Wisconsin Supreme Court delivers win for environmentalists in fight over ‘forever chemicals'
The liberal-controlled court ruled that state regulators can force landowners to clean up emerging pollutants such as PFAS before they are officially designated as hazardous substances.
The 5-2 ruling is a defeat for the state's powerful group representing businesses and manufacturers, which had argued the state couldn't enforce regulations on substances before they were officially designated as hazardous.
It is the latest development in a yearslong battle in Wisconsin and nationally involving regulators, environmentalists, politicians and businesses over how to deal with PFAS contamination.
The PFAS problem
Cities large and small across Wisconsin, from Madison to Marinette and La Crosse to Wausau, are grappling with PFAS contamination. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that at least 45% of the nation's tap water is contaminated with PFAS.
PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of chemicals that have been around for decades and have now spread into the nation's air, water and soil.
They were manufactured by companies such as 3M, Chemours and others because they were incredibly useful. They helped eggs slide across nonstick frying pans, ensured that firefighting foam suffocates flames and helped clothes withstand the rain and keep people dry.
The chemicals resist breaking down, however, which means they stay around in the environment and have a hard time breaking down in the body. There is a wide range of health harms now associated with exposure to certain PFAS, including low birth weight, cancer and liver disease.
Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and Republican legislators have been at odds over how to address the problem for years, with both sides blaming the other for not earmarking more money for clean up efforts.
The Wisconsin case
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in a case brought by the state's largest business group, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, which sued the DNR in 2021 on behalf of Leather Rich, a dry cleaning business in Oconomowoc.
Leather Rich became aware of PFAS contamination in 2018 and was working on cleaning it up when the DNR posted a message online in 2019 saying it now considered PFAS chemicals a hazardous substance. The agency ordered the dry cleaner to test its groundwater for PFAS but didn't tell the business which compounds it needed to test for or what levels would be considered dangerous.
They argued the DNR can't force businesses to test and clean up contamination from emerging pollutants like PFAS without first designating them as hazardous substances. That process can take years and requires approval from the Legislature.
A Waukesha County judge and the state appeals court sided with Leather Rich.
The DNR appealed, arguing that it could unilaterally force testing because state law gives the agency broad authority to protect the environment. It also argued that the lower court's ruling would neuter the state's 'spills law,' which was designed to confront pollution.
That law, enacted about 50 years ago, requires anyone who causes, possesses or controls a hazardous substance that's been released into the environment to clean it up.
Wisconsin Supreme Court weighs in
'Wisconsin's Spills Law safeguards human health and the environment in real time by directly regulating parties responsible for a hazardous substance discharge,' Justice Janet Protasiewicz wrote for the majority.
No state law required the DNR to implement a rule before requiring Leather Rich to begin cleaning up the site, she wrote.
'The DNR has explicit authority to enforce a threshold for reporting the discharge of hazardous substances,' she wrote.
The court's four liberal justices were joined by conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn in the majority. Conservative justices Annette Ziegler and Rebecca Bradley dissented.
They said the ruling allows bureaucrats to 'impose rules and penalties on the governed without advance notice, oversight, or deliberation. In doing so, the majority violates three first principles fundamental to preserving the rule of law — and liberty.'
Fight over PFAS regulation
Since the lawsuit was filed, additional state and federal regulations of PFAS have been put in place.
Federal regulators placed the first-ever national standards on PFAS in drinking water last year, but the Trump administration said in May that it planned to weaken those limits.
The state has imposed less restrictive limits on PFAS in surface and drinking water, defined as piped water delivered through public systems and noncommunity systems that serve places such as factories, schools and hotels.
