Connect with us

Politics

As Trump’s lead in popular vote shrinks, does he really have a 'mandate'?

Published

on

As Trump’s lead in popular vote shrinks, does he really have a 'mandate'?

In his victory speech on Nov. 6, President-elect Donald Trump claimed Americans had given him an “unprecedented and powerful mandate.”

It’s a message his transition team has echoed in the last three weeks, referring to his “MAGA Mandate” and a “historic mandate for his agenda.”

But given that Trump’s lead in the popular vote has dwindled as more votes have been counted in California and other states that lean blue, there is fierce disagreement over whether most Americans really endorse his plans to overhaul government and implement sweeping change.

The latest tally from the Cook Political Report shows Trump winning 49.83% of the popular vote, with a margin of 1.55% over Vice President Kamala Harris.

If there ever was a mandate, this isn’t it.

— Hans Noel, Georgetown University

Advertisement

The president-elect’s share of the popular vote now falls in the bottom half for American presidents — far below that of Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson, who won 61.1% of the popular vote in 1964, defeating Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater by nearly 23 percentage points.

In the last 75 years, only three presidents — John F. Kennedy in 1960, Richard Nixon in 1968 and George W. Bush in 2000 — had popular-vote margins smaller than Trump’s current lead.

“If there ever was a mandate, this isn’t it,” said Hans Noel, associate professor of government at Georgetown University.

Advertisement

Trump’s commanding electoral college victory of 312 votes to Harris’ 226 is clear. And unlike in 2016, when he beat former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, he won the popular vote and the needed support in the electoral college.

The question is whether Trump can garner significant public support to push through his more contentious administration picks and the most radical elements of his policy agenda, such as bringing in the military to enforce mass deportations.

Democrats say that the results fall short of demonstrating majority public support for Trump and that the numbers do not give him a mandate to deviate from precedent, such as naming Cabinet members without Senate confirmation.

“There’s no mandate here,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said last week on CNN, noting Trump had suggested using “recess appointments” to get around Senate hearings and votes for his nominees. “What there certainly should not be is a blank check to appoint a chaos Cabinet.”

GOP strategist Lanhee Chen, a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution who ran for California controller in 2022, rejects such framing by Democrats. He argues that Trump’s victory was “quite resounding,” in large part because it defied expectations.

Advertisement

In an election that almost all political pundits expected would be close and protracted, he reversed Democrats’ 2020 gains, won all seven battleground states and even made inroads with voters in blue states such as California. Republicans also will take control of the Senate and retain their control of the House.

“Look, if the popular vote ends up having him at 49.6% versus 50.1%, do I think it’s a meaningful difference?” Chen said. “No, I don’t.”

Scholars of American politics have long been skeptical of the idea of a presidential mandate.

The first president to articulate such a concept was Andrew Jackson, the nation’s seventh president, who viewed his 1832 reelection — in which he won 54.2% of the popular vote — as a mandate to destroy the Second Bank of the United States and expand his political authority. In arguing he had the mandate of the people, Jackson deviated from the approach of previous presidents in refusing to defer to Congress on policy.

In “Myth of the Presidential Mandate,” Robert A. Dahl, a professor of political science at Yale University, argued the presidential mandate was “harmful to American public life” because it “elevates the president to an exalted position in our constitutional system at the expense of Congress.”

Advertisement

Even if we accept the premise of a mandate, there is little consensus on when a candidate has achieved it.

“How do we know what voters were thinking as they cast ballots?” Julia R. Azari, an assistant professor of political science at Marquette University, wrote in a recent essay. “Are some elections mandates and others not? If so, how do we know? What’s the popular vote cutoff — is it a majority or more? Who decides?”

In “Delivering the People’s Message: The Changing Politics of the Presidential Mandate,” she argues that it’s politicians in weak positions who typically invoke mandates. This century, she wrote, presidents have cited mandates with increasing frequency as a result of the declining status of the presidency and growing national polarization.

That’s particularly true of Trump, who has long reveled in hyperbole.

In 2016, he bragged that he’d won in a “massive landslide victory,” even though his electoral college win of 304 to Clinton’s 227 was not particularly dramatic by historic standards and he lost the popular vote by 2 percentage points.

Advertisement

Four years later, he refused to accept he lost the electoral college and the popular vote to Joe Biden, falsely claiming he was the victim of voter fraud.

When Trump speaks of his supposed mandate, he is not an outlier, but is drawing from bipartisan history.

In the last four decades, no president has won the popular vote by double digits, but politicians including George W. Bush and Barack Obama have increasingly tried to justify their agendas by invoking public support.

When Democrat Bill Clinton defeated Republican President George H.W. Bush and Ross Perot, an independent, in 1992, his failure to win a majority of votes did not stop his running mate, Al Gore, from declaring they had a “mandate for change.” Five days after Clinton was inaugurated, he announced he was creating a task force to devise a sweeping plan to provide universal healthcare.

