60 percent disapprove of Trump's handling of tariffs, trade: Survey
Sixty percent of surveyed Americans say they disapprove of the way President Trump is handling trade and tariffs, according to a new NBC News Decision Desk poll powered by SurveyMonkey.
In the poll, conducted in early June, 45 percent of respondents said they strongly disapproved of Trump's handling of the issue, while 15 percent said they somewhat disapproved.
Another 19 percent of respondents said they strongly approve of the way the president has handled the issue, while 21 percent said they somewhat approve.
The latest poll's results are similar to those of a survey taken in mid-April, which showed 61 percent of respondents disapproving of his handling of the issue and 39 percent approving.
That April poll came after Trump made his April 2 'Liberation Day' tariff announcement, unveiling more than $600 billion in import taxes on goods from nearly all U.S. trading partners, including tariffs close to 100 percent on Chinese goods.
Trump yielded to pressure from bond markets and congressional Republicans soon after by reducing his initial tariffs to 10 percent for 90 days, a deadline set to hit on July 8.
Trump officials touted plans to strike 90 deals in 90 days but so far have only announced a deal with the United Kingdom, while also reaching a tariff truce with China.
In the survey, Trump's overall approval rating is 45 percent, with 55 percent disapproving.
The 'trade and tariffs' category is among his worst issues. Only 'inflation and cost of living' scores worse, with 61 percent disapproving and 39 percent approving.
Border security and immigration remains his top issue, with 51 percent approval and 49 percent disapproval.
The poll was conducted from May 30 to June 10, 2025, and included 19,410 adults. The margin of error is 2.1 percentage points.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
19 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump loses latest bid to get Central Park Five defamation lawsuit tossed
A federal judge on Friday dealt another blow to President Donald Trump's efforts to throw out a defamation lawsuit against him filed by plaintiffs formerly known as the Central Park Five. U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone said that Pennsylvania's Anti-SLAPP law, designed to protect defendants from lawsuits targeting protected speech, does not apply in federal court, rejecting Trump's motion to dismiss the case. "The only issue before the Court is whether Plaintiffs' claims for defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED") can survive given Pennsylvania's Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, otherwise known as its Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Statute," Beetlestone wrote in a 13-page filing. "Pennsylvania's Anti-SLAPP Statute (a state law) does not apply here, in federal court," she wrote in the filing, adding: "Accordingly, Defendant's Motion shall be denied." Five men who as teenagers were wrongfully convicted in the so-called Central Park Five jogger rape case sued Trump in October, accusing the then-Republican presidential nominee of defaming them. They cited a number of statements Trump made during his Sept. 10 presidential debate against former Vice President Kamala Harris, accusing him of falsely stating that the men killed somebody and pled guilty to the crime. "These statements are demonstrably false," they wrote in their filing against Trump. The five men — Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron McCray and Korey Wise — spent years in prison for the rape and assault of a white female jogger, a crime they were later exonerated of and did not commit. Trump has tried to dismiss the defamation lawsuit against him, but has not been successful. Judge Beetlestone in April also threw out Trump's motion to dismiss the case against him in a different filing.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Future of Social Security Just Went From Bad to Worse. Here's What Seniors Can Expect Next.
The Social Security trustees expect to deplete the trust fund in just a few years without changes. Cuts to the program will be even steeper than expected a year ago. There are several factors driving the increased deficit. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › Social Security is the backbone of many Americans' retirement plans. More than one-third of adults said the government program would be a major source of income in retirement in the most recent edition of an annual Gallup poll. That number has climbed higher over the last 20 years since Gallup started the survey. Meanwhile, six in 10 current retirees say their monthly check is a big piece of their budget. But with more and more Americans relying on Social Security, the future of the program has never looked more uncertain. Not only are seniors staring down the barrel of benefit cuts in just a few years, but the problem is only getting worse. Here's what seniors can expect and how they can plan for the future of Social Security. Retirees could see a significant benefit cut in just eight years if Congress doesn't act to change Social Security and improve its longevity. That's when the Social Security Board of Trustees estimates the program will deplete the Social Security Old Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund. The Social Security trust fund was established to hold excess tax revenue from wages to pay out to retirees when they start collecting benefits later. In the meantime, the Social Security Administration invests those funds in government bonds to earn a steady return on the principal. Over time, the balance grew as the working population grew faster than the retirement population. But as Baby Boomers started retiring, life expectancies increased, and younger generations had fewer children, the demographic shifts started putting pressure on the trust fund balance. As a result, Social Security has been running a deficit in most years since 2018. And that deficit is getting worse each year as the retired population grows faster than the working population. Every year, the trustees analyze the current state of Social Security and forecast the future of the program. Changes in the workforce, life expectancies, or Social Security policies can impact those estimates. Unfortunately for seniors, the projections got even worse this year. While the 2024 Trustees Report expected retirees to face a 21% overall reduction in benefits starting in 2033, that number climbed to 23% in the latest edition. Here's why seniors could be facing bigger benefits cuts and what they can do about it. It's not just the growing retiree population that's negatively impacting the health of Social Security. After all, almost everyone collecting Social Security today paid into the system for years before retiring. One notable shift negatively impacting Social Security is the growing income inequality in America. Only 82% of earnings were subject to Social Security tax in 2022. That compares to the 90% benchmark Congress targeted in its 1983 Social Security reforms. But even if we returned to that benchmark, it would only make up a portion of the shortfall over the coming years. Another challenge is a slow-growing working population. That's exacerbated by a decline in immigration and further hurt by current immigration policies imposed by the Trump administration. That said, allowing more immigrants to work in the United States (and pay Social Security taxes) would provide only a small amount of additional revenue to Social Security. The biggest change over the past year that's led the trustees to increase their forecast of the Social Security shortfall is the passage of the Social Security Fairness Act. The law repealed the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset, boosting Social Security benefits for 3.2 million retirees and many more in the future. It was also retroactive to 2024, further depleting the trust fund. So, while those retirees will see a step up in their benefits, many more could see deeper cuts in the future. That's not lost on most seniors, and it's led a surprising number of 62-year-olds to claim their benefits as soon as possible this year instead of waiting to maximize their benefits at age 70. But that might not be the smartest move. Here's why. While the program faces a major threat if Congress fails to act within the next eight years, it's still in most seniors' best interest to wait to claim Social Security on their own terms. There are two key reasons. First, it's highly unlikely Congress will allow Social Security benefits cuts. It may enact laws raising the full retirement age in the future, increasing the Social Security tax, increasing the amount of taxable wages, or some combination of all that and more. It could allow benefits to come out of the general fund instead of the trust fund (hopefully with a plan to return Social Security to solvency and reduce the overall government debt). But the clock is ticking for Congress to take action. Second, even if there are benefit cuts in the future, taking Social Security early (when you'd otherwise wait) could result in a much worse scenario for you in the future. The breakeven point for lifetime Social Security income will get pushed out further if you wait and Social Security is forced to cut benefits. But at its core, Social Security is longevity insurance. You'll be much better off in your late 80s if you waited to take Social Security and receive a bigger check than if you claimed as soon as possible. So, while the outlook for Social Security is getting worse, seniors shouldn't be in a rush to get their money while they can. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Future of Social Security Just Went From Bad to Worse. Here's What Seniors Can Expect Next. was originally published by The Motley Fool
New York Post
24 minutes ago
- New York Post
‘60 Minutes' Kamala Harris interview at center of Trump lawsuit runs afoul of Cronkite-era CBS guidelines
The infamous '60 Minutes' interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris that sparked President Donald Trump's $20 billion 'election interference' lawsuit conflicted with Walter Cronkite-era CBS News guidelines. Cronkite, who was the face of 'CBS Evening News' from 1962 to 1981, was the premier anchorman of America's golden age of network news. In 1976, at the height of Cronkite's reign as 'the most trusted man in America,' CBS News president Richard Salant penned a 76-page document outlining CBS News standards. Advertisement Page 58 is focused on editing and suggests the '60 Minutes' interview at the center of Trump's lawsuit against CBS News would have been frowned upon during the Cronkite era. 'The objective of the editing process is to produce a clear and succinct statement which reflects fairly, honestly and without distortion what was seen and heard by our reporters, cameras and microphones,' Salant wrote in the 1976 document, which has come to the attention of the Trump legal team. Trump's lawsuit alleges CBS News deceitfully edited an exchange Harris had with '60 Minutes' correspondent Bill Whitaker, who asked her why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn't 'listening' to the Biden administration. Harris was criticized for the 'word salad' answer that aired in a preview clip of the interview on 'Face the Nation.' 3 60 Minutes election special, Bill Whitaker asks Vice President Kamala Harris how she'll fund her economic plan and how she'd get it through Congress. 60 Minutes / CBS Advertisement However, when the same question aired during a primetime special on the network, she gave a different, more concise response. Critics at the time accused CBS News of editing her answer to shield the Democratic nominee from further backlash leading up to Election Day. The raw transcript and footage released earlier this year by the FCC showed that both sets of Harris' comments came from the same lengthy response, but CBS News had aired only the first half of her response in the 'Face the Nation' preview clip and aired the second half during the primetime special. 3 Trump's lawsuit alleges CBS News deceitfully edited an exchange Harris had with '60 Minutes' correspondent Bill Whitaker. 60 Minutes / CBS CBS News, which has denied any wrongdoing and stands by the broadcast and its reporting, did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital when asked if the Cronkite-era standards have changed. Advertisement 'If more than one excerpt from a speech or statement is included in a documentary broadcast, the order of their inclusion in the broadcast will be the same as the order of their inclusion in the speech or statement, unless the broadcast specifically indicates otherwise,' Salant wrote in the 1976 CBS News Standards guide. When Cronkite died in 2009 at age 92, his Associated Press obituary said the famed anchor 'valued accuracy, objectivity and understated compassion' and 'always aimed to be fair and professional in his judgments' regardless of personal views on a topic. 3 Photograph of Walter Cronkite in the year 1950, doing the 6 o'clock news at WTOP-TV in Washington, D.C., taken from the book 'A Reporter's Life'. 12.18.96 Two polls pronounced Cronkite the 'most trusted man in America': a 1972 'trust index' survey in which he finished No. 1, about 15 points higher than leading politicians, and a 1974 survey in which people chose him as the most trusted television newscaster, according to the AP. Advertisement Salant, who was running CBS News when '60 Minutes' was launched, was lauded by The New York Times when he died in 1993. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! 'He was credited with raising professional standards and expanding news programming at CBS,' the Times wrote. CBS News, along with parent company Paramount, are currently in mediation with hopes of settling with Trump. The mediator recently proposed the network end the president's $20 billion lawsuit with a $20 million settlement, according to the Wall Street Journal. Last month, Trump rejected Paramount's $15 million settlement offer as he sought at least a $25 million payout as well as an apology. According to the Wall Street Journal, Paramount 'isn't prepared' to give one.
