Tag: law
Donald Trump

New Polls Show Voters Rapidly Turning On Trump Over Economy

Less than 100 days into his new term, President Donald Trump and his Republican Party are hemorrhaging public support as his policies thrash the economy, threaten Americans’ Social Security and Medicaid, and blow up the rule of law.

Trump's approval rating is now well underwater, with 54 percent of registered voters disapproving of the job he’s doing as president, compared with just 42 percent approving, according to Civiqs’ tracker. Voters seem to be deeply repelled by his handling of the economy, inflation, and even immigration—an issue he's usually held an advantage on.

This is terrible news for Republicans both for critical upcoming gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia in November, and for the rest of the GOP in the 2026 midterms.

For example, a Morning Consult poll released Tuesday morning found that for the first time since 2021, more voters trust Democrats on the economy than they do Republicans, by a 46 to 43 percent margin.

"That three-percentage-point edge for Democrats—their largest since April 2021—underlines a stark unraveling for the GOP, which had come off the 2024 election with a double-digit advantage on the matter," Morning Consult wrote.

The evaporation of Republicans’ edge on economic issues comes as they defend the tariffs Trump has levied on nearly every country in the world. Those tariffs are threatening to explode inflation, sink the country into a recession, and cost thousands of Americans their livelihoods.

Even worse for Republicans is that Morning Consult found congressional Democrats are now viewed more favorably than congressional Republicans.

"For the first time since just before the 2024 election, the average voter is more likely to hold positive than negative views about Democrats in Congress (47 to 46 percent). It leaves them more popular than Republicans in Congress, whose favorability ratings are now 10 points underwater," Morning Consult reported.

A new poll conducted by YouGov for the University of Massachusetts at Amherst also finds similarly poor results for the GOP. In it, voters overwhelmingly disapprove of Trump's handling of inflation (33 percent approve, 62 percent disapprove), trade (36 percent approve, 58 percent disapprove), jobs (38 percent approve, 53 percent disapprove), and foreign affairs (36 percent approve, 53 percent disapprove). The poll also finds just 50 percent approve of his handling of immigration—often his strongest issue in polling—while 46 percent disapprove.

Meanwhile, a Quinnipiac University poll from last week found Trump underwater on immigration, with 45 percent approving of his handling of it and 50 percent disapproving.

“Despite what you’ve probably heard, Trump’s immigration agenda isn’t actually popular,” G. Elliottt Morris, a reporter who led the now-defunct news outlet 538, wrote in a post on X. “While Americans tend to approve of ‘the way he is handling immigration’ in abstract, they are very negative on the details.”

For example, voters strongly disapprove of Trump’s policy of deporting undocumented immigrants without criminal records, Morris found. They also strongly oppose sending such immigrants to foreign prisons.

Trump is refusing to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an immigrant from El Salvador that Trump sent to that prison known as CECOT, despite an order from the Supreme Court to do so.

“The media narrative is that ‘Trump is popular on immigration.’ But as we can see, that is not really true,” Morris wrote in a blog post. “On the specifics of his policy, and especially on the on-the-ground implementation, Americans are mostly opposed to what his administration is doing. (And the data above should probably be considered an overestimate, since the polls I've used are old and conducted before the Abrego Garcia news.)”

Ultimately, Trump is not immune to political gravity. And if voters have already soured on his agenda less than 100 days into his term, things could get even uglier for Trump and his party if he doesn’t reverse course.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

How Will Chief Justice Roberts Tame The Monster He Created?

How Will Chief Justice Roberts Tame The Monster He Created?

The Constitution does not have a clause which states specifically, “either we have laws and follow them, or we don’t.” The closest the Constitution comes is in Article II, Section 3, where it is mandated that “the president shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This clause is violated each day when Donald Trump awakens and opens his eyes. He committed the offense of insider trading last week, when two hours before he relaxed his onerous tariffs, he posted on Truth Social that it was “a good time to buy!” signaling to his friends that stocks would be recovering from the dive they took when he imposed the tariffs in the first place.

Trump is running a lawless presidency right out in the open and announcing that fact practically every day because he has been given permission by the Supreme Court to ignore not only norms and traditions observed by previous presidents, but the law itself.

