian aunties.”
A federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the Trump administration Thursday to find the money to fully fund SNAP benefits for November, a decision that the administration promptly appealed.
By GEOFF MULVIHILL and MICHAEL CASEY
The ruling by U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. gave President Donald Trump’s administration until Friday to make the payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, though it’s unlikely the 42 million Americans — about 1 in 8, most of them in poverty — will see the money on the debit cards they use for groceries nearly that quickly.
The order was in response to a challenge from cities and nonprofits complaining that the administration was only offering to cover 65% of the maximum benefit, a decision that would have left some recipients getting nothing for this month.
“The defendants failed to consider the practical consequences associated with this decision to only partially fund SNAP,” McConnell said in a ruling from the bench after a brief hearing. “They knew that there would be a long delay in paying partial SNAP payments and failed to consider the harms individuals who rely on those benefits would suffer.”
McConnell was one of two judges who ruled last week that the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely because of the federal shutdown.
Shortly after the judges’ rulings, lawyers for the Trump administration filed a motion to appeal, contesting both Thursday’s decision and the earlier one last Saturday that ordered the federal government to use emergency reserves to fund the food program throughout November.
Vice President JD Vance told reporters the ruling was “absurd.”
“What we’d like to do is for the Democrats to open up the government of course, then we can fund SNAP,” Vance said at an unrelated White House event. “But in the midst of a shutdown, we can’t have a federal court telling the president how he has to triage the situation.”
The Trump administration chose partial payments this week
Last month, the administration said that it would halt SNAP payments for November if the government shutdown wasn’t resolved.
A coalition of cities and nonprofits sued in federal court in Rhode Island, and Democratic state officials from across the country did so in Massachusetts.
The judges in both cases ordered the government to use one emergency reserve fund containing more than $4.6 billion to pay for SNAP for November but gave it leeway to tap other money to make the full payments, which cost between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month.
On Monday, the administration said it would not use additional money, saying it was up to Congress to appropriate the funds for the program and that the other money was needed to shore up other child hunger programs.
The partial funding brought on complications
McConnell harshly criticized the Trump administration for making that choice.
“Without SNAP funding for the month of November, 16 million children are immediately at risk of going hungry,” he said. “This should never happen in America. In fact, it’s likely that SNAP recipients are hungry as we sit here.”
Tyler Becker, the attorney for the government, unsuccessfully argued that the Trump administration had followed the court’s order in issuing the partial payments. “This all comes down to Congress not having appropriated funds because of the government shutdown,” he said.
Kristin Bateman, a lawyer for the coalition of cities and nonprofit organizations, told the judge the administration had other reasons for not fully funding the benefits.
“What defendants are really trying to do is to leverage people’s hunger to gain partisan political advantage in the shutdown fight,” Bateman told the court.
McConnell said last week’s order required that those payments be made “expeditiously” and “efficiently” — and by Wednesday — or a full payment would be required. “Nothing was done consistent with the court’s order to clear the way to expeditiously resolve it,” McConnell said.
There were other twists and turns this week
The administration said in a court filing on Monday that it could take weeks or even months for some states to make calculations and system changes to load the debit cards used in the SNAP program. At the time, it said it would fund 50% of the maximum benefits.
The next day, Trump appeared to threaten not to pay the benefits at all unless Democrats in Congress agreed to reopen the government. His press secretary later said that the partial benefits were being paid for November — and that it is future payments that are at risk if the shutdown continues.
And Wednesday night, it recalculated, telling states that there was enough money to pay for 65% of the maximum benefits.
Under a decades-old formula in federal regulations, everyone who received less than the maximum benefit would get a larger percentage reduction. Some families would have received nothing and some single people and two-person households could have gotten as little as $16.
Carmel Scaife, a former day care owner in Milwaukee who hasn’t been able to work since receiving multiple severe injuries in a car accident seven years ago, said she normally receives $130 a month from SNAP. She said that despite bargain hunting, that is not nearly enough for a month’s worth of groceries.
Scaife, 56, said that any cuts to her benefit will mean she will need to further tap her Social Security income for groceries. “That’ll take away from the bills that I pay,” she said. “But that’s the only way I can survive.”
The next legal step is unclear
This type of order is usually not subject to an appeal, but the Trump administration has challenged other rulings like it before.
An organization whose lawyers filed the challenge signaled it would continue the battle if needed.
“We shouldn’t have to force the President to care for his citizens,” Democracy Forward President and CEO Skye Perryman said in a statement, “but we will do whatever is necessary to protect people and communities.”
It often takes SNAP benefits a week or more to be loaded onto debit cards once states initiate the process.
Several prominent Christian organizations denounced the administration’s plan to slash refugee resettlement and to prioritize white South Africans.
By Ja'han Jones
The Trump administration’s newly announced policy of minimizing refugee admissions — from around 125,000 to 7,500 — while giving priority to white Afrikaners from South Africa has prompted a rebuke from the kinds of evangelical groups one might expect to see among the MAGA faithful.
To slash refugee resettlement to historic lows while granting privilege to white South Africans, all while peddling bigoted lies about anti-white oppression in their home country, is an unmistakably racist move by the administration. It also creates problems for churches that welcome new members from around the world, including refugees from places where Christians may be facing persecution.
Many faith groups appear alarmed by the new policy. Christianity Today quoted Matthew Soerens, an executive for the Christian humanitarian organization World Relief, saying the new policy “is slamming the door on persecuted Christians, along with those persecuted for other reasons.”