“In my lifetime, at least,” Clinton told reporters, “there has never been so much consensus that something has to be done.” The effort ultimately failed for lack of political support.

Advertisement

The fake news is trying to minimize President Trump’s massive and historic victory to try to delegitimize his mandate.

— Karoline Leavitt, incoming White House press secretary

Four years ago, Biden also declared a “mandate for action.”

And while Biden prevailed in the electoral college 306 to 232, his share of the popular vote was 51.3%, hardly a dominant performance.

Advertisement

As mainstream news outlets have reported on Trump’s shrinking popular margin, Karoline Leavitt, Trump’s incoming White House press secretary, has lashed out at the media.

“New Fake News Narrative Alert!” Leavitt posted on X, adding a red warning light emoji. “The fake news is trying to minimize President Trump’s massive and historic victory to try to delegitimize his mandate.”

Trump’s victory is not by any objective measure “massive or historic.” But Republicans say that news outlets have subjected him to a different standard than they apply to Democratic presidents.

After Clinton won in 1992 after 12 years of GOP presidents, some Republicans note, Time magazine put his face on its cover with the headline “Mandate for Change.”

Clinton won just 43% of the popular vote, one of the lowest shares in U.S. history.

Advertisement

Presidents sometimes bolster their claims of a mandate by cherry-picking polling results.

On Sunday, Trump’s transition team highlighted new polling from CBS News, claiming it showed “overwhelming support” for his “transition and agenda.”

But even though the poll indicated that 59% of Americans approved of Trump’s handling of the presidential transition, it did not show overwhelming or even majority support for many parts of his agenda.

For example, while Trump won strong backing for his broad immigration plan, with 57% supporting a “national program to find and deport all immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally,” the poll showed far less support — 40% — for his plan to use the military to carry out deportations.

Whatever the popular vote, the Hoover Institution’s Chen argues, Trump is in a strong position because he can count on GOP majorities in both houses of Congress.

Advertisement

“He’s going to be able to do, from a legislative perspective, largely what he wants to do,” Chen said.

But several GOP senators have already emphasized the importance of requiring FBI background checks for Trump’s more contentious nominees.

It also appears he lacks public support for pushing through his picks without Senate approval. More than three-quarters of respondents, according to the CBS poll, believe the Senate should vote on Trump’s appointments.

Noel, the Georgetown professor, said that Trump’s rhetorical strategy aside, the president-elect might have to move past the “‘I won, so everybody get out of my way’ kind of politics” and work behind the scenes to seek common ground with moderate Republicans and maybe even some Democrats.

“In the past, people have made strong claims about mandates, but then they’ve coupled that with more cautious policymaking,” Noel said. “If Trump doesn’t do that — if he acts like he believes his own story — then we’re in a different, more Trumpian kind of place.”

Advertisement

Politics

Bass, Barger meet with Trump to push for L.A. fire recovery funds

Published

on

Bass, Barger meet with Trump to push for L.A. fire recovery funds

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger met privately with President Trump and administration officials Wednesday to press for federal support and yet-unpaid wildfire recovery funding as the region continues to rebuild from the 2025 fires.

“This afternoon we met with President Trump and Administration officials to advocate for families who lost everything,” Bass and Barger said in a statement. “We had a very positive discussion about FEMA and other rebuilding funds as well as the support of the President to continue joining us in pressuring the insurance companies to pay what they owe — and for the big banks to step up to ease the financial pressure on L.A. families.”

Barger said the two leaders had a “high-level discussion” with the president in the Oval Office, sharing stories about what fire survivors are experiencing day to day. She added that “we left details behind with the President,” but did not specify whether Trump made any funding or policy promises during the meeting.

“First and foremost, today’s meeting was to thank the President for his initial support of infusing federal resources to expedite debris removal, as well as his recent tweet about insurance companies, which have already proven fruitful,” she said in a statement provided to The Times.

Bass was similarly reserved about the discussions, telling reporters that “we will follow up with the details,” but signaled progress is being made on federal support.

Advertisement

“I think what’s important is that we certainly got the president’s support in terms of, you know, what is needed, and then the appropriate people were in the room for us to follow up. And that was Russ Vought, who is the head of the Office of Management and budget,” Bass told KNX on Wednesday.

The meeting comes on the heels of a yearlong standoff between California leaders and the Trump administration over wildfire recovery funding, disaster response and whether the federal government should have a say in local rebuilding permitting.

California leaders, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, have accused the Trump administration of withholding billions in critical wildfire aid, prompting a lawsuit over stalled recovery funds. Officials allege political bias in the delay of billions of dollars from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Newsom visited Washington in December. When he made his rounds on Capitol Hill, he met with five lawmakers, including three who serve on the Senate and House appropriations committees, to renew calls for $33.9 billion in federal aid for Los Angeles County fire recovery.