But it has not implemented PFAS standards for groundwater, the source of drinking water for about two-thirds of Wisconsin residents. The agency stopped efforts to draft them in 2023 after determining that compliance would be too expensive.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
The fireworks begin
Presented by With help from Eli Okun, Bethany Irvine and Ali Bianco Good Friday morning, and happy Independence Day. This is Zack Stanton, looking forward to the fireworks on the National Mall tonight (they start at 9:09 p.m.), which I hope to enjoy somewhere away from the crowds. A July Fourth question: A few years back, I worked on a roundup for POLITICO Magazine asking a number of historian types who they would put on an imagined 'new' Mt. Rushmore. Answers ranged from Ida B. Wells to FDR to Dorothy Day to Dwight Eisenhower. It's a fun thought experiment. Who would you put on it? Let me know. DRIVING THE DAY THE SIGNATURE ACCOMPLISHMENT: In the end, President Donald Trump got what he wanted. A signature legislative victory? Check. A pliant Republican Congress? Check. A chance to mark it all with a celebration at the White House on July 4? Check. A reaffirmation that many people are unable to see any issue except as an up-or-down vote on Trump? Check. Later today, the president is expected to sign the Republican megabill into law in a 5 p.m. ceremony at the White House. With a few pen strokes, he will enact into law the most sweeping cuts to America's social safety net in a generation, extend his 2017 tax cuts and pair them with new tax breaks for income from tips, and usher in a wave of new spending on immigration enforcement. But for Republicans on the Hill, the megabill was, on some deep level, 'never about those tax rates or Medicaid or the deficit,' as POLITICO's Jonathan Martin writes this morning in a column we're bringing you first in Playbook. 'The underlying legislation was no bill at all, but a referendum on Trump. And that left congressional Republicans a binary choice that also had nothing to do with the policy therein: They could salute the president and vote yes or vote no and risk their careers in a primary.' That political reality informed the process and policy. 'The hard truth for small-government conservatives in Congress to swallow is that their primary voters care more about fidelity to Trump than reducing the size of the federal government,' JMart observes. THE PROCESS … For all the discussion this week about potential Republican 'no' votes, there was scant opposition when it came time to stand and be counted. Only two House Republicans voted against the bill: libertarian-minded Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and moderate front-liner Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.). Everyone else — running the ideological spectrum from Don Bacon (R-Neb.) to Chip Roy (R-Texas) — got on board. The House Freedom Caucus surrendered. 'They called their own bluff,' Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.), a frequent critic of the group, told POLITICO's Meredith Lee Hill. 'How many times have they done this? I mean, I've been in Congress for two years and five seconds, and they pulled the same stunt 19 times. … The influence of the Freedom Caucus is over.' What did they get? 'In the end, [Trump] seems to have promised them executive orders — though details are scarce,' report WaPo's Liz Goodwin and colleagues. ''We came to significant agreements with the administration overnight on executive actions, both inside and outside, of the bill that will make America great again,' Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris (R-Md.) said, without elaborating.' The conservative hard-liners folded. At 3:15 a.m. yesterday, a dozen hard-right members gathered for a photo in the House chamber, smiling for a group photo. 'The Republican holdouts had ended their fight by getting together to strike a pose,' POLITICO's Ben Jacobs writes in the best kicker we've read today. 'It wasn't difficult. After all, they had been posing all week.' What did they get? OMB Director Russ Vought 'reassured lawmakers that the administration would use its authority to limit spending,' WSJ's Natalie Andrews and colleagues report — even spending already approved by Congress. The moderates got in line. 'A bloc of more moderate House Republicans from politically competitive districts, many of whom had warned that the bill's Medicaid cuts could hurt their constituents and suggested they could not stomach the legislation, ultimately voted 'yes,'' writes NYT's Catie Edmondson. 'They included Representative David Valadao of California, who just last weekend warned that he could not embrace the 'harmful cuts to Medicaid' the Senate had included in its version of the bill.' What did they get? Honestly, it doesn't seem like they got anything. With the notable exception of Fitzpatrick (good backgrounder on his unique situation from POLITICO's Holly Otterbein) moderate Republicans ultimately accepted the Senate bill, which 'is harsher on Medicaid provider taxes, financing mechanisms that states use to boost their federal funding,' WSJ's Richard Rubin and colleagues write. Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) 'said that delays to some Medicaid-funding changes helped him get comfortable with supporting the bill,' per the Journal. 'A lot's going to happen between now and 2028, and they start slowly,' Van Drew said. 'It's not going to be an immediate change next week, which is what people think it's going to be.' The prevailing message: If the vote in the House boiled down to a referendum of support for Trump and his agenda, that was a message also carried in the Senate by Eric Schmitt. The Missouri Republican, who has 'become a trusted point man' for Trump and VP JD Vance, conveyed to the complex web of coalitions in the chamber that there simply was no alternative to passing the bill, a person familiar with the dynamics tells Playbook's Dasha Burns. THE POLICY … The one-paragraph summary: 'The legislation contains about $4.5 trillion in tax cuts,' AP's Kevin Freking and Lisa Mascaro write. 