Bishop Mark Seitz, chairman of the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops, issued a critical statement, urging the administration to grant “due consideration for all those who have long awaited their opportunity for relief.” He continued:
We cannot turn a blind eye to the disparate treatment of refugees currently taking place. As exemptions are considered, it is essential that they be applied consistently and without discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or national origin, in accordance with longstanding domestic and international norms. Resettlement tainted by the perception of unjust discrimination is contrary to Catholic teaching and quintessential American values, grounded in our Constitution and refugee laws, including the equality of every person from the moment of their creation by God.
Several other faith-based organizations — including Church World Service, which represents a network of Christian humanitarian groups — have denounced the changes to the refugee resettlement program as well.
The administration faced backlash previously from faith groups over cuts to health care and food assistance in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, as well as the administration’s harsh anti-immigration policies.
It’s ironic that these groups are sounding the alarm on the dangers and difficulties being creating for Christians abroad by an administration that has so visibly aligned itself with right-wing Christians and that portrays itself as a defender of Christianity — even as it is led by an adjudicated sex abuser who has worried publicly on several occasions that he doesn’t think he’s going to heaven.
U.S. President Donald Trump's approval rating has hit a second-term low, according to a pollster said to be supportive of Republican candidates.
By Kate Plummer
According to Rasmussen Reports, a pollster that has been accused of leaning toward Republican candidates but claims to be independent, Trump's net approval rating is -8 percentage points. As per their tracker, this is the president's lowest approval rating since his second term started in January.
The White House sent Newsweek a link to a post Trump made on Truth Social which read: "So many Fake Polls are being shown by the Radical Left Media, all slanted heavily toward Democrats and Far Left Wingers. In the Fair Polls, and even the Reasonable Polls, I have the Best Numbers I have ever had and, why shouldn’t I? I ended eight Wars, created the Greatest Economy in the History of our Country, kept Prices, Inflation, and Taxes down, and am setting standards for Right Track / Wrong Track for a future U.S.A. Fake News will never change, they are evil and corrupt but, as I look around my beautiful surroundings, I say to myself, 'Oh, look, I’m sitting in the Oval Office!'"
Why It Matters
Rasmussen is said to favor Republicans and Trump has in the past praised it as an accurate pollster while he has attacked others for apparent bias. Negative polling from Rasmussen will, therefore, come as a blow to his narrative.
What To Know
According to Rasmussen Report's daily tracker, 45 percent of likely U.S. voters approve of Trump's job performance while 53 percent disapprove.
It polled 1,500 likely voters and there was a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points.
The tracker showed that Trump's popularity peaked at the start of his second term, when 56 percent of people approved of him on January 23.
It has fluctuated since then and fell to 47 percent in April, when Trump first implemented his tariffs policy, and to 46 percent in October during the first few days of the ongoing government shutdown.
Mark Mitchell, head of polling at Rasmussen said Trump's approval rating was "dropping, driven strongly by independents, as you would expect in a shutdown."
"We also had polling that says people want him more focused on a domestic policy agenda, so I think that sentiment is contributing to the drop," he told Newsweek.
He added: "The drop isn't as big as the last big shut down, and his approval is higher than where [Joe] Biden and Trump were at this point before. So it's bad, but not a death knell catastrophe. And of course, my numbers don't show him doing as badly as fake polls like the AP. And of course, our poll never showed Biden doing as badly as some others, either."
It comes amid other negative polling about the president. A recent poll by The Economist/YouGov found Trump’s approval rating at its lowest level since he returned to office in January, with 39 percent of people saying they approved of the job he is doing, while 58 percent disapproving, resulting in a net approval rating of -19 points.
According to RealClearPolitics, which aggregates several polls, the president's net approval rating is at -8.9 percentage points, the lowest in his second term so far, as per the website's tracker.
The polling average found that 44.3 percent of people approve of Trump's job performance and 53.2 percent disapprove of it, amid an ongoing government shutdown.
Nate Silver, who founded 538, said in a blog that at the start of last week, Trump's net approval rating was -9.2 percentage points, but by the end it had declined to -10.8 points.
What People Are Saying
President Donald Trump said on his social media platform Truth Social on Monday: "So many Fake Polls are being shown by the Radical Left Media, all slanted heavily toward Democrats and Far Left Wingers…Fake News will never change, they are evil and corrupt but, as I look around my beautiful surroundings, I say to myself, 'Oh, look, I’m sitting in the Oval Office!'"
What Happens Next
Pollsters will continue to track Trump's approval rating throughout his presidency.
The Air Force One trip is his 13th visit to his Palm Beach country club since he returned to office and brings his taxpayer funded golf total to $60.7 million.
By S.V. Date
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump marked the first full month of the ongoing government shutdown Friday by blaming it all on Democrats and taking a $3.4 million golf trip to Florida, bringing the total that taxpayers have spent on his hobby to $60.7 million since he retook the presidency in January.
This is his 13th trip to Mar-a-Lago, his Palm Beach country club, which is across the Intracoastal Waterway from his golf course in West Palm Beach, adjacent to the county jail.
Asked about the shutdown, which has furloughed nearly 700,000 federal workers and is forcing another 700,000 to continue working without pay, Trump blamed Democrats. He told reporters after arriving on Air Force One: “It’s their fault. Everything is their fault.”
During the flight south, he spent time posting photos of his latest renovation project at the White House, redoing the Lincoln bathroom in ornate marble and gold. “The Refurbished Lincoln Bathroom in the White House — Highly polished, Statuary marble!” he wrote.
Trump has already paved over the Rose Garden and turned it into a budget-hotel style patio and more recently tore down the entire 123-year-old East Wing to make room for a massive ballroom.