But the governor said he was denied a meeting with FEMA and would not say whether he had attempted to meet with Trump to discuss the issue.

Advertisement

Bass, meanwhile, appears to have found a path to the president on a subject that has been paramount for her community.

The fruitful meeting comes after Trump lobbed insults at the mayor at a news conference earlier this year, where he called her “incompetent” for how she handled last year’s wildfire recovery efforts. He alleged that under Bass’ leadership, the city’s delay in issuing local building permits will take years when it should have taken “two or three days.”

California officials, including Newsom, have urged the Trump administration to send Congress a formal request for the $33.9 billion in recovery aid needed to rebuild homes, schools, utilities and other critical infrastructure destroyed or damaged when the fires tore through neighborhoods more than 15 months ago.

What Bass and Barger’s meeting with the president ultimately produces remains to be seen.

The billions in recovery aid have not yet materialized, but the meeting could potentially give those discussions new momentum.

Advertisement

The White House did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment about the meeting.

Earlier this month, Trump criticized insurance provider State Farm on Truth Social for its handling of the devastating Los Angeles County wildfires. He accused the insurance giant of abandoning its policyholders when tragedy struck.

“It was brought to my attention that the Insurance Companies, in particular, State Farm, have been absolutely horrible to people that have been paying them large Premiums for years, only to find that when tragedy struck, these horrendous Companies were not there to help!” Trump wrote.

But the rebuke didn’t come out of the blue. It stemmed from a controversial February visit to Los Angeles by Trump administration officials.

Trump tapped Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin in an effort to strip California state and local governments of their authority to permit the rebuilding of homes destroyed in the Eaton and Palisades fires.

Advertisement

Within the week, Zeldin was in Los Angeles, bashing Newsom and Los Angeles officials at a roundtable with fire victims and reporters, saying that residents were suffering from “bureaucratic, red tape delays and incompetency” and that leadership was “denying them … the ability to rebuild their lives”.

During the trip, officials heard direct complaints from local leaders and fire victims about insurers being slow, restrictive and insufficient with their claim payouts.

After these meetings, Trump directed Zeldin to investigate the insurers’ responses. State Farm, facing roughly $7 billion in fire-related claims, is also under formal investigation by California’s insurance commissioner over its handling of the crisis.

Despite tensions with the administration, Bass and Barger appeared confident that progress was being made on the insurance and funding issues.

“Our job is to fight for our communities,” their joint statement concluded. “When it comes to this recovery, our federal partners are essential, and we are grateful for the support of the President.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Navy Secretary John Phelan Is Leaving the Pentagon and the Trump Administration

Published

on

Navy Secretary John Phelan Is Leaving the Pentagon and the Trump Administration

Navy Secretary John Phelan was fired on Wednesday after months of infighting with senior Pentagon leaders and disagreements over how to revive the Navy’s struggling shipbuilding program.

Mr. Phelan is leaving the Pentagon and the Trump administration effective immediately, wrote Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, in a terse statement.

In his role leading the Navy, Mr. Phelan had championed the “Golden Fleet,” a major investment in new ships including a “Trump-class” battleship. But Mr. Phelan’s leadership was marred by feuds with senior leaders in the Pentagon, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg, Pentagon and congressional officials said.

Mr. Phelan is the first service secretary to leave the administration, though he is the second one to clash with the defense secretary. Mr. Hegseth also has butted heads with Army Secretary Daniel P. Driscoll over promotions and a host of other issues. Mr. Hegseth fired the Army’s chief of staff, Gen. Randy George, earlier this month.

The Navy secretary has no role overseeing deployed forces, and Mr. Phelan’s firing is not likely to have significant implications for the conduct of the Iran war or U.S. Navy operations to blockade Iranian ports or open the Strait of Hormuz. As the Navy’s top civilian leader, his main responsibility is to oversee the building of the future naval and Marine Corps force.

Advertisement

But the tumult could make it harder for the Navy to replenish its stock of Tomahawk missiles and high-end air defense systems, which have been in heavy use in Iran.

Tensions had been simmering for months between Mr. Phelan and his two bosses — Mr. Hegseth and Mr. Feinberg — over management style, personnel issues and other matters.

Mr. Feinberg, in particular, had grown increasingly dissatisfied with Mr. Phelan’s handling of the Navy’s major new shipbuilding initiative, and had been siphoning off responsibility for the project from him, said the congressional official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters.

Mr. Phelan, a White House appointee, also had a contentious relationship with his deputy, Under Secretary Hung Cao, who is more aligned with Mr. Hegseth, especially on some of the social and cultural battles that have defined the defense secretary’s tenure, the officials said.

A senior administration official said that Mr. Hegseth informed Mr. Phelan before the Pentagon’s official announcement that he and President Trump had decided that the Navy needed new leadership.