Today, a law-abiding (if undocumented) migrant is the victim of Trump’s blatantly illegal behavior. The most frightening thing about the first three months of Trump’s second term is not knowing where we stand. Unless and until Chief Justice John Roberts decides to step up and draw some lines, there are no limits on Donald Trump. Even if that happens, it remains to be seen whether Trump will deign to adhere to judicially imposed limits. He is already in violation of two district court orders and one order by the Supreme Court itself.

We are learning a grim lesson: Democracies don’t necessarily die in darkness but in the sunlight of outright defiance of the law by a president charged with its enforcement.

Reprinted with permission from Lucian Truscott Newsletter.

House Republican Furious Over New York Social Security Office Closing

House Republican Furious Over New York Social Security Office Closing

One House Republican in a swing district is now publicly rebuking President Donald Trump's administration after one of his budget cuts directly impacted his constituents.

Acting Social Security Administration (SSA) head Leland Dudek recently announced that he would be not be renewing the lease on the agency's office in White Plains, New York when it comes up on May 31, and that he was rejecting a bipartisan effort by Reps. George Latimer (D-NY) and Mike Lawler (R-NY) to keep it open. Dudek attributed the closure to persistent mold issues in the building that the General Services Administration (GSA) had been unable to address.

In a letter to Dudek, both Latimer and Lawler emphasized that the White Plains office was the only one serving residents in the Lower Hudson Valley, and that closing it would make it that much harder for their constituents to be able to attend hearings that will determine their benefits. He tweeted: "Concerns about mold don’t justify abandoning folks in the Lower Hudson Valley."

"The decision to close the only Social Security Hearing Office in the Hudson Valley is a slap in the face to thousands of my constituents who rely on these services," Lawler stated. "This office handles over 2,000 backlogged cases and conducts hundreds of in-person hearings every year. Telling my constituents that they now have to travel hours to Lower Manhattan, New Haven, the Bronx or Goshen is completely unacceptable."

According to South African centibillionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the lease on the White Plains office is approximately $511,000 per year. And that lease is one of nearly two dozen cancelled for the SSA across multiple states. Like Reps. Latimer and Lawler, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has cautioned against closing the White Plains office, stressing that the building is vital for thousands of New Yorkers who rely on SSA benefits.

"As the only hearing office in the lower Hudson Valley region, it’s closure will negatively impact thousands of constituents who reside in these seven counties," Gillibrand wrote in a February letter. "If SSA does not open an alternative site, beneficiaries will be required to travel between 24 and 135 miles to be serviced by the closest office in New York City, Albany, New Jersey and Connecticut."

Lawler's public stance against one of Trump's budget cuts is particularly noteworthy, given that he recently lauded the administration's efforts to cut out "waste, fraud and abuse" in government agencies during a tele-town hall. The New York Republican didn't specifically talk about DOGE's cuts to the SSA, but he did tell constituents: "There are things they're doing that I think are beneficial. There are other things where I think they're going very fast, and they need to dot their i's and cross their t's before pulling the trigger."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Murdoch Newspapers Split With Fox News Over Trump's Lawless Chaos

Murdoch Newspapers Split With Fox News Over Trump's Lawless Chaos

In recent days, Fox News has vociferously defended President Donald Trump for deporting some 250 people to El Salvador and attacked the judge who tried to stop the flights. In contrast, the network's sister outlets The Wall Street Journal and New York Post have published strong editorials and op-eds supporting the role of the judiciary, arguing that Republicans and the Trump administration are employing a “terrible tactic” and entering into a “disreputable racket” by advocating for the judge’s impeachment.

After invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 — which allows the government to deport people without the due process of immigration law and was previously used to intern Japanese Americans during World War II — to target the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, the Trump administration deported some 250 alleged gang members to El Salvador. Many of the deported migrants reportedly had no criminal records in the U.S. After civil rights organizations filed a lawsuit, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg ordered that the deportations be halted and flights already in progress return to the U.S. The Trump administration nevertheless continued the flights in “possible defiance” of the judge’s order.