In his first nine months in office, Trump has played golf at his own resorts in Florida, New Jersey and Scotland 76 times. If he plays golf Saturday, it will be his 77th day on one of his courses on his 286th day in office, meaning he will have played golf on 27 percent of his second-term days. This includes a golf vacation in Scotland that cost taxpayers some $10 million during which he had the White House promote his opening of a new course at his resort in Aberdeen.
During his first term, from 2017 to 2021, Trump played a total of 293 days of golf on courses he owns and cost taxpayers $151.5 million to do so.
Three recent court rulings disqualifying top prosecutors reveal higher stakes for the U.S. attorney who indicted James Comey and Letitia James.
By Erica Orden and Kyle Cheney
President Donald Trump’s effort to install loyalist U.S. attorneys without Senate approval could sink the Justice Department’s criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
In recent weeks, federal courts in New Jersey, Nevada and California have ruled that unusual maneuvers by the Justice Department to appoint Trump’s unvetted prosecutors violated federal law. Their rulings are a prelude to the potential disqualification of a fourth Trump-backed U.S. attorney: his former personal lawyer Lindsey Halligan, who brought the charges against Comey and James.
The rulings against the three interim U.S. attorneys point to the likelihood, legal experts say, that Halligan’s high-profile prosecutions of Comey and James could collapse alongside her own appointment. That’s because the judges concluded that despite the invalid appointments, the prosecutions brought by those disqualified U.S. attorneys could survive because — unlike the Halligan-led prosecutions — they were also approved by career prosecutors who were validly appointed.
Halligan, however, secured the indictments of Comey and James by herself, an indication that career prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia resisted bringing the cases. Critics have described the prosecutions as political retribution, noting that Trump has vowed revenge against Comey and James for their involvement in previous investigations into him.
If Halligan’s appointment is deemed invalid, “there are serious questions about whether the indictment in the Comey and James prosecutions could stand,” said James Pearce, a former Justice Department appellate attorney and senior member of special counsel Jack Smith’s team.
Pearce emphasized that in the California, Nevada and New Jersey cases, judges focused on the role that career attorneys played in securing indictments. The disqualified U.S. attorneys played minimal roles in those cases, he said.
“It seems far less clear whether that rationale would apply in the [Virginia] prosecutions,” Pearce added.
Jacqueline Kelly, a former federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, said the demise of those cases coupled with Halligan’s disqualification “could be a long-term consequence of a decision that was made for short-term reasons.”
“It becomes a clash of priorities, in a sense,” she said. Kelly predicted that if the efforts to disqualify U.S. attorneys and dismiss indictments brought by them are successful, the Trump administration might reprioritize Senate confirmations. “They may refocus on … trying to persuade senators into voting for particular appointments instead of trying to do this end-run around the appointments clause.”
A spokesperson for the Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
A federal judge is set to hear arguments this month on the legality of Halligan’s appointment, which came two days after Trump pressured Attorney General Pam Bondi to quickly prosecute his political adversaries. At the time, the top prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, Erik Siebert, had reportedly resisted pressure to bring criminal charges against James, and he resigned in the wake of social media attacks by Trump.
Halligan secured the indictments against Comey and James, both prominent Trump foes, within her first three weeks on the job. But because Bondi appointed Halligan as interim U.S. attorney after having previously appointed Siebert to the interim role, both Comey and James have argued that Halligan was installed in violation of federal law and should be disqualified.
Meanwhile, legal challenges against other interim U.S. attorneys continue across the country. The case against Alina Habba, Trump’s pick to be New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor, is the most advanced. A panel of appeals court judges is set to rule on whether to uphold a district judge’s determination in August that she is serving illegally because she remained in charge after her 120-day interim appointment expired. The three judges on the panel, including a Trump appointee, appeared skeptical of her appointment during oral arguments last month.
Should the government lose at the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, it could appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. But even if Habba is ultimately deemed to be invalid, that may not jeopardize the prosecutions of the defendants who challenged her appointment, since their indictments were secured with the assistance of career prosecutors.
And it may not affect some of Habba’s most notable cases, including the prosecution of Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver following a scuffle outside a federal immigration facility. That’s because McIver was indicted in June, during Habba’s tenure as interim U.S. attorney, prior to when the Trump administration used unconventional tactics to keep her in the job.
In September, a federal judge ruled that the top federal prosecutor in Nevada, Sigal Chattah, was disqualified from handling cases. The judge said she couldn’t supervise the prosecutions of any defendants who challenged her authority “or any attorneys in the handling of these cases.”
U.S. District Judge David Campbell, a George W. Bush appointee, didn’t dismiss the indictments because they were signed by career prosecutors in addition to Chattah. The government is appealing Campbell’s ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
And in California, a federal judge disqualified Bill Essayli, the top prosecutor in the Los Angeles area, saying he should have departed the post by July 31. U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright, a George W. Bush appointee, also concluded that despite Essayli serving invalidly, indictments he brought should not be dismissed because they were signed by legally-appointed career prosecutors in his office.
Two-thirds of Americans say that the country is "pretty seriously off on the wrong track," while just under a third say the country is moving in the right direction, according to an ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll conducted using Ipsos' KnowledgePanel.
By Emily Guskin
Overall, Americans seem unhappy and anxious, with a slim majority saying the economy has gotten worse since President Donald Trump took office and majorities saying that both major parties and the president are out of touch. A majority of Americans are also growing increasingly concerned over the government shutdown.
