Dozens of people show up for the 'Remove, Reverse, Reclaim Rally' in Sioux City
The rally started in front of the Federal Courthouse building, but was moved to the Sioux City Museum because of the crowd's size. The rally was part of a nationwide movement for people to express their opinions.
'Our liberties are at risk and justice is not dictated by the man in the white house,' said Marie Farrell of Lawton, Iowa. 'We have laws and we have lawmakers, and it outrages me the number of things that are being claimed to be illegal just because someone in the office does not like them.'
'I am here because I see so many people struggle with Medicaid, Medicare,' said Angela McPherson of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. 'I work in a pharmacy and to see everyone struggle to pay for what they need. He's trying to take away social security and these people are going to struggle so much more.'
The rally went from 2:00-4:00 p.m. and featured different speakers throughout Saturday afternoon.
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
Forbes
36 minutes ago
- Forbes
Real Estate Set To Soar After Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill
WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 04: U.S. President Donald Trump, joined by Republican lawmakers, signs the ... More One, Big Beautiful Bill Act into law during an Independence Day military family picnic on the South Lawn of the White House on July 04, 2025 in Washington, DC. After weeks of negotiations with Republican holdouts Congress passed the One, Big Beautiful Bill Act into law, President Trump's signature tax and spending bill. The bill makes permanent President Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts, increase spending on defense and immigration enforcement and temporarily cut taxes on tips, while cutting funding for Medicaid, food assistance and other social safety net programs. (Photo by) The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump on July 4, 2025, is not without its critics. From concerns about ballooning deficits to controversial cuts to Medicaid, many see the legislation as a step backward. However, for those in the commercial real estate industry, the bill is a potential game-changer. New tax provisions offer clarity and long-term stability for developers and investors, setting the stage for what could be the next major boom in the sector. While the provisions of the OBBBA will have significant implications for the entire commercial real estate market, two sectors stand to benefit particularly: low-income multifamily housing and industrial development. A Permanent Boost for Affordable Housing There is a growing housing shortage in the United States, especially in the low-income end of the market. The lack of affordable units drives homelessness, deepens poverty, strains public services, and weakens the economy by limiting workforce mobility and long-term social stability. The OBBBA specifically targets this crisis with the new incentives and provisions to jumpstart development. According to DLP Capital, a private real estate investment company specializing in affordable housing development, the gap between qualified income and actual income has grown to 54.6% from -3.7% since 2021. DLP believes the new incentives will have a significant impact on the market. "The OBBBA may be the most pro-housing CRE legislation in a generation," says DLP's head of growth, Bo Parfet. The OBBBA includes a significant boost to the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program, which is the nation's primary tool for creating affordable housing. Before the OBBBA, it operated with annual allocations that were subject to congressional approval and extension. While effective, this approach created uncertainty for long-term project planning and limited states' ability to address the housing shortage with consistent, predictable funding. The OBBBA provides a permanent 12% increase in the annual amount of 9% LIHTC allocations. Another provision created under the OBBBA is the Fast-Track Permitting Fund, which allows developers to pay a fee to expedite federal environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act. This fund is particularly beneficial for low-income housing projects that rely on federal funding or tax-exempt bonds, as it helps reduce delays that often derail or inflate the development costs. By streamlining the approval process, the fund enables affordable housing projects to meet financing deadlines more easily, improve predictability, and bring much-needed units to market more quickly. The hope is that the Fast-Track Permitting Fund will put political and market pressure on states and cities to follow suit, further reducing bottlenecks. The lengthy permitting process is often a deal-killer for developers, and reducing the timeline to construction should improve investment returns. "Multifamily—especially workforce housing—is the clear