'It temporarily would add new tax deductions on tip[s], overtime and auto loans. There's also a $6,000 deduction for older adults who earn no more than $75,000 a year, a nod to [Trump's] pledge to end taxes on Social Security benefits. It would boost the $2,000 child tax credit to $2,200. Millions of families at lower income levels would not get the full credit. A cap on state and local deductions … would quadruple to $40,000 for five years. … There are scores of business-related tax cuts, including allowing businesses to immediately write off 100% of the cost of equipment and research.' How to pay for that? Frankly, the bill frankly doesn't pay for it. The Congressional Budget Office projects it'll increase federal deficits by nearly $3.3 trillion over the next decade, though many Republicans quibble with that math. To the extent there is a financial tradeoff at the heart of Trump's bill, it comes in slashing funding for Medicaid in order to partially pay for the tax cuts. Grand Old Party vs. Grand New Party: In that way, it pits traditional Republican policy dogma against the political interests of the Trump-era Republican voter coalition, as POLITICO's Robert King and Kelly Hooper shrewdly observe. 'The Republican base now includes more working-class and low-income people, many of whom receive their health insurance through Medicaid,' they write. 'But the traditional sentiment of many Republican lawmakers toward the social safety-net program — that it provides handouts on taxpayers' dime — has largely remained the same.' Indeed, beyond some 'populist flourishes' included in the bill, 'the measure is regressive,' WaPo's Marianna Sotomayor and colleagues write. 'The 10 percent of households with the lowest incomes would stand to be worse off by an average of $1,600 per year on average because of benefits cuts, according to the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the House version of the bill. The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes would be better off by $12,000 on average. … Adding in the impact of Trump's tariffs — which the White House has argued will help pay for the bill's tax cuts and new spending — the bottom 80 percent of households would see their take-home incomes fall, according to the Yale Budget Lab.' THE POLITICS … The next phase: Democrats are eager to wield the megabill vote as a heavy cudgel ahead of the 2026 midterms, POLITICO's Elena Schneider reports. Whether they can do so effectively is almost certain to determine the balance of power in the House. Starting now: 'Ad-makers have quickly prepped attack ads to air as soon as the holiday weekend is over, including in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. House Democrats are plotting to turn the August recess into the opening salvo of the midterms, including through town halls and organizing programs. And Democrats see an opportunity to expand the battleground, going on offense into red areas across the country.' What Dems are seeing: My Playbook colleague Dasha Burns obtained a study that Blue Rose Research conducted for the Democratic-aligned Senate Majority PAC. In it, they found that without any priming, net support for the bill was 8 points underwater. When provided with a fairly anodyne description of the bill, it's 19 points underwater. (And notably, this study was done before some of the largest cuts to Medicaid were introduced to the package.) What Republicans are seeing: As Dasha reported earlier this week, GOP pollster par excellence Tony Fabrizio sees a politically salient way Republicans can brand the legislation (out: 'One Big Beautiful Bill'; in: 'Working Families Tax Cuts') and its component parts (framing the Medicaid cuts around work requirements and slashing waste, fraud and abuse). There's a reality to acknowledge: Midterms rarely break in favor of the president. Yes, you can argue that there's a massive spin battle at hand about how to sell the bill to a weary public, with a chance that Republicans come out on top. But consider recent history. Midterm waves build regardless of what the incumbent party wants to focus on or how they try to frame it. In 2010, Democrats tried to center their message on Barack Obama's Recovery Act, which did little to satisfy voters riled up about the Affordable Care Act and the Wall Street bailouts signed by George W. Bush; Republicans won control of the House and picked up six seats in the Senate. In 2018, Republicans tried to tout the Trump tax cuts while anger about Trump writ large combined with a Dem focus on the GOP's push to repeal the ACA; Dems retook the House and picked up seven governor's mansions. All of which is to say this: Republicans will celebrate today at the White House, but that'll be before the fireworks start. In the meantime, the hope of future electoral wins will be cold comfort for many Democrats. Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.) was seen sobbing as she left the vote yesterday. 'The amount of kids who are going to go without health care and food — people like my mom [who struggle with substance use disorder] are going to be left to die because they don't have access to health care,' she said, per NYT's Annie Karni. 'It's just pretty unfathomable.' 9 THINGS THAT STUCK WITH US 1. TRADING SPACES: Trump said as he returned from his trip to Iowa that he is 'set to resume a set of tariffs that he initially imposed in April on dozens of countries, before pausing them for 90 days to negotiate individual deals' and some of the levies 'could be even steeper than originally announced,' NYT's Lydia DePillis writes. What Trump said: ''So we're going to start sending letters out to various countries starting tomorrow,' said Mr. Trump, hours after his major domestic policy bill passed the House of Representatives. 'They'll range in value from maybe 60 or 70 percent tariffs to 10 and 20 percent tariffs.' He said his administration would then send more letters each day until the end of the 90-day pause, on Wednesday, when he expected they would all be covered. Smaller countries would come toward the end, and duties would begin to be collected on Aug. 1.' 