Far more Democrats (95%) and independents (77%) say the country is "pretty seriously off on the wrong track" than Republicans (29%), along with larger shares of Black (87%), Hispanic (71%) and Asian (71%) Americans than white Americans (61%). Majorities of Americans in urban, suburban and rural areas say the country is moving in the wrong direction, as well as those with varying levels of education and income.
Although 67% say the country is moving in the wrong direction, that is a decrease from November 2024, when 75% said the same in the lead-up to the presidential election.
About 6 in 10 Americans blame Trump for the current rate of inflation while more than 6 in 10 disapprove of how Trump is handling tariffs, the economy and managing the federal government; majorities also disapprove on how he is handling several other issues.
And 64% of Americans say Trump is "going too far" in trying to expand the power of the presidency.
Nearly half of Americans (48%) say America’s leadership in the world has gotten weaker under Trump, while a third (33%) say it has gotten stronger and about 2 in 10 say it is the same (18%) -- numbers that have not shifted significantly during his second term.
Though it's still a year from until the midterm elections, Americans’ negative ratings on the state of the country, the economy and the president do not bode well for the president’s party in congressional election voting.
Economy
A slim 52% majority of Americans say the economy has gotten worse since Trump became president while 27% say the economy has improved and 20% say it has stayed the same. The share saying the economy is "much worse" outweighs the share saying it is "much better" by almost 3-to-1, 26% vs. 9%.
While the share saying the economy is better overall has increased from April by 6 percentage points, the share saying it is worse has barely shifted. Fewer say it is the "same" now (20%) than in April (25%).
Nearly 6 in 10 of those with household incomes under $50,000 say the economy is worse since Trump became president (57%).
About 6 in 10 Americans blame Trump for the current rate of inflation, including about a third who say he bears a "great deal" of blame, compared with 4 in 10 who say he does not bear much responsibility for inflation.
Majorities of Democrats (92%) and independents (66%) say Trump is to blame for the current rate of inflation, along with 20% of Republicans. Majorities across income groups say Trump is to blame for inflation.
The share of Americans saying they are "not as well off" financially than when Trump became president outweighs the share saying they are "better off" by about 2-to-1, 37% to 18%. A 45% plurality says their finances are "about the same."
Trump approval
Trump’s disapproval rating has ticked up over the course of the year and he is underwater on that and on key issues measured in the ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll.
In all, 59% of Americans disapprove of how Trump is handling his job as president while 41% approve, putting him 18 percentage points underwater for net approval, similar to where he was in an April poll (16 points underwater) and worse than the beginning of his second term in February (8 points underwater).
Currently, Trump’s strong disapproval rating outweighs his strong approval rating by more than 2-to-1, 46% to 20%.
Trump issue approval
Majorities of Americans also disapprove of how Trump is handling every issue measured in the poll. Over 6 in 10 disapprove of how Trump is handling tariffs, the economy and managing the federal government. About 6 in 10 disapprove of how he is handling the situation involving Russia and Ukraine and relations with other countries. More than half disapprove of how he is handling immigration, crime and the situation with Israel and Gaza. He does not have approval from most Americans on a single issue measured.
More say they are doing better now than in April, when 10% said they were better off.
Trump’s approval rating peaks on handling the situation with Israel and Gaza: 46% approve and 52% disapprove -- better than his September ratings, when 39% approved and 58% disapproved in a Post-Ipsos poll. Notably, Trump helped negotiate a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel since that September poll.
His approval ratings on other issues have either worsened or remained stable. He currently has his worst numerical rating on handling the economy over his two terms as president, with 37% approving and 62% disapproving. Trump’s approval rating on the economy peaked in March 2020 with 57% approving of how he was handling the issue and 38% disapproving. A majority has disapproved of his handling of the economy since February 2025.
Trump’s approval rating on managing the federal government has also declined, according to the poll.
The president’s ratings on immigration, tariffs, crime, relations with other countries, Russia and Ukraine and crime have barely budged since September’s Post-Ipsos poll.
Majorities of Americans also say Trump is "going too far" trying to expand the power of the presidency (64%), laying off government employees to cutting the size of the federal workforce (57%), sending the National Guard to patrol U.S. cities (55%) and trying to make changes in how U.S. colleges and universities operate (54%).
And roughly half say he’s going too far trying to end diversity, equity and inclusion programs in the government and private workplaces (51%), deporting undocumented immigrants (50%), closing pathways for immigrants to legally remain (50%) and enter (48%) the United States and trying to end efforts to increase diversity in government and private workplaces (47%).
Americans are split over how much Trump has accomplished during his presidency, with 48% saying he has done at least "a good amount" and 51% saying he has done "not very much," "little or nothing."
Among those who say Trump has accomplished a good amount or more in the last nine months, more say that what he did was good for the country rather than bad for it -- just about 4 in 10 Americans overall.
Midterms
Negative ratings for an incumbent president are not positive indicators for his party come midterm elections.
A year out from the 2026 midterms, voters are largely split between supporting the Democratic and Republican candidates, with 46% of registered voters saying they would support the Democratic candidate if the U.S. House of Representatives election were being held today, and 44% supporting the Republican candidate. Among the broader population of U.S. adults, 42% said they would support the Democratic candidate and 39% said they would support the Republican.
In a November 2021 ABC News/Washington Post poll, a year before the 2022 midterms, voters had a 10-percentage-point preference for Republican candidates, and Republicans won the House. In a November 2017 ABC News/Washington Post poll, voters had an 11-percentage-point preference for Democratic candidates. And in 2018, Democrats won the House.
Crime
More Americans see crime as a serious problem in large U.S. cities than where they live or the U.S. overall. About 6 in 10 Americans say crime is either "extremely" (29%) or "very" (32%) serious in large U.S. cities, while about half say crime is serious in the U.S. overall and just under 2 in 10 say the same for the areas where they live.
