Politics
News Analysis: Trump gave himself high marks. Polls, markets, courts, allies paint a different picture
President Trump gave his new administration high marks in a bullish speech to Congress on Tuesday, arguing he is making fast work of his promised agenda on immigration, the economy, international trade and global conflicts, and that the U.S. is stronger for it.
“We have accomplished more in 43 days than most administrations accomplish in four years or eight years — and we are just getting started,” Trump said during his speech, which resembled a State of the Union address.
Trump’s largely rosy assessment was backed by many Republicans, who applauded often throughout the speech, and there is evidence to support some of his claimed successes. At the southern border, for instance, illegal crossings have dwindled, just as Trump promised — though not to their lowest level ever, as Trump claimed Tuesday.
However, other indicators of success for a new president — including public polling, economic markets, court rulings and the remarks of foreign allies — paint a far more nuanced picture. In some cases, they support the opposing view of congressional Democrats and other critics that Trump’s policies have made the nation far weaker in a stunningly short period of time by disrupting core government services, rattling global financial markets, sparking trade battles, abandoning U.S. allies and providing little of the economic relief most desired by struggling Americans.
“America wants change, but there’s a responsible way to make change and a reckless way, and we can make that change without forgetting who we are as a country and as a democracy,” said Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan in a rebuttal speech delivered on behalf of Democrats.
Since his election in November — which was narrow in terms of votes but relatively decisive on the electoral map — Trump has claimed a wide mandate to enact his “America first” vision, including through sweeping executive orders designed to bypass Congress. He has used that argument to dismiss criticisms, including from federal judges, that his administration is overreaching, moving too quickly and potentially violating the law.
On Tuesday, Trump said that his November win “was a mandate like has not been seen in many decades,” that “for the first time in modern history, more Americans believe that our country is headed in the right direction than the wrong direction,” and that “it has been stated by many” that the first month of his presidency has been “the most successful in the history of our nation.”
However, recent polling has suggested that Americans are heavily divided on Trump’s policies, and that more disapprove of him and some of his key initiatives than approve of them. Trump’s key advisor Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, and his so-called Department of Government Efficiency, which has targeted federal agencies for closure or dramatic reductions in staffing and funding, have even less support.
An NPR/PBS News/Marist poll conducted last week, for example, found 45% of Americans approved of the job Trump is doing, while 49% disapproved. That is a high approval rating for Trump, who had a 38% approval rating at the end of his first term, but historically low for a new president ahead of his first address to Congress, according to Gallup and other polling figures.
Among modern presidents, only Trump himself, at the start of his first term in 2017, has had a lower approval at this stage.
A separate CNN poll, also conducted last week, put Trump’s approval rating at 48%. Both polls were conducted before Friday, when Trump and Vice President JD Vance shocked the world by berating Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office, undoing a planned security and mineral rights deal.
Americans also are not overly optimistic about the path the country is on. According to the Marist poll, 53% of Americans said the state of the union is not very strong or not strong at all, 54% said the country is moving in the wrong direction, and 56% said Trump was rushing to make changes without properly considering the impacts.
On the economy, 42% said Trump was changing things for the better, 46% for the worse. On immigration, 47% said Trump was changing things for the better, 43% for the worse. On foreign policy, 44% said Trump was changing things for the better, 49% for the worse. On each issue, skepticism was highest among Democrats but also strong among independent voters, while Republicans largely backed the president.
Half of respondents said they had an unfavorable view of Musk, while 39% said they had a favorable view of him; 44% had an unfavorable view of DOGE, while 39% had a favorable view.
A majority, 57%, expected grocery prices will increase over the next six months, while 17% said they believed prices would go down.
Trump on Tuesday said that he had inherited an “economic catastrophe and an inflation nightmare” from the previous Biden administration — something Democrats and many economists dispute — and that one of his “highest priorities is to rescue our economy and get dramatic and immediate relief to working families.”
To do that, he said, his administration is rolling back restrictive energy policies to “drill, baby, drill,” calling for “tax cuts for everybody,” and instituting tariffs on U.S. trading partners, the latter of which he said “will take in trillions and trillions of dollars and create jobs like we have never seen before.”
Republican leaders broadly praised Trump and his speech. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a staunch Trump ally from Georgia, wore a red hat to the address that read, “Trump was right about everything.”
Still, many others around the world looked on with concern.
Trump’s remarks followed his imposition of new tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China — the U.S.’ top trading partners — and promises of retaliatory measures from all three. Experts predicted American consumers would soon pay more for fresh vegetables, fruits and other perishable imports.
In announcing that Canada would immediately strike back with its own tariffs on many American goods, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused the Trump administration Tuesday of instigating a “dumb” trade war that would harm average Americans.
“We don’t want this. We want to work with you as a friend and ally,” Trudeau told Americans. “And we don’t want to see you hurt either, but your government has chosen to do this to you.”
Trudeau’s remarks added to widespread anger among allies across Europe over Trump’s lashing out at Zelensky. On Monday, Trump doubled down by temporarily suspending all U.S. military aid to Ukraine until Zelensky falls in line with Trump’s vision for a cease-fire with Russia, a move many viewed as an ultimatum for a long-standing U.S. ally and a gift to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
U.S. and global financial markets were clearly rattled by the tariffs and escalating tensions between the U.S. and its partners. Stocks have tumbled in recent days, wiping out much of the gains seen since Trump was elected on a business-friendly platform.