winner. More deals will move forward, faster," says Parfet. In addition to adjustments to the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program and the introduction of the Fast-Track Permitting Fund, changes to opportunity zones are also expected to fuel growth in affordable housing. The Qualified Opportunity Zone program, designed to incentivize long-term investments in low-income communities, was created with a sunset date of December 31, 2026, for capital gain deferral. The OBBBA makes the deferral feature permanent. It also introduces new 10-year designation periods for new zones, starting in 2027, and includes provisions for rural opportunity zones with enhanced benefits. The introduction of rural opportunity zones should help direct capital into underserved rural areas, potentially spurring new industrial and multifamily developments in these regions. Investors who may have been hesitant due to the previous program's limited lifespan will likely re-evaluate Qualified Opportunity Zone projects, leading to new capital flowing into underserved communities and regions. Ben Reinberg, CEO of real estate investment firm Alliance Consolidated Group of Companies, believes the new legislation will re-energize OZ investments. "For long-term investors looking to reduce exposure and amplify yield, OZs just became very relevant again," he says. Massive Incentives For Domestic Manufacturing The Trump administration has made domestic manufacturing a central focus, using tariffs to try to shift supply chains and incentivize production at home. The OBBBA complements that strategy, combining new tax incentives with the renewal of other programs to accelerate industrial development and attract capital back to U.S. soil. The biggest incentive in the bill targets Qualified Production Property. Before the OBBBA, nonresidential buildings, such as factories, were typically depreciated over a lengthy 39-year period. While equipment and other tangible personal property qualified for bonus depreciation, the buildings themselves did not. The OBBBA introduces a new, temporary provision that allows for a 100% immediate deduction of the cost of QPP. To qualify, construction must be completed before January 1, 2029, and the property must be placed in service before January 1, 2031. QPP excludes offices, administrative areas, lodging, and parking within the building. The ability to immediately deduct the cost of eligible manufacturing facilities provides a powerful tax incentive. The QPP provision should stimulate the construction of new factories, assembly plants, and processing facilities across the U.S., encouraging companies to reshore production from overseas or nearshore from other countries to the U.S. The growth of manufacturing facilities should lead to increased demand for other logistics assets such as distribution centers and warehousing. "The opportunity lies in overlooked industrial corridors, characterized by land availability, low regulation, and favorable tax structures," Reinberg notes. "Industrial CRE is the sleeping giant. This bill just woke it up." Permanent 100% bonus depreciation, which allowed businesses to deduct the full cost of eligible qualified property immediately, was also introduced in the OBBBA. The previous law had 100% bonus depreciation phasing down. For property placed in service in 2025, the rate was set at 40%, declining further in subsequent years. The phase-down created urgency for capital expenditures to take advantage of the higher deduction rates. Another positive provision for commercial real estate is the change to the deductibility of interest costs. The previous law restricted the deduction of business interest expense to 30% of adjusted taxable income and excluded the add-back of depreciation and amortization from the calculation, lowering the amount of deductible interest for capital-intensive businesses. The OBBBA permanently amends the calculation for the business interest expense limitation to include depreciation and amortization. By including these expenses in the determination of adjustable taxable income, real estate businesses will generally be able to deduct a larger portion of their business interest expense, increasing cash flow and improving the overall profitability of debt-financed projects. In a higher-interest-rate environment, this change makes borrowing more attractive. The Revival of Commercial Real Estate The OBBBA is undoubtedly positive for the commercial real estate market. By enhancing incentives such as 100% bonus depreciation, LIHTC, fast-track permitting, and opportunity zones, the OBBBA can provide clarity and predictability to investors and developers, ultimately helping to address the affordable housing problem. Meanwhile, the new Qualified Production Property deduction is expected to reinvigorate the industrial market and promote domestic manufacturing. The OBBBA is indeed beautiful, especially for commercial property.