The share saying crime in the U.S. is "extremely" serious (17%) is down from 2023 and 2024 when about a quarter of Americans said the same, according to Gallup polling.
Just 8% of Americans say crime is extremely serious where they live, a figure that has remained in the single digits since Gallup began tracking it in 2000 -- but numerically higher than it has been in the years since then.
Republicans are far more likely to say crime in large U.S. cities is "extremely serious" (42%) than Democrats (17%) or independents (27%).
ICE and National Guard
Americans are split over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detaining and deporting undocumented immigrations in the U.S. overall, in large cities and where they live.
About 6 in 10 Republicans "strongly" support the ICE surge in the U.S., large cities and where they live, while about two-thirds of Democrats strongly oppose them. More independents oppose expanded ICE deportations than support them.
Roughly 6 in 10 Americans (57%) say that ICE and Homeland Security agents should not be allowed to wear masks or face coverings while on duty, while about 4 in 10 (41%) say it should be allowed. Majorities of Democrats (88%) and independents (64%) say it should not be allowed while a majority of Republicans (77%) say agents should be allowed to cover their faces while on duty.
A similar share of Americans (58%) say that a U.S. president should not be able to order the National Guard into a state over the objections of that state's governor; 40% say a U.S. president should be allowed to. About 9 in 10 Democrats and two-thirds of independents say this should not be allowed; 8 in 10 Republicans say the president should be able to send the National Guard into a state even if its governor objects.
Trump on international issues
Nearly half of Americans (47%) say Trump is spending "about the right amount of time" on international crises, while around one-third say he’s spending "too much time" (32%) and about 2 in 10 say he is spending "too little time" on international crises (19%).
Just about 4 in 10 say Trump deserves "a great deal" or "a good amount" of credit for the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas (39%) and just over 4 in 10 say he deserves "just some credit" or "none" (43%).
On Russia and Ukraine, 46% say Trump is "too supportive of Russia," 8% say he is "too supportive of Ukraine" and 41% say he is handling it about right.
Politically motivated violence
By 34% to 28%, more Americans blame the Republican Party than the Democratic Party for politically motivated violence in the U.S. with another 28% saying they are both equally to blame and 9% saying neither is to blame.
Since 2022, more Americans have blamed the Republican Party for political violence than the Democratic Party, according to the poll.
A POLITICO review of the rulings shows judges appointed by every president since Ronald Reagan have rebuked the administration’s new interpretation of immigration law.
By Kyle Cheney
It’s one of the most thorough legal rebukes in recent memory.
More than 100 federal judges have now ruled at least 200 times that the Trump administration’s effort to systematically detain immigrants facing possible deportation appeared to violate their rights or was just flatly illegal, according to a POLITICO review.
The rulings come from judges appointed by every president since Ronald Reagan, including 12 appointed by President Donald Trump. One of those appointees took the bench just last month.
Since July 8, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement reversed 30 years of practice and determined that ICE must lock up everyone facing deportation — even if they’ve lived in the country for decades and have no criminal record — federal courts have issued increasing warnings. The new ICE policy, they note, doesn’t just subject millions more people to detention while they fight deportation, it also bars them from even asking an immigration judge to consider releasing them on bond.
“Courts around the country have since rejected the government’s new interpretation,” U.S. District Judge Kyle Dudek, a Florida-based Trump appointee, ruled Wednesday. “This Court now joins the consensus.”
Other Trump-appointed judges who have ruled against the administration’s position include Terry Doughty in Louisiana, Nancy Brasel in Minnesota, J.P. Hanlon in Indiana and Jason Pulliam in Texas.
Pulliam ruled Oct. 21 that one ICE detainee, who had been held without any “individualized assessment” of his dangerousness, was deprived of his constitutional due process rights.
The onslaught of legal rejections has come in hundreds of individual cases, typically filed on an emergency basis after ICE’s targets are arrested at courthouses or check-ins with immigration officers. Though a handful of class action lawsuits have been filed seeking to block the administration’s expanded detention policy, they have advanced slowly and seem weeks — perhaps months — from resolution. One case broke through Thursday, however, when U.S. District Judge Patti Saris, an appointee of Bill Clinton, approved a statewide class for immigrants in Massachusetts who are subject to the mandatory detention policy.
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson noted that the administration’s position was recently upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals, an executive branch court that sets policy for immigration judges — also appointed and overseen by the Trump administration.
“President Trump and Secretary Noem are now enforcing this law as it was actually written to keep America safe,” said Tricia McLaughlin, who predicted appellate courts would side with the administration.
The Justice Department echoed DHS, saying “President Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda is a top national security priority that this Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend whenever challenged in court.”
But federal judges have explicitly rejected the immigration court’s position, saying it flies in the face of decades of precedent.
In recent days, the response from the courts has been deafening. The new detention policy, judges repeatedly ruled, has ripped parents from U.S. citizen spouses and children and subjected them to abrupt transfers all over the country, on flimsy, untested legal grounds.
“The overwhelming majority of district courts across the country, including this Court, that have considered [the Trump administration’s] new statutory interpretation have found it incorrect and unlawful,” ruled U.S. District Judge Richard Boulware, an appointee of Barack Obama.
The Trump administration contends that the new detention policy is a better reading of immigration law that no administration had adopted. Anyone in the U.S. who is an “applicant for admission” to the country is subject to “mandatory detention,” ICE argues. Though previous administrations considered only those arriving at the border or seeking permission to enter as “applicants for admission,” the Trump administration says the label applies to anyone residing in the United States, no matter how long they have lived here.