Since this legal skirmish, the Trump administration has escalated its rhetoric against the judiciary. Trump “border czar” Tom Homan told Fox News on March 17, “We’re not stopping. I don't care what the judges think. I don’t care what the left thinks. We’re coming.” Trump himself attacked Boasberg, calling for his impeachment on Truth Social.

Homan’s views appear to be normative at Fox, with network figures attacking Boasberg’s credibility and seemingly coalescing around the idea that he lacks the authority to issue such an order. On March 18, Fox News legal editor Kerri Urbahn said Boasberg “was not elected president of the United States and therefore does not have authority over matters pertaining to immigration, national security, and foreign policy.”

She continued, “You have judges who are unilaterally inserting themselves into the executive branch, interfering with the president and his team’s ability to carry out his agenda.” Fox host Jeanine Pirro called Boasberg “stupid” for thinking he can stop Trump’s deportation actions. Her co-host Dana Perino belittled the judge, saying Boasberg’s ruling is like “when a low-level security officer gets a whistle, and then they just want to blow it all the time, and they feel powerful with the whistle.”

One of Fox News’ prime-time hosts, Jesse Watters, seemed to suggest that Boasberg could have a “conflict of interest” in the case due to the political leanings of his family members.

Fox News also praised the Trump administration’s deal with El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele to utilize a Salvadoran mega prison — which, according to human rights’ agencies, has been responsible for repeated human rights violations — to house the deported migrants. Fox News contributor Sara Carter, who visited the prison in 2024, called it “incredible” on Hannity and praised Bukele, saying he “was able to clean up his nation and remove these nefarious, horrible people off the streets that were holding his citizens prisoner.” She added, “The cooperation you’re seeing between President Bukele and President Trump is so significant. We cannot stop this problem in the Western Hemisphere without this type of cooperation.”

By contrast, Murdoch print outlets seem to be taking Trump’s attacks on the judges seriously.

While the Wall Street Journal expressed support for the deportations of alleged gang members, it noted in its March 17 editorial that it is “troubling to see U.S. officials appear to disdain the law in the name of upholding it.” The outlet took particular issue with the Trump administration’s “reliance” on Bukele, calling it “troubling” and noting: “Gang violence [in El Salvador] is down and he’s popular, but his methods border on the barbaric. The country was desperate, but Mr. Bukele has destroyed independent legal institutions rather than restore the rule of law.”

The New York Post published a similar opinion the next day, saying, “Playing footsie with judicial disobedience — and calling for retribution against judges whom the administration dislikes — is a terrible tactic.” The piece also noted, “It’s more important than ever for the judiciary to remain an independent force capable of standing in the breach.”

On March 18, as Trump and Republicans continued to escalate tensions with the judiciary, calling for Boasberg’s impeachment, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts put out a rare statement rebuking such calls. Roberts wrote, “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” Later that night, Trump doubled down on his attack and called Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic Judge [who] wants to assume the role of President.”

The next day, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial titled “Chief Justice Roberts Rejects GOP Calls to Impeach Judges” that called the impeachment of judges the Trump administration disagrees with a “disreputable racket.” The Journal’s editorial board wrote that such an action is “rare and is typically pursued only amid evidence of corruption,” and warned, “If impeachment is the remedy for every adverse judicial ruling, we wouldn’t have a judiciary left.”

Yet again, Fox News went to bat for the president. Pirro, a former judge herself, said it was “inappropriate” for Roberts to put out a statement, adding that he “should recognize that he is a very important player in all of this, and he shouldn't get involved in politics, and that is what he is doing. He is getting involved in politics. He is setting up a negative situation.”

The Five’s self-identified comedian co-host Greg Gutfeld took a more aggressive stance against Roberts, telling him to “shut the f up” because Trump is the “f-ing president of the United States who protects 300 million plus people. He is a leader who does not have the luxury of opening up his little books to read, oh, my God, maybe he didn't do it the right way.” Fox News host Mark Levin told Roberts to “grow a pair” and suggested Roberts was the aggressor: “This government exists for we the people. It doesn't exist for John Roberts, the judges, Congress, or anybody else.”

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World