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Dire Warnings, Rosy Future: Medicare at 60
The creation of Medicare in 1965 was hailed as a watershed for the social safety net, offering millions of older Americans financial security and freedom from worry about their medical expenses. But critics of the legislation cast dire warnings about what the law would do to the nation's physicians, the doctor-patient relationship, and even the country's way of life. Who was right? To mark the 60th anniversary of Medicare, Medscape asked leaders in healthcare, American history, and public policy to reflect on the words of the program's earliest champions and critics. Comments have been edited for length and clarity. Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kennedy, August 14, 1960. Then-Senator John F. Kennedy , spoke in support of a national insurance program for the elderly at an event on August 14, 1960: "Three out of every five of these [people over age 65] — more than 9.5 million people — must struggle to survive on an income of under $1000 a year. …This poverty and hardship turn into heartbreak and despair when illness threatens. Medicines and drugs are more expensive than ever before — hospital rates have more than doubled — doctor bills have skyrocketed. …Those over 65 suffer from chronic diseases at almost twice the rate of our younger population — they spend more than twice as many days restricted to bed — and they must visit a doctor twice as often." Commentary Keith Wailoo, PhD, Henry Putnam University professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University and past president of the American Association for the History of Medicine: "An important backdrop behind JFK's comment is reflecting 10 years prior on the failure of President Harry Truman's national health insurance proposals. The frustrations and the stories he's telling were evident after World War II. Keith Wailoo, PhD "He's describing a landscape where — in the course of the war — private insurance became more attached to employment, wage freezes meant that companies couldn't raise wages, unions lobbied and employers argued that benefits could be increased, and as a result of a momentous Supreme Court ruling, health insurance became increasingly a byproduct of employment. Healthcare costs were rising, and insurance was becoming a passage point to getting hospital care. "The face of the poor and medical needy were the elderly by 1960. They were not working, and because of advancing life expectancy, there was more infirmity and yet they were locked out of the system. "So we've recreated the world, and with that we have also changed people's expectations about what they can hope for." Ronald Reagan and the American Medical Association, 1961 audio recording on LP. In 1961, Ronald Reagan released a speech against a proposed bill that would cover hospital costs for the elderly. The effort was later revealed to be part of a campaign by the American Medical Association (AMA) to quash efforts to create a national health insurance program. Reagan said: "[The bill] was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time, socialized medicine. … First, you decide that the doctor can have so many patients, they're equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren't equally divided geographically. So a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town, and the government has to say to him, 'You can't live in that town. They already have enough doctors,' and from here, it's only a short step to dictating where he will go." Commentary Reid B. Blackwelder, MD, associate dean for graduate medical and continuing education, DIO, Quillen College of Medicine, East Tennessee State University, and past president of the American Academy of Family Physicians: "Reagan's warning that nationalized health insurance would lead to government direction for where physicians practice has not happened. Physicians have the freedom to accept insurance or not and to practice anywhere they want. Sadly, our country is facing increasing healthcare deserts for various reasons. Reid B. Blackwelder, MD "We already had a serious and growing access problem for patients. Now, patients in rural areas especially are losing even more access to primary care physicians and specialists as rural hospitals shut down and physicians like obstetricians stop practicing outside of urban areas. "Ironically, Medicare is perhaps the most lenient health insurance in terms of providing that freedom of choice Reagan described for patients. Because Medicare is popular and widely accepted by patients and physicians, patients can readily choose the physician they want, including subspecialists. On the other hand, for-profit insurance has created significant limits on which physicians a patient may select based on acceptance of that insurance and cost. It can be difficult for a patient to see the physician of their choice." Dr Edward Annis ( left ), holding an anatomical