But courts across the country say this is a misreading that has resulted in abuses. Those who have lived in the U.S. are not “applicants for admission” under the law and must be given an opportunity to contest their detention before an immigration judge or federal court, they say.
According to POLITICO’s analysis, the bulk of rulings against the Trump administration’s position has come from judges appointed by Democratic Presidents Joe Biden (50), Obama (31) and Clinton (6). But the decisions have been resoundingly adopted across political lines. Judges appointed by Republican presidents — Trump (12), George W. Bush (12), George H.W. Bush (1) and Reagan (2) — have reached the same conclusions.
Only two judges, meanwhile, have adopted the administration’s position: one appointed by Obama and another by Trump.
The lopsided results have outpaced another similar wave of legal rebukes by federal district courts over the administration’s decision to threaten the legal status of thousands of foreign students studying at American schools. The legal pushback led the administration to withdraw its policy.
Despite the overwhelming consensus in the detention cases, the administration is pinning its hopes on appellate courts to reverse the tide. The Justice Department, in recent days, has begun appealing many of the adverse decisions.
The decision, in response to a lawsuit from nonprofits and cities, comes ahead of a Saturday funding cliff for the nation’s largest anti-hunger program.
By Marcia Brown
A federal judge in Rhode Island directed the Trump administration to use emergency money to fund November food aid benefits for millions of Americans.
U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr.’s oral order Friday came just before the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the nation’s largest anti-hunger program, is set to run out of money this weekend. Trump administration officials have not yet indicated whether they will appeal the ruling.
McConnell, an Obama appointee, affirmed the complaint of several cities and nonprofits that sued USDA over its decision not to use emergency money to support food aid during the government shutdown. The move, plaintiffs argued, “needlessly plunged SNAP into crisis.”
His order went further than that of another federal judge in Massachusetts, who issued a near-simultaneous ruling Friday afternoon asking the Trump administration to decide by Monday if it would voluntarily fund at least some SNAP benefits.
“Defendants are required to use those Contingency Funds as necessary for the SNAP program,” U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, also an Obama appointee, wrote, noting that USDA can pull from multiple sources of funding to fully support November benefits.
USDA and the Office of Management and Budget did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Trump officials have insisted they don’t have the authority to use a $5 billion contingency fund and don’t have enough money to pay for the nearly $8 billion required for November SNAP benefits.
President Donald Trump reiterated his administration’s position in a post on Truth Social on Friday night. He confirmed that benefits will be delayed, even with the court rulings.
“I have instructed our lawyers to ask the Court to clarify how we can legally fund SNAP as soon as possible,” he wrote. “If we are given the appropriate legal direction by the Court, it will BE MY HONOR to provide the funding, just like I did with Military and Law Enforcement Pay.”
Trump officials say it could take days and, in many cases, weeks to get SNAP benefits to low-income Americans, especially since the administration has not stood up a system since the shutdown began to disperse any partial funds.
“The court’s ruling protects millions of families, seniors, and veterans from being used as leverage in a political fight and upholds the principle that no one in America should go hungry,” said Democracy Forward President and CEO Skye Perryman, co-counsel on the Rhode Island lawsuit, in a statement Friday.
The vote comes while the president is in Asia touting his trade agenda.
By Daniel Desrochers
The Senate once again rebuked President Donald Trump on tariffs, a vote that comes as the president is in Asia touting tariffs and notching progress on trade agreements.
Senators on Tuesday voted 52-48 to terminate the national emergency Trump declared in order to impose 50 percent tariffs on most Brazilian goods in July. Five Republican Senators joined the Democrats in the vote: Thom Tillis (N.C.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Rand Paul (Ky.), the measure’s co-sponsor.
The vote — the first in a series of three expected resolutions aiming to block President Trump’s tariffs on Brazil and Canada as well as his widespread global tariffs — comes amid bubbling tension in the Senate over how Trump’s trade war has affected farmers and small businesses.
Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments over whether Trump has overstepped his authority by using an emergency law to impose tariffs on nearly every country in the world.
“Emergencies are like war, famine [and] tornadoes,” said Paul, the most vocal opponent of Trump’s tariffs in the Senate. “Not liking someone’s tariffs is not an emergency. It’s an abuse of the emergency power and it’s Congress abdicating their traditional role in taxes.”
But the vote remains largely symbolic: Republican leaders in the House have blocked the chamber from voting to overrule the tariffs until March, protecting Republican members who are facing blowback from home state farmers and small businesses angry over the economic impact.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a co-sponsor on the Canada and global tariff resolutions, said he is hearing rising discontent among “Republican senators who go home and they just feel like they’re getting hit by a trade wrecking ball.”
“People come up and say ‘the tariffs are killing us.’ You go to the grocery store and everybody’s up in arms,” continued Wyden, a ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees trade issues.
Trump announced that he would impose a 50 percent tariff in July, in response to what he felt was an unfair legal case against former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro — a Trump ally — over his role in attempting to overturn the results of the country’s 2022 election, as well as over a Brazil’s policies on digital content, which has ensnared U.S. social media companies.
In his order imposing the tariffs, Trump declared a national emergency over “the scope and gravity of the recent policies, practices, and actions of the Government of Brazil constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.”
That order has received pushback from some in Congress, including Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who argued that by allowing the president to declare an emergency over a country’s treatment of a political ally would open the door to broader use of national emergencies to govern.