Worries about a trade war and a slowdown in the global economy Tuesday led to the Standard & Poor’s 500 index falling 1.2%, the Dow Jones industrial average sliding 1.6% and the Nasdaq composite slipping 0.4%. European markets fell sharply, stocks in Asia more modestly.
The volatility was mirrored on the domestic front, where Trump and Musk have riled Democrats and some Republicans with sweeping cuts to the federal workforce and other policies targeting vulnerable communities and constitutional rights.
In many instances, the Trump administration has admitted the cuts were poorly tailored, rushing to reinstate fired federal employees who protect the nation’s nuclear stockpile and national parks, among other things. Many of the cuts — including to social safety net programs such as Medicaid and the monitoring of infectious diseases — have been criticized as dangerous and legally dubious, including by California and other blue states, and been walked back by federal judges.
Judges have repeatedly questioned Trump’s executive power to redirect funds already appropriated by Congress, and called other Trump orders, such as one to end birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of immigrants, clearly unconstitutional.
How Trump’s aggressive approach will be received by the American public moving forward, and whether incidents such as his berating of Zelensky will affect his approval ratings, are unclear. Also unclear is whether he will respond to resistance other than by ignoring it or promising to crack down on it.
On Friday, California for the second time accused the Trump administration of ignoring a court order requiring it to release appropriated federal funding that it had unilaterally frozen, saying Federal Emergency Management Agency funds remain blocked. On Monday, Trump dismissed people criticizing his administration at recent Republican town halls as “paid ‘troublemakers.’”
Before his speech Tuesday, he said his administration will be withholding funds from colleges and universities that allow “illegal protests” on their campuses, then threatened Trudeau with even greater U.S. tariffs — calling him “Governor Trudeau,” a reference to Trump’s outlandish idea to annex Canada and make it the 51st U.S. state.
new video loaded: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
transcript
transcript
Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.
-
“Full pardon or commutation?” “Full pardon.”
By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff
June 4, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Democrats splintered over a resolution seeking to block the U.S. from assisting Israel’s war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, on Thursday.
The measure, offered by progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., would require President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. For months, Israel and Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group and Iranian proxy, have been at war in southern Lebanon, but the United States has not joined the conflict.
A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., rejected the measure. Critics argued the resolution could aid Hezbollah and potentially hamstring U.S. military operations in the country.
Tlaib’s resolution failed 92-324, with more than half of House Democrats joining nearly all Republicans to vote it down.
The Lebanon war powers resolution divided Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joining Republicans in rejecting the measure. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)
REP RASHIDA TLAIB MOVES TO BLOCK US OPERATIONS IN LEBANON BUT IGNORES HEZBOLLAH
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., an Israel critic, was the lone Republican to support Tlaib’s measure. Meanwhile, Reps. Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Betty McCollum, D-Minn., voted present.
House Democratic leaders said shortly before the vote they would oppose Tlaib’s resolution and work with the progressive lawmaker on a narrower measure exempting some U.S. military operations in the country. Their statement also denounced Hezbollah as a “violent terrorist organization” and a “sworn enemy of the United States.”
Tlaib, who has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Lebanon, did not mention Hezbollah in her resolution. She and other proponents of the measure also avoided discussing the Iranian proxy force during heated floor debate over the measure.
Republicans highlighted the omission and accused the legislation’s supporters of serving as “proxies for Hezbollah.”
“Apparently they don’t want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it’s Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Wednesday, referring to his Democratic colleagues.
Tlaib asserted that her resolution would only affect U.S. forces actively engaged in hostilities. Republicans, however, disputed that claim and suggested it would hurt U.S. efforts to counter Hezbollah.
“It doesn’t say anything about [whether] you can keep the Marines that are in the embassy,” Mast said, referring to the U.S. embassy in Beirut. “That’s a pretty big oversight. It doesn’t say anything about whether we can keep United States armed forces that are training missions with the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces]. Again, pretty big oversight.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, attempted to bar U.S. forces from joining Israel’s war in Lebanon. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg)
RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH
The debate turned personal when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, linked Tlaib to Hezbollah.
“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization … and its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” the Ohio lawmaker said, referring to Tlaib.
A shouting match between the two then broke out, with Tlaib demanding that Miller’s remarks be stricken from the record.
The presiding chair ultimately complied with her request, but Miller doubled down on his remarks.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it,” Mast said on behalf of Miller on the floor.
Tlaib’s failed war powers resolution comes as Iran has sought to tie Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to its ceasefire negotiations with the United States.
Hezbollah, which has long helped Iran project power in the region, rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon’s government Thursday.
WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.
Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.
The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.
The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.
The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.
The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.
Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.
On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.
“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.
The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.
In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.
The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.
But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”
After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.
The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.
“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.
The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.
Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.
Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.
“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”
Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”
Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.
On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”
“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.
-
Los Angeles, Ca30 minutes ago'Top Gun: Maverick' actor identified as victim stabbed to death in Tarzana
-
Detroit, MI52 minutes agoStorm chances return, which could impact Motor City Pride, graduations this weekend across Metro Detroit
-
San Francisco, CA60 minutes agoHilton campaigns in San Francisco as California primary votes still being counted
-
Dallas, TX1 hour agoCrews cover up AT&T branding as stadium becomes
-
Miami, FL1 hour agoMiami leaders gather for FIFA World Cup Host Committee Gala
-
Boston, MA1 hour agoPackage fire outside Boston’s Museum of African American History under investigation
-
Denver, CO1 hour agoRockies beat reporter Patrick Saunders to leave Denver Post
-
Seattle, WA1 hour agoSeattle granted NFL Franchise on this day 52 years ago