model of a human heart, speaks with TV host Johnny Carson ( right ) on the The Tonight Show , December 11, 1963. Edward Annis, MD , chairman of the AMA 's speakers' bureau — and later president of the association — appeared in a televised May 21, 1962, address about the proposed King-Anderson bill, an early iteration of what would become the legislation that created Medicare. Annis said: 'It wastefully covers millions who do not need it, it heartlessly ignores millions who do need coverage. It is not true insurance. It will create an enormous and unpredictable burden on every working taxpayer. It offers sharply limited benefits. And it will serve as a forerunner of a different system of medicine for all Americans.' Commentary Jonathan Oberlander, PhD, professor of social medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and editor of the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law: "The AMA's overheated rhetoric against Medicare did not age well. Doctors would later face challenges to their clinical autonomy, as Annis had feared, but that intrusion came from private managed care insurers trying to control skyrocketing costs, not Medicare. "Yet the AMA was right about one thing. Although they didn't admit it during the 1960s, Medicare's architects saw the program as the first step to universal health insurance, and after covering the elderly, they hoped to next turn to children and eventually cover everyone via government insurance. Medicare for All was the aspiration. "That did not happen, and although Medicare expanded eligibility in 1972 to cover persons with permanent disabilities and end-stage renal disease — six decades after the program's enactment — its primary beneficiaries are still older Americans, an outcome that would have stunned its creators. "After Medicare's enactment in 1965, the AMA's opposition to the program faded, much to Annis' consternation. Forty years later, he still expressed regret that the association did not take a more 'militant' stand highlighting the program's problems." Dr Edward Annis (right) with Dr Arthur Fleming. Annis continued: "This King-Anderson Bill is a cruel hoax and illusion. … It will come between the patient and his doctor." Commentary Reid B. Blackwelder, MD, associate dean for graduate medical and continuing education, DIO, Quillen College of Medicine, East Tennessee State University, and past president of the American Academy of Family Physicians "The special and powerful relationship between patients and physicians is a real thing. Medicare did not damage it. Other insurance coverage did not damage it. Having any insurance coverage is one of the foundations of getting to good health outcomes. The other is having a source of comprehensive care. Patients need both. "The very real threat to the physician-patient relationship that is accelerating today is from legislative intrusions into the patient room. When laws are passed that make even just exploring options with patients around things like reproductive health a criminal offense, government has overstepped. "When laws are enacted that require a physician to call their lawyer rather than a specialty consult before providing life-saving care, we have entered a new and dangerous era of governmental oversight. Recent laws have done more damage to the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship that Medicare actually helped improve." Rep. Durward Gorham Hall, 1969 Representative Durward Gorham Hall, MD (R, Missouri), made these remarks below during debates on Medicare in the House of Representatives: "This conflict is testing whether art and science of medicine will be permitted to grow and flourish in freedom and competitively, or whether progress in medicine will be stunted and shriveled by an excess of Government control." Commentary Jonathan B. Jaffery, MD, MS, MMM, chief healthcare officer at the Association of American Medical Colleges: "By supporting the training of physicians, Medicare helps create the physician workforce for future generations of Americans, crucial for the care of an aging population. And through iterative developments over the last 60 years, such as Coverage with Evidence Development or the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovations, the Medicare program — coupled with federal investments in biomedical research — has been able to support innovations in both medical technologies and models of care delivery that continue to improve the lives and well-beings of millions. Jonathan B. Jaffery, MD "The reality is, prior to 1965, many elderly Americans with healthcare needs were forced to rely on financial support from their families or spend all their life's savings, hope for charity care, or forego care altogether. And of course, the cost of care has only skyrocketed, so that in 2025 even very high-net worth individuals would struggle to cover the costs of a lengthy hospitalization or extended illness, let alone the price tag of many new life-saving medications." Hall continued: "The result will inescapably be third-party intrusion in the practice of hospitalization and medicine. His diagnostic and therapeutic decisions would be subject to disapproval by those controlling the expenditure of tax money." Commentary G. William Hoagland, senior vice president, Bipartisan Policy Center, former executive at Cigna, and former US Senate staffer "Representative Hall was prescient in his observation about the future of healthcare resulting from the creation of Medicare. The 60-year history of the Medicare program, particularly since the enactment of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act in 1982, the Medicare Modernization Act in 2003, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010, has resulted in the 'corporatization' of healthcare. G. William Hoagland "Today, Medicare Advantage, dominated by 'third-party' corporate insurance companies, has transferred the physician's independent decisions to actuaries and corporate financial decision makers. The result has also been horizontal consolidation of what were locally controlled entities to nationally or regionally controlled corporations along with vertical consolidation of payers and care delivery entities. "The impact of these changes, along with dramatic scientific advances in diagnosis with advanced treatment protocols, precipitating higher healthcare utilization, has not been to reduce costs but to in fact increase healthcare costs." President Lyndon Johnson ( left ) flips through the pages of the Medicare bill so former President Harry Truman ( right) can see it. Following passage of the Social Security Amendments of 1965 out of the Senate by a vote of 68-21, President Lyndon B. Johnson said: "It will help pay for care in hospitals. If hospitalization is unnecessary, it will help pay for care in nursing homes or in the home. And wherever illness is treated — in home or hospital — it will also help meet the fees of doctors and the costs of drugs." Commentary Bruce Leff, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Transformative Geriatric Research, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore: "Johnson's statement regarding care at home was appropriate for the mid-1960s. To this day, skilled home healthcare remains the most used home-based service by Medicare beneficiaries. "Since Medicare was enacted, a bevy of evidence-based home care delivery models have been developed and proven. These home-based models span the care continuum including home and community-based services, home-based primary care, transitional care, and home-based palliative care. Bruce Leff, MD "Unfortunately, Medicare payment policies incentivized the centralization of care in facilities and a facility-centric culture of care delivery. Care delivery hasn't kept pace with the needs of an aging population with a high prevalence of homebound older Americans or with the advances that enable even hospital care to be delivered to patients in their preferred setting, their homes. "The hospital of the future will comprise of emergency departments, operating rooms, and intensive care units. Most other care can and will be provided in the home setting. We have all the pieces to develop this future home-based care vision. Achieving this vision will require a culture shift with associated payment and regulatory enhancements, ongoing attention to improvements in technology, logistics, and data management." An elderly woman shows her gratitude to President Lyndon B. Johnson for his signing of the Medicare healthcare bill in April 1965. Johnson continued: "Older citizens will no longer have to fear that illness will wipe out their savings, eat up their income, and destroy lifelong hope of dignity and independence. For every family with older members, it will mean relief from the often-crushing responsibilities of care." Commentary Gretchen Jacobson, PhD, vice president, Medicare program, Commonwealth Fund: Gretchen Jacobson, PhD "One third of Medicare beneficiaries said in 2023 that it was difficult to afford healthcare costs. More than 1 in 5 beneficiaries reported in 2023 delaying or skipping needed healthcare because of the cost. Similarly, some Medicare beneficiaries trade off paying for other necessities to pay for needed healthcare. The lack of a limit on out-of-pocket spending on hospital and physician services for traditional Medicare has, for most traditional Medicare enrollees, necessitated purchasing supplemental insurance coverage. Yet, the limited availability of this supplemental coverage has resulted in more beneficiaries enrolling in Medicare Advantage and high underinsurance rates among those in traditional Medicare without supplemental coverage. "Medicare beneficiaries who do not have a family caregiver and cannot afford to pay out-of-pocket for a formal caregiver are typically forced to deplete their financial resources to qualify for Medicaid coverage, the largest payer for long-term care in the US."