“Don’t lie and say there’s an energy emergency when there isn’t,” said Kaine, who sponsored the resolution. “Don’t lie and say Brazil’s prosecution of a president is an emergency when it’s not. Don’t use the lie to increase the price of coffee by 40 percent in a year. Don’t use the lie to punish a country with whom we have a trade surplus. Don’t lie and don’t hurt my citizens.”
Almost two-thirds of Americans disapprove of President Trump’s White House ballroom plan, according to a poll.
By Tara Suter
In the Yahoo/YouGov poll, 61 percent of respondents said they did not support Trump’s plan to add a ballroom, while 25 percent backed the move.
The demolition of the East Wing of the White House to make space for Trump’s vision of a massive ballroom has caused a large outcry from critics. Destruction of the East Wing was completed last week, with excavators first spotted tearing it apart at the beginning of the week.
The East Wing previously held the office of first lady Melania Trump, the offices of the White House social secretary and calligrapher, the movie theater and the presidential bunker.
Twenty-six percent in the Yahoo/YouGov poll said they supported the East Wing’s demolition for the ballroom, while 57 percent were against it and 11 percent were unsure.
The Yahoo/YouGov poll took place Oct. 23-27, featuring 1,770 people and had 3.1 percentage points as its margin of error.
The governor said Trump will try to advance his agenda "by any means necessary."
By Ivan Pereira
California Gov. Gavin Newsom said the country is facing a "five-alarm fire" as President Donald Trump tries to "win by any means necessary" to advance his agenda.
"I really am scared to death about what's going on in this country. I really believe it is Code Red. It's five alarm fire," Newsom told ABC News' Jonathan Karl.
"We won't have a country. We won't have an election that's fair and free if we don't stand up. We won't. There will not be a fair and free election. It'll be a Putin election. Was it 87% or is it 87.3%? That's what Trump wants."
"All the pardoning, all the, this, this great grift -- the biggest, most corrupt administration in history. Not just the $400 million plane, but the billion dollars of your tax money, as we're cutting food stamps to pay for the damn plane so he can take that toy home with his foundation when he's 93 or whatever he's done with his fourth or fifth term."
"I'm deeply concerned about it. And guys like [former Trump adviser Steve] Bannon, they're not screwing around. They're not screwing around."
"I'm afraid we're going to lose our country. And where the hell is everybody? Why aren't we standing up to principle?" Newsom asked.
"I'm disgusted what's happened in this country. I'm disgusted by the supine Congress. I'm disgusted by how the private sector is conducting themselves. I'm disgusted by universities selling their soul and law firms. I'm disgusted that people are not more outraged. Forgive me," Newsom continued.
Newsom contrasted the "childishness" of Trump to former President Joe Biden, who he called "one of the most successful presidents in the last century."
Newsom told Karl that while he did have disagreements with the former president on issues such as the border, the governor celebrated Biden's long list of accomplishments that he said are being wiped out by Trump.
"I will defend that to my grave in terms of the CHIPS and Science Act. The infrastructure bill, the work he did on the IRA. The fact that he had a worker-centered industrial policy, and the fact that those are the right policies for this country," Newsom said in the interview that aired Wednesday on ABC News Live.
The governor slammed Trump for his policy actions but expressed more anger at the trolling Trump has done on social media and in interviews
The two-term Democrat cited the president posting a photoshopped image of himself as the Pope and Superman and on Mount Rushmore as some of the wildest examples.
Newsom said he's countering the president by putting "a mirror up to Trump and his childishness" through his own social media trolling over the last few months. The governor has posted images on his social media accounts belittling Trump's appearance on a Time magazine cover, and another that depicted the president as Marie Antoinette.
"To put a mirror up to this absurdity to call people out for their complicity. I mean, this is the president of the United States. These are mirroring what he has done, and people have allowed this to be normalized," he said.
Newsom said he's not worried about retribution from the president, noting that Trump has already punished California by cutting back on federal funding for projects such as high-speed rail.
"He's gone after us like no other state, and that's when [his and Trump's] state of mind was collaborative," he noted.
Still, the governor said that he and Trump get along "extraordinarily well," particularly in past private conversations.
"He doesn’t want interpersonal confrontation. Rare is that the case," Newsom said.
"But he'll attack in public when you're not there," Karl asked.
"Yeah, and then he'll lie about things," the governor responded. "There's nothing except it's not. It's more the same."
Newsom reflected on how the Democrats lost last year's election and some of their missteps, including handling the border. The governor noted there was a "point of real friction" between the Biden administration and himself and other governors who saw an influx of migrants.
"As I was working with the Biden administration, I said, 'You need to wake up to what's going on,'" he said.
"Folks in Colorado, in Illinois and New York and elsewhere were expressing that frustration. I think we took the wrong lessons from the midterm where we overperformed, and that was a tactical mistake, but it's also wrong, period, on policy," he added.
Newsom remained confident about the future of his party, saying that it is "now appearing to be back on their toes, not their heels." He pushed other leaders to aggressively stand up to Trump as he continues to "attack every single institution of independent thinking."
"[Trump is] succeeding because we're still playing by the old set of rules. And so my party needs to focus first and foremost on recognizing that. And then we'll reconcile, be more culturally normal, more reform-oriented, talk about service and patriotism," he said.
Who has the U.S. killed in recent boat strikes? It’s a problem that we don’t know. It’s an even bigger problem that the administration doesn’t know, either.
By Steve Benen
According to the Trump administration’s latest tally, the president has ordered 14 deadly military strikes targeting civilian boats in international waters over the last couple of months. If the administration’s statistics are accurate, at least 61 people have been killed in these operations.