Advertisement

A spokeswoman for Mr. Phelan referred all questions on Wednesday evening to the Defense Department.

Last fall, Mr. Hegseth fired Mr. Phelan’s chief of staff, Jon Harrison, who had clashed with senior officials throughout the Pentagon. The unusual move highlighted the broader tensions between Mr. Hegseth and Mr. Phelan.

Still, the timing of Mr. Phelan’s firing caught some Pentagon and congressional officials off guard. On Wednesday, Mr. Phelan was making the rounds on Capitol Hill, talking to senators about his upcoming annual hearing with lawmakers to discuss the Navy’s budget request and other priorities.

“Secretary Phelan’s abrupt dismissal is troubling,” Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said in a statement Wednesday night. “In the midst of President Trump’s war of choice in Iran, at a moment when our naval forces are stretched thin across multiple theaters, this kind of disruption at the top sends the wrong signal to our sailors and Marines, to our allies, and to our adversaries.”

Mr. Phelan also had a close relationship with Mr. Trump. In December, Mr. Phelan appeared alongside Mr. Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort to announce the “Golden Fleet” and the new class of battleships bearing Mr. Trump’s name.

Advertisement

“John Phelan is one of the most successful businessmen in the country — in our country,” Mr. Trump said. “He’s been a tremendous success.”

Before joining the Trump administration, Mr. Phelan ran a private investment fund based in Florida.

“He’s taken probably the largest salary cut in history, but he wanted to do it,” Mr. Trump said at the December press conference. “He wants to rebuild our Navy. And you needed that kind of a brain to do it properly.”

But Mr. Trump’s effusive praise masked deeper tensions with Mr. Phelan’s Pentagon bosses.

Bryan Clark, a naval analyst at the Hudson Institute, said that Mr. Phelan was “driving the Navy in a different direction” than what Mr. Hegseth and Mr. Feinberg wanted.

Advertisement

“He was championing initiatives like the battleship and frigate that don’t align with where the D.O.W. leadership is taking the military, which is toward submarines, stealth aircraft, unmanned systems and software-driven capabilities like electronic warfare and cyber,” Mr. Clark said in an email, using the abbreviation for Department of War, as the administration calls the Defense Department.

Mr. Phelan also clashed with Mr. Hegseth over personnel issues in the Navy and Marine Corps, a former senior military official said. Mr. Hegseth has directed service secretaries to scrub the social media accounts of general- and admiral-level promotion candidates to ensure they are not deemed too “woke” by Mr. Hegseth’s standards, the official said.

Maggie Haberman and Eric Schmitt contributed reporting.

Continue Reading

Politics

Manhattan DA’s office employee charged with sexual abuse after alleged incident on Queens subway

Published

on

Manhattan DA’s office employee charged with sexual abuse after alleged incident on Queens subway

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

An analyst with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office was arrested Tuesday on allegations that he sexually abused a woman while off duty, police told Fox News Digital Wednesday. 

Tauhid Dewan, 28, is accused of inappropriately touching a 40-year-old woman’s private area during a late-afternoon rush-hour subway ride in Queens, according to local outlet PIX11. 

The victim was reportedly a random woman, the outlet added, citing sources who said she and the suspect were strangers. 

A spokeswoman for the office told Fox News Digital that the staffer has since been suspended.

Advertisement

MAN ARRESTED IN NYC STRANGULATION DEATH OF WOMAN FOUND OUTSIDE TIMES SQUARE HOTEL

Tauhid Dewan, 28, was arrested in New York City Tuesday following allegations that the Manhattan DA staffer innapropriately touched a woman during a subway ride (LinkedIn)

According to the New York Police Department, Dewan was arrested around 5 p.m., possibly after returning from work.

PIX11 added that the arrest occurred minutes after the incident, which allegedly took place on a No. 7 train near the Junction Boulevard station.

He was subsequently arrested by the NYPD Transit Bureau and is facing multiple charges, including forcible touching on a bus or train, third-degree sexual abuse, and second-degree harassment involving physical contact.

Advertisement

He was also charged with acting in a manner injurious to a child under the age of 17, suggesting a minor may have been nearby and either witnessed the alleged conduct or was placed at risk by it.

ERIC SWALWELL FACES MANHATTAN SEX ASSAULT PROBE AFTER ENDING CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR CAMPAIGN AMID ALLEGATIONS

Tauhid Dewan is an employee of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, which is led by DA Alvin Bragg. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Law enforcement sources said Dewan has no prior arrests, local outlets reported.

According to city records, Dewan has worked at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office as a senior investigative analyst for nearly four years, since July 10, 2022.

Advertisement

People board a train at a subway station in New York City on Aug. 1, 2025. (Gary Hershorn/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

His arraignment in Queens Criminal Court was scheduled for Wednesday, according to state records. 

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending