Analysis: Consumed by Epstein, Trump has lost ground on the economy and immigration
When he was sworn in, Trump promised a new 'Golden Age'. It's clear that, six months into his presidency, the public isn't buying all the hype.
Trump would like nothing better than to point to successes in his second term, and he has had some. The swirling Epstein controversy makes that difficult.
Trump has tried to dismiss the controversy as Democratic-manufactured fakery, though this was always an issue generated by conspiracy theorists in the President's base.
He wants Attorney-General Pam Bondi to seek the release of pertinent grand jury testimony, a dodge that doesn't address demands for full transparency.
For now, he seems stuck, unless his threatened lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal over a story that says he sent a risqué 50th birthday note to Epstein (which he denies) consolidates his base.
The White House would like to change the subject, but when press secretary Karoline Leavitt tried to do that at the top of her Thursday briefing (Friday NZT), her lengthy opening statement helped to highlight apparent concerns about public sentiment on both the economy and immigration.
Leavitt reeled off statistics trying to make the case that the economy is working for people.
She provided citations of arrests as evidence that Trump is ridding the country of migrants with violent criminal records.
It will take more than that to drown out the Epstein controversy and change public opinion about his other policies.
Trump's successes
This comes at a moment when the president has notched some clear successes.
Congress approved the big tax cut and immigration bill.
The Supreme Court has given him some victories, including a green light to fire thousands of federal workers.
The airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities has brought a ceasefire between Iran and Israel and set back Iran's nuclear programme.
Nato nations have agreed to increase defence spending.
This past week Trump agreed to send Patriot air defence systems to Ukraine, paid for by the Europeans.
That decision came after his public complaints about Russian President Vladimir Putin's continued assault on Ukraine and public perceptions that the Russian leader has played the American president on the issue of a ceasefire and settlement of the war.
Immigration and raids
Trump also has delivered on his campaign promise to tighten security at the US-Mexico border. Illegal crossings are at a low point.
His problem is that people don't like other aspects of his immigration policy: the aggressive round-ups of undocumented and sometimes legal migrants, the deployment of US military forces to Los Angeles to quell protests, numerous legal battles over the deportations that have pitted the Administration against the courts.
All have contributed to the reshaping of public opinion.
The result is something Trump could never have imagined when he was sworn in: The public now sees the value of immigration more positively, and widespread deportations and the Administration's enforcement tactics less positively.
Last year, 55% of Americans said they wanted a reduction in immigration, according to Gallup. Today, that's dropped to 30%. Gallup also notes that a record 79% of Americans say immigration is a good thing for the country. That's a 15% jump in the past year.
Meanwhile, support for hiring more border agents, which is supposed to happen under the new 'big, beautiful bill' the President signed on July 4, has declined by 17% in the past year. Support for deporting all undocumented immigrants has dropped nine points, to 38%.
In the Gallup poll, support for allowing undocumented immigrants to become US citizens has risen eight points to 78% - though that's a bit lower than the 84% in 2016. The percentage of Republicans who support a path to citizenship has risen from 46% a year ago to 59% today.
The Washington Post's average of high-quality polls shows a clear deterioration in Trump's approval rating on immigration.
In May, the average showed Americans evenly divided. The average so far in July shows 42% saying they approve and 54% disapproving.
The protests that erupted in early June appear to be the catalyst for a reappraisal of Trump on immigration.
Before the protests, his immigration approval rating was 49% positive, 49% negative. Since then, the average of the post-protests polls shows his standing at 42% positive, 54% negative.
The economy and tariffs
Before he was sworn in, public expectations for Trump were highest on the economy and immigration, according to a Washington Post-Schar School poll of swing state voters.
In that survey, 62% said they expected Trump to do an 'excellent' or 'good' job on the economy and 59% said they thought he would do an 'excellent' or 'good' job on immigration.
Also, 46% said they thought his presidency would help their finances, with 31% saying it would hurt them financially.
Until the pandemic took hold in the northern spring of 2020, Trump enjoyed relatively strong ratings on the economy.
Things deteriorated during the pandemic and judgments were about evenly divided just before the 2020 election.
Today the public is dissatisfied with his economic performance.
An Associated Press-NORC Centre for Public Affairs survey last week showed that 38% approved of his economic management and 60% disapproved.
A Quinnipiac University poll put his economic approval numbers only slightly better: 43% approving, 55% disapproving.
In the AP-NORC poll, nearly half (49%) said his policies have done more to hurt them than help them. About one in four (27%) said they have done more to help them. The rest said the policies have not made a difference.
A majority said the new tax bill will do more to help the wealthy and that it will hurt people with lower incomes. In the Quinnipiac poll, 40% said they approved of his handling of trade, with 56% disapproving.
Predictions that Trump's tariffs will trigger a major new bout of inflation have not been borne out, though all the tariffs are not in place. The Federal Reserve has been cautious about cutting interest rates because of the uncertainty around the tariffs.
Trump continues to badger Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, whom he would like replaced, to cut those rates substantially.
Many economists say a cut of the size Trump wants would risk an inflationary spike.
There's history to buttress those concerns.
In 1972, President Richard Nixon pressured Fed Chair Arthur Burns, and the subsequent loosening of monetary policy helped unleash an inflationary rise.
Trump continues to accumulate power in the presidency and exercise it to change government and major institutions.
He plays a dominant role in the world.
But his six-month report card provides indications that the public hasn't fully bought into his programme, warnings that he can't easily ignore.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
10 hours ago
- NZ Herald
With an uncertain future weapons supply from other countries, Ukraine shifts to building its own
United States President Donald Trump's inconsistent support for Ukraine has called into question the continued backing of the US, Kyiv's biggest arms supplier. The Trump Administration recently paused some arms transfers but then reversed course, agreeing to sell weapons to European allies, which will then give them to Ukraine. But even with greater certainty about the flow of Western weapons, it still does not match what Ukraine needs to fend off the Russian invasion. That reality has produced a fundamental shift in Ukraine's appeals to its Western allies. Rather than pleading primarily for arms, as it did early in the war, Ukraine is increasingly asking for the money to build its own weapons. The effort involves an array of both private and government-owned firms involved in making vehicles, engines, electronics, weapons, and ammunition. At the start of the war in 2022, Ukraine relied mostly on artillery, shells, and machine guns donated by Western partners. Now, it produces about 40% of the weapons used at the front, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and it is looking to increase that amount sharply. The most striking example of this growing self-reliance is the use of drones, now omnipresent on the battlefield and produced almost entirely in Ukraine. 'This does not bring peace of mind, but it does provide greater moral confidence that we will not be left empty-handed,' Zelenskyy said in February of Ukraine's booming defence industry. To further increase production, Ukraine needs more money, which it sorely lacks. Olena Bilousova, a defence industry expert at the Kyiv School of Economics, said Ukraine had the industrial capacity to produce US$35 billion ($58.6b) worth of military equipment annually, but was producing only up to about US$15b, and was unable to afford more. 'The funding issue is a bottleneck for our defence industry,' Bilousova said in an interview. An employee works on a vehicle at a Ukrainian Armour factory in central Ukraine. Photo / Brendan Hoffman, the New York Times Growing self-reliance - About 40% of weapons used at the front are made in Ukraine. - The drones it uses are produced almost entirely in Ukraine. - Ukraine produces more artillery systems each month than all European countries combined. - It is said to be fully self-reliant for both mortar launchers and shells. Employees work on building mortar launchers at a Ukrainian Armour factory in central Ukraine. Photo / Brendan Hoffman, the New York Times Adding to the pressure to produce more weapons is Russia's own war machinery, which has expanded greatly during the war. Russia's defence budget this year is at least US$150b, about three times as large as Ukraine's. Russia now produces three times as much ammunition in three months as all of Nato does in a year, Mark Rutte, the alliance's secretary-general, said in a recent interview. The imbalance in arms production has given Russia an overwhelming firepower advantage on the battlefield, even in domains such as drones that Ukraine once dominated. Ukrainian soldiers defending the embattled city of Kostiantynivka in the east say Russian attack drones monitor the battlefield day and night, targeting anything that moves. Graffiti left on the bombed-out train station in Kostiantynivka tells the mood. Partly erased where the station wall was blown apart, the words, in English, can still be made out: 'Not asking too much. We just need artillery shells and aviation. Rest we do ourselves.' Unable to match enemy fire, Ukraine is forced to adapt. Using feedback from soldiers on the ground, Ukrainian Armour has started producing vehicles designed specifically to evade drones on the battlefield, including a light buggy capable of racing up to 145km/h to outrun drones. Its construction is bare-bones: an open-topped metal frame, suspension, two seats — and no speedometer. 'Why would you need one?' Belbas said with a smile, as he toured the factory. The New York Times agreed not to disclose the factory's precise location because Russia routinely targets weapons-production sites in Ukraine. Ukrainian Armour also makes a large, unmanned carrier that shows the growing robotisation of the battlefield. It is, in effect, a drone mother ship, designed to transport smaller remote-controlled vehicles to the front. The smaller drones, in turn, deliver food and ammunition to combat positions, while the carrier serves as a relay station for signal transmission. Belbas said robotic vehicles were designed to save the lives of Ukraine's limited number of soldiers, sparing them from risky missions such as resupplying troops at the front. 'Also, it's about money,' he acknowledged. The Ukrainian government pays 15 million hryvnia (about US$360,000) in compensation to the family of each soldier who is killed. Producing a vehicle like this is 'five times cheaper,' Belbas said. The Novator, an armoured vehicle manufactured by Ukrainian Armour. Photo / Brendan Hoffman, the New York Times These innovations make up only a small share of the company's output. Most of its production remains focused on battlefield staples such as mortars — weapons that are reliable in all weather conditions, unlike drones. 'The mortars are like the undying classic weapons,' Belbas said as he stepped into a warehouse lined with mortars mounted on two-wheeled chassis. Last year, the company produced about 1000 mortars, roughly double the previous year's output. Early in the war, Ukrainian troops used Caesar self-propelled howitzers — big cannons mounted on heavy trucks — to pound Russian positions. Now, they have largely turned to a homegrown alternative, the Bohdana, producing nearly 20 units a month, Ukrainian officials say. Bilousova, the defence industry expert, said Ukraine now produces more artillery systems each month than all European countries combined. As for mortars, Belbas estimated that Ukraine has been fully self-reliant for both launchers and shells since last year. It is a turnaround from the start of the war, when nearly all mortar shells were imported. Kyiv has also initiated plans to develop more advanced weapons such as air-defence systems — the type of munitions that were the subject of the Trump Administration's recent flip-flop. (Trump said he did not know who had paused the weapons delivery.) These sophisticated systems are expensive to develop and build, and Kyiv cannot afford to do so on its own. Belbas said contracts with the Ukrainian Defence Ministry to produce more mortars, a far more basic weapon, went unfulfilled because of a lack of funding. To broaden its options, Kyiv recently began a new initiative, inviting its allies to host production facilities within their borders for Ukrainian weapons-makers. Under this model, Ukraine would provide the expertise, while Western partners would provide money and production sites out of reach of Russian strikes. Denmark was the first country to officially endorse the plan, in early July, and Zelenskyy said that 'more such agreements will follow'. Facing the twin threats of Russian expansionism and a diminished US commitment to Nato, Europe is also ramping up military spending and weapons production. Ukrainian officials hope that will mean leaning on Ukraine's hard-won expertise to help rearm the continent. 'Ukraine needs investment. You need skills, you need technology,' Zelenskyy told Western allies this month in Rome. 'And everything we are building now to protect Ukraine will also help protect you.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Constant Méheut Photographs by: Brendan Hoffman ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
NZ Herald
10 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Harvard slams Trump administration funding cuts in pivotal court hearing
Steven P. Lehotsky, who argued for Harvard, called the Government's actions a blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment, touching a 'constitutional third rail' that threatened the academic freedom of private universities. The attorney for the Government cast the case as a fight over billions of dollars. 'Harvard is here because it wants the money,' said Michael Velchik, a Justice Department lawyer. But the Government can choke the flow of taxpayer dollars to institutions that show a 'deliberate indifference to anti-Semitism', he said. President Donald Trump reacted to the hearing on Monday afternoon with a post on social media about the judge. 'She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling.' He called Harvard 'anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America'. 'How did this Trump-hating Judge get these cases? When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN. Also, the Government will stop the practice of giving many Billions of Dollars to Harvard,' he said. Spokespeople for Harvard did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday about the President's remarks. Peter McDonough, vice-president and general counsel at the American Council on Education, said all of higher education could be impacted by the case. 'And I don't think it is too dramatic to say that Americans and the constitutional protections that they value are in court,' he said. 'Freedom of speech is on trial, due process is on trial,' he said, with the executive branch of the Government essentially charged with having violated those rights. The administration has engaged in intense efforts to force changes in higher education, which it has said has been captured by leftist ideology and has not done enough to combat antisemitism in the wake of protests at some colleges over the Israel-Gaza war. Its biggest target has been Harvard. The administration announced earlier this year that it would review nearly US$9 billion ($15b) in federal funding to the school and its affiliates, including local hospitals whose physicians teach at Harvard Medical School. In April, a letter from a federal anti-Semitism task force, alluding to civil rights law, demanded that the university upend its governance, hiring, student discipline and admissions, and submit to years-long federal oversight over multiple aspects of its operations. Harvard has been the Trump administration's biggest target. Photo / Allison Robbert, The Washington Post Harvard refused to comply. Hours later, the administration announced it would freeze more than US$2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard. It has also launched multiple investigations into the Ivy League institution's operations, threatened to revoke the school's tax-exempt status and moved to block its ability to enrol international students. Harvard filed a lawsuit challenging the funding cuts, and later filed another to counter the administration's effort to block international students and scholars from Harvard. In the latter case, Burroughs twice ruled swiftly in Harvard's favour, allowing the university to continue welcoming non-US students while the case proceeds. On Monday, Harvard's lawyers argued that the Government violated the school's First Amendment rights and ignored the requirements of federal civil rights law, and that its actions were unlawfully arbitrary and capricious. Any claim that Harvard is simply interested in getting money back is 'just false', Lehotsky said. 'We're here for our constitutional rights.' He called the Government's actions an end-run around Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and compared it to the scene in Alice in Wonderland in which the queen orders that the sentence comes first then the verdict afterwards, with the funding freeze preceding the investigation required by statute. 'The Government now says Title VI is totally irrelevant,' he said, arguing it had cooked up a post hoc rationale. Harvard had asked the judge to grant a summary judgment, set aside the funding freezes and terminations, and block any similar actions as soon as possible before September 3, after which the university believes the Government will take the position that restoration of the funds is not possible. Velchik, the Justice Department attorney – himself a Harvard alumnus – defended the Government's decisions to slash the university's funding in response to what he said was its failure to tackle anti-Semitism. 'Harvard does not have a monopoly on the truth,' he said. Those same funds would be 'better spent going to HBCUs or community colleges'. The Government cancelled the grants under an obscure regulation that allows it to terminate funding when they no longer align with agency priorities. 'Harvard should have read the fine print,' Velchik said. Although Burroughs pushed both sides to justify their arguments, she appeared sceptical of the administration's rationale for the cuts. She repeatedly pressed the Government on what process it had followed in deciding to terminate a major portion of Harvard's federal funding. 'This is a big stumbling block for me,' she said, even as she acknowledged the Government had argued some of its points well. ('A Harvard education is paying off for you,' she told Velchik.) Burroughs noted that the Government had apparently slashed Harvard's funding without following any established procedure or even examining the steps Harvard itself had taken to combat anti-Semitism. If the administration can base its decision on reasons connected to protected speech, Burroughs said, the consequences for 'constitutional law are staggering'. At one point, Velchik appeared to grow emotional. He spoke about wanting to go to Harvard since he was a child, then seeing the campus 'besieged by protesters' and hearing about Jewish students wearing baseball caps to hide their kippot, a visible sign of their identity. 'It's sick. Federal taxpayers should not support this,' he said. Burroughs also spoke about the case in unusually personal terms. 'I am both Jewish and American,' she said. Harvard itself has acknowledged anti-Semitism as an issue, she said. But 'what is the connection to cutting off funding to Alzheimer's or cancer research?' she asked. 'One could argue it hurts Americans and Jews.' A complaint by Harvard's chapter of the American Association of University Professors against the administration, filed before the university took action, is being heard concurrently with Harvard's case. In its court filings, the Justice Department urged Burroughs to reject Harvard's request for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a motion in which a party in a civil suit asks a judge to decide a case before it goes to trial. To win a summary judgment, the party filing the motion must show there is no genuine dispute over the central facts of the case and they would prevail on the legal merits if the case were to go to trial. Harvard supporters, with crimson-coloured shirts, signs and hats along with American flag pins, crowded around the main entrance of the John Joseph Moakley federal courthouse on Monday afternoon. About 100 alumni, faculty, staff and students rallied in a joint protest with the Crimson Courage alumni group and supporters of the American Association of University Professors union. 'What the federal administration is doing is basically co-opting American values for their own political ends, and we are determined to say this is not what America is about,' said Evelyn J. Kim, a co-chair of the Crimson Courage communications team and a 1995 Harvard graduate. 'America is about the values that allow for Harvard to exist.' Walter Willett, 80, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health, biked to the rally to deliver a speech to the group. In May, US$3.6 million of National Institutes of Health grant money that funded Willett's research on breast cancer and women's and men's health was cut, he said. It is critical to push back against the administration, Willett said. 'In this case, our basic freedom – what we're fighting for – is also at stake.' Harvard has taken numerous steps to address anti-Semitism after protests over the Israel-Gaza war sparked concerns. Photo / Josh Reynolds, The Washington Post The stakes are high – and not just for Harvard. More than a dozen amicus briefs filed in support of Harvard argue the administration is imperilling academic freedom, the autonomy of institutions of higher education and the decades-long research partnership between universities and the federal government. Eighteen former officials who served in past Democratic and Republican administrations noted in a brief that they were aware of no instances in more than 40 years where federal funds had been terminated under Title VI, the provision of civil rights law that Trump officials have in some cases cited in slashing Harvard's grants. The administration received outside support in a brief filed by the attorneys general of 16 states, led by Iowa. 'There are apparently three constant truths in American life: death, taxes, and Harvard University's discrimination against Jews,' it said, citing Harvard's own internal report on anti-Semitism on campus. Harvard has taken numerous steps to address anti-Semitism after protests over the Israel-Gaza war in the 2023-24 academic year sparked concerns from some Jewish and Israeli students, but the administration has repeatedly said the problem persists and must be acted upon forcefully. James McAffrey, 22, a senior and first-generation college student from Oklahoma, co-chairs the Harvard Students for Freedom, a student group that joined the rally on Monday to support the school. He said the administration's actions pose a threat to the nation's wellbeing. 'I think the reality is it's time for us to root out the evils of anti-Americanism in the Trump administration,' he said.
RNZ News
10 hours ago
- RNZ News
More turns in Trump's handling of Epstein case
United State correspondent Todd Zwillich spoke to Melissa Chan-Green about a number of developments concerning Donald Trump's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, as well as the number of people reported missing after the Texas floods droppping significantly. To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