Who are these people? It’s a problem that the public doesn’t know. It’s a bigger problem that apparently the Defense Department doesn’t know, either. The New York Times reported on the latest briefing members of Congress received on the boat strikes:
Representative Sara Jacobs, Democrat of California, said the Pentagon officials conceded that the administration did not know the identities of all of the individuals who were killed in the strikes. ‘They said that they do not need to positively identify individuals on the vessel to do the strikes,’ she said.
House Speaker Mike Johnson told Fox News this week that he’s seen “exquisite intelligence” about the military operations. It’s not exquisite enough, however, to include the names of the civilians the U.S. has killed through legally dubious missile strikes.
The Times’ report, which has not been independently verified by MSNBC, added, “Ms. Jacobs said Pentagon officials said they needed to prove only that the targeted people were connected to designated terrorist organizations, even if the connection is ‘as much as three hops away from a known member’ of a designated terrorist organization.”
So if you have a connection to someone who has a connection to someone whom the Trump administration considers to be part of a terrorist organization, then you should steer clear of boats and international waters for a while to avoid getting killed.
Meanwhile, a growing number of congressional Democrats have spent the week ringing alarms about the fact that the administration has failed to share any legal arguments to justify the missions or intelligence related to the operations. As NBC News reported, lawmakers from both parties criticized the administration after Democrats were not invited to a briefing on Wednesday.
A day later, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told reporters that the partisan briefing was a “new low” for the administration and “corrosive to our democracy.”
One might imagine that if the president’s policy were legal and had merit, there wouldn’t be any need for secrecy.
Users shared this true claim amid uncertainty regarding whether Americans would receive federal food benefits during the 2025 government shutdown.
By Jordan Liles
Claim:
In July 2025, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson voted in favor of a bill with a projected $186 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides federal food benefits to roughly 42 million Americans.
Rating: True
A claim that circulated online in late October 2025 said U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson had months earlier signed President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," and that the bill purportedly slashed a projected $186 billion in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program federal benefits.
The Department of Agriculture reported SNAP benefits help roughly 42 million Americans buy food. The program dates back to 1939, under the name of the Food Stamp Program.
Users shared this claim about the Louisiana Republican in the final days of October, amid shifting blame between Democrats and Republicans for the ongoing government shutdown. Top of mind for some politicians and consumers during the shutdown — uncertainty regarding whether millions of Americans would continue receiving SNAP benefits into November.
As an example of the claim, on Oct. 29, a user managing a Facebook page named The Resistance posted a meme (archived) with the caption, "Speaker Johnson 'deeply regrets' that millions of Americans will lose SNAP benefits this week, but 3 months ago, he signed a bill with $186 billion in cuts to SNAP. You can't make it make sense."
The meme displayed attribution to California Democratic U.S. Rep. Sara Jacobs' official X account, as well as a photo of Johnson and other Republicans showing thumbs up after passing the 2025 budget bill. Jacobs posted the same caption and photo of Republicans on Oct. 28.
In short, Johnson truly signed the budget bill after voting in favor of the legislation, as depicted in an authentic photo of Republicans giving thumbs up next to a desk where he added his signature. The Senate passed the bill July 1, followed by the House's passage July 3. Days earlier, on June 28, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office had projected the bill would lead to nearly $186 billion in cuts to SNAP over the 10-year period from 2025 to 2034.
The nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reported the projected cuts were the largest-ever to SNAP. It also reported that a previous version of the bill from May 2025 proposed an even larger figure of around $295 billion in cuts.
Snopes contacted Johnson's office by email to request comment regarding the claim and will update this article if we receive further information.
More on the bill's SNAP cuts
Prior to the passage of the budget bill, The Associated Press reported the CBO projected a third of the bill's SNAP cuts would shift costs to states, which administer the program to in-need Americans:
Legislation approved by Congress is projected to cut $186 billion in federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
More than one-third of those savings come from expanded work requirements for SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Another third comes by shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP.
Yet another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits, saving the federal government tens of billions of dollars by 2034.
In 2020, the CBPP highlighted the importance of SNAP not just to consumers but also to retailers and local economies. The organization specifically called SNAP "an important public-private partnership that helps families afford a basic diet, generates business for retailers and boosts local economies."
Amid uncertainty among federal food aid recipients heading into November, local TV stations WYSM in Michigan, WMUR in New Hampshire, KABB in Texas and other news media outlets reported SNAP recipients' potential lack of access to the program could hurt not just consumers but grocery stores, too, including in rural areas. KATU in Oregon also reported of a "growing need" at rural Oregon food banks following an October increase of families seeking assistance.
Johnson's 'deeply regrets' remark
Jacobs' mention of Johnson saying he "'deeply regrets' that millions of Americans will lose SNAP benefits" originated from reporting of a call between House Republicans.
On Oct. 28, Politico reported about the conversation during the call, including the "deeply regrets" quote. The outlet cited four anonymous sources. Snopes could not independently verify the quotes from the private call.
Diễn Đàn Người Việt Hải Ngoại. Tự do ngôn luận, an toàn và uy tín. Vì một tương lai tươi đẹp cho các thế hệ Việt Nam hãy ghé thăm chúng tôi, hãy tâm sự với chúng tôi mỗi ngày, mỗi giờ và mỗi giây phút có thể. VietBF.Com Xin cám ơn các bạn, chúc tất cả các bạn vui vẻ và gặp nhiều may mắn.
Welcome to Vietnamese American Community, Vietnamese European, Canadian, Australian Forum, Vietnamese Overseas Forum. Freedom of speech, safety and prestige. For a beautiful future for Vietnamese generations, please visit us, talk to us every day, every hour and every moment possible. VietBF.Com Thank you all and good luck.