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Trump Approval Rating Increases 2 Points From Last Week
July 28 -3 net approval rating: The president's approval rating increased two points, to 47%, and his disapproval rating declined two points, to 50% in Morning Consult's weekly survey compared to last week's poll. The last time Trump had a net positive approval rating in Morning Consult's poll was in March. July 24 -21: Trump's 37% approval rating is down from 47% in January, while 58% disapprove of his job performance, compared to 48% in January, according to a July 7-21 Gallup poll of 1,002 adults (margin of error 4). Trump's average approval rating for the second quarter of his second term, April 20-July 19, is 40% in Gallup polling, compared to a 39% average in the second quarter of his first term but below second-term averages for every post-World War II president. July 22 -14: Trump's approval rating is unchanged from last week in the latest Economist/YouGov survey of 1,729 U.S. adults taken July 18-21 (margin of error 3.4), with 41% approving of his job performance and 55% disapproving, compared to a 49% approval rating and 43% disapproval rating at the start of his term, according to Economist/YouGov polling. An overwhelming majority, 81% of respondents, said the government should release all documents related to its probe into Jeffrey Epstein, while 69% said they believe the government is covering up evidence about Epstein, and 56% disapprove of Trump's handling of the Epstein investigation. July 16 -16: A total of 42% approve of Trump's job performance, while 58% disapprove in a new CNN/SSRS poll of 1,057 respondents conducted July 10-13 (margin of error 3.5), representing a one-point improvement in Trump's approval rating since April and a one-point drop in his disapproval rating. The majority, 61%, of Americans said they oppose Trump's signature policy bill that would pay for tax breaks and additional border security, among other measures, in part, by cutting Medicaid, while 39% said they approve of the so-called megabill. July 15 -14: Trump's net approval rating dipped to its lowest point of his second term in Economist/YouGov polling, with 41% approving and 55% disapproving, according to the survey of 1,506 registered voters (margin of error 3.1)—consistent with his lowest approval rating of his first term, according to Economist/YouGov polling. July 14 -3: Trump's approval rating improved two points, to 47%, while his disapproval rating also improved two points, to 50%, in Morning Consult's weekly survey of 2,201 registered voters with a two-point margin of error. July 2 -16: Trump's approval rating stands at 40% in a Yahoo/YouGov poll of 1,597 U.S. adults conducted June 26-30 (margin of error 3.2), a four-point decrease from the groups' March poll, while 56% disapprove. Trump's -16 net approval rating is three points worse than it was at this point during his first term, according to YouGov data, while former President Barack Obama had a +14 net approval rating and former President Joe Biden had a +7 approval rating halfway through their first years in office. June 30 -3: Trump's disapproval rating improved from 53% to 50% in Morning Consult's weekly poll compared to its survey last week, while his approval rating increased from 45% to 47% (the survey of 2,202 registered voters was conducted June 27-29 and has a two-point margin of error). The rating was Trump's best since May and coincides with an uptick in respondents' approval of his handling of national security issues since last week, following a cease-fire agreement between Israel and Iran. June 23 -16: Trump's approval rating dipped one point, to 41%, in a Reuters/Ipsos survey of 1,139 U.S. adults taken June 21-23 from its June 11-16 survey, with 57% disapproving (the latest poll has a 3-point margin of error). The poll also found a plurality, 45%, of U.S. adults surveyed do not support the airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend, while 36% support them and 19% said they were unsure. June 17 -13: An Economist/YouGov poll found 54% of voters disapprove of Trump's job performance, while 41% approve (the survey of 1,512 U.S. adults was conducted June 13-16 and has a 3.3-point margin of error). The survey also found Trump's approval rating is underwater when it comes to his handling of Iran, with 37% approving and 41% disapproving, while 60% of respondents, including 53% of 2024 Trump voters, say the U.S. should not get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran, as Trump has repeatedly threatened U.S. military intervention. June 17 -17: Trump's net approval rating improved two points in the latest Pew Research survey taken June 2-8, compared to the group's last poll in April, with the latest survey showing 41% approve and 58% disapprove (the survey of 5,044 U.S. adults has a 1.6-point margin of error). June 16 -6: Trump's net approval rating dipped two points in Morning Consult's latest weekly survey of 2,207 registered U.S. voters (margin of error 2), with 46% approving and 52% disapproving of his job performance, numbers the pollster notes are on par with his ratings in April and early May, during a downward spiral that coincided with his shock tariffs. June 16 -12: Trump's approval rating remained stagnant at 42% in a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken June 11-16, compared to the groups' May poll, but his disapproval rating increased two points, to 54%, in the latest survey of 4,258 U.S. adults (margin of error 2). June 16 -4: Trump's approval rating declined one point, from 47% to 46%, in the latest Harvard CAPS/Harris survey, compared to the groups' poll taken last month, while 50% of respondents said they disapprove of his job performance (the online survey of 2,097 registered voters was conducted June 11-12 and has a 2.2-point margin of error). Trump's approval rating in the Harvard CAPS/Harris poll has dropped every month since February, when he had a 52% approval rating. Trump's approval rating for nine separate issues also declined from May to June, with less than half of voters saying they approve of each of them, with tariffs and trade policy receiving the lowest marks (41%) and immigration receiving the highest (49%). June 15 -10 net approval rating: More than half, 55%, of voters said they disapprove of Trump's job performance and 45% said they approve in an NBC survey of 19,410 U.S. adults conducted May 30-June 10 (margin of error 2.1). June 11 -16: Trump's approval rating dipped three points, to 38%, in Quinnipiac University's latest poll conducted June 5-9 among 1,265 registered voters (margin of error 2.8), compared to its previous poll in April, when he had a 41% approval rating, while his disapproval rating dropped one point, to 54%. The survey also found more voters, 57%, have an unfavorable opinion of Elon Musk, while 53% have an unfavorable opinion of Trump, though more than half, 53%, oppose Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' that was the source of Musk's rant against Trump last week. June 9 -10: A CBS/YouGov poll conducted June 4-6 found 45% approve of Trump's job performance, while 55% disapprove (the poll of 2,428 U.S. adults has a, 2.4-point margin of error). In a separate, one-day YouGov survey conducted June 5, amid Trump's feud with Musk, the majority of 3,812 U.S. adults (52%) said they side with neither Musk nor Trump, while 28% said they side with Trump, 8% said they side with Musk and 11% said they aren't sure. June 9 -4 net approval rating: Trump's approval rating improved one point, to 47%, in Morning Consult's weekly poll, while 51% disapprove of his job performance for the third week in a row (the survey of 1,867 registered U.S. voters has a 2-point margin of error). Trump's feud with Musk doesn't appear to have dented his approval ratings in the first two polls that overlapped with their public spat—though it's unclear how Americans perceive his response to protests in Los Angeles over his aggressive deportation push, as no reliable polling has been released since the protests began over the weekend. June 4 -4: For the first time in two months, less than half (49%) of U.S. adults surveyed by the Economist/YouGov disapprove of Trump's job performance, compared to 45% who strongly or somewhat approve, representing a significant improvement from the groups' April 19-22 poll, when Trump had a net -13 approval rating (the latest poll of 1,610 U.S. adults conducted May 30-June 2 has a 3-point margin of error). June 2 -5: Trump's approval rating dropped from 48% to 46% in this week's Morning Consult poll compared to its previous survey, while his disapproval rating was stagnant at 51% (the May 30-June 2 poll of 2,205 registered voters has a 2-point margin of error). The share of registered voters who say they identify with Trump's Make America Great Again movement has increased sharply during Trump's second term, according to NBC polling. A total of 36% of 1,000 registered voters polled March 7-11 said they consider themselves part of the MAGA coalition, compared to a 23% average in NBC's March polling and 27% in the network's 2024 polls (the most recent poll has a 3.1-point margin of error). 42%. That's Trump's average approval rating so far during his second term, higher than his 41% average approval rating throughout the duration of his first term, according to Gallup. Just after marking his sixth month in office, Trump is facing arguably the biggest public relations crisis of his second term as his base has broken with him over the Justice Department's refusal to release documents detailing its investigation into Epstein. Among other major moments of his second term: Trump launched a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, leading to a cease-fire agreement during Iran and Israel. Congress also approved his signature policy legislation that will enact some of his most significant campaign promises, including an extension of his 2017 tax cuts and tighter border control. Trump's approval rating has declined since the start of his term, with a notable plunge coinciding with his wide-ranging 'Liberation Day' tariffs he announced on April 2 against nearly all U.S. trading partners, though he has largely backed off most of the levies. Prior to the Epstein controversy, the leak of U.S. military attack plans to Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg was widely considered the first big crisis of Trump's second term. His efforts to slash the federal workforce with the help of the Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency and his mass deportation push are two other controversial hallmarks of his second term that have prompted numerous legal actions.