2. SCOTUS WATCH: The Supreme Court yesterday 'cleared the way for the Trump administration to deport eight men to South Sudan who have been detained in a shipping container on a U.S. military base in Djibouti for six weeks after becoming caught up in a legal tug-of-war between the White House and a federal judge in Boston,' POLITICO's Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney report. The details: 'By an apparent 7-2 vote, the justices lifted an order from U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy that had blocked the men's deportation. Murphy took that step despite a Supreme Court ruling last week that put a hold on an earlier, nationwide injunction he issued requiring the administration to give deportees advance notice of their destination and a 'meaningful' chance to object if they believed they'd be in danger there.' 3. ON THE BORDER: 'US expands militarized zones to 1/3 of southern border, stirring controversy,' by AP's Morgan Lee: 'It's part of a major shift that has thrust the military into border enforcement with Mexico like never before. The move places long stretches of the border under the supervision of nearby military bases, empowering U.S. troops to detain people who enter the country illegally and sidestep a law prohibiting military involvement in civilian law enforcement. … The militarization is being challenged in court, and has been criticized by civil rights advocates, humanitarian aid groups and outdoor enthusiasts who object to being blocked from public lands while troops have free rein.' 4. RUSSIA-UKRAINE LATEST: As he boarded Air Force One for his trip to Iowa yesterday, Trump gave a few details about his call earlier in the day with Russian President Vladimir Putin. 'It was a pretty long call. We talked about a lot of things, including Iran. We also talked about the war with Ukraine and I'm not happy about that,' the president said. But when asked whether there was a serious discussion about a deal to end the war, Trump said: 'No, I didn't make any progress.' A top Kremlin aide also said the two leaders did not discuss a recent pause in weapons shipments to Ukraine, which was first reported by POLITICO, in the nearly two-hour long conversation. More from POLITICO's Ben Johansen So much for 'Vladimir, STOP': Hours after the phone call, Russia 'attacked Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities on Friday with the largest number of drones and missiles launched in a single barrage so far in the war, according to the Ukrainian Air Force,' NYT's Andrew Kramer reports from Kyiv. It's the latest salvo in a string of 'relentless attacks' that Putin has planned as his country's war on Ukraine enters a fourth summer, WSJ's James Marson and Jane Lytvynenko write: 'Putin's strategy is aimed at breaking Ukraine's ability and will to fight the war, by ratcheting up pressure on its military and civilian population as the country's most powerful backer shuffles toward the sidelines.' 5. MIDDLE EAST LATEST: Trump 'hopes to strike a ceasefire deal in Gaza next week as he hosts Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House while his negotiating team narrows the gaps between Hamas and Israel on an agreement to release hostages and end hostilities,' WaPo's John Hudson and colleagues report. Where things stand: 'Hamas is weighing whether to accept an amended proposal for a 60-day ceasefire put forward by Qatar and Egypt interlocutors … Israelis are expecting Netanyahu and Trump to announce a ceasefire deal as well as agreements with other neighboring Arab nations during the trip.' On the other side: 'As the United States presses for a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas, the militant group's decision will largely hinge on its new de facto leader in Gaza,' NYT's Adam Rasgon and Ronen Bergman report. 'The commander, Izz al-Din al-Haddad … is in his mid-50s [and] helped plan the Hamas-led attack on Oct. 7, 2023 … He is believed to be in firm opposition to Israeli efforts to dislodge Hamas from power, suggesting that he could block any push to release all remaining hostages before a total end to the war in Gaza and a withdrawal of Israeli troops.' 6. DANCE OF THE SUPERPOWERS: The Trump administration is 'reaching out to business executives to weigh interest' in whether they would accompany Trump on a potential visit to China later this year, much like the trip that the president took across the Middle East earlier this year, Bloomberg's Jenny Leonard and Catherine Lucey report. 'The Commerce Department is making calls to gauge interest from chief executives at some US companies,' though it's 'unclear how many company leaders have been asked to participate or whether any have confirmed.' The trip could come about in late October, when Trump is expected to travel to South Korea and Malaysia for back-to-back summits. 7. CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS WATCH: 'Trump Claims Sweeping Power to Nullify Laws, Letters on TikTok Ban Show,' by NYT's Charlie Savage: 'Attorney General Pam Bondi told tech companies that they could lawfully violate a statute barring American companies from supporting TikTok based on a sweeping claim that President Trump has the constitutional power to set aside laws, newly disclosed documents show. In letters to companies like Apple and Google, Ms. Bondi wrote that Mr. Trump had decided that shutting down TikTok would interfere with his 'constitutional duties,' so the law banning the social media app must give way to his 'core presidential national security and foreign affairs powers.'' 8. CAPITULATION CORNER: In the wake of the Jan. 6 Capitol attack and Trump's subsequent booting from social media platforms, he sued the heads of the tech giants that took action. Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk settled the suits against their companies. Now, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, who oversees YouTube, appears to have his chance. Lawyers for the two sides 'have begun 'productive discussions' about the next steps of the case against YouTube, 'with additional discussions anticipated in the near future,'' The Atlantic's Michael Scherer reports, citing little-noticed briefs filed in San Francisco. 'The parties have asked the judge to give them until September 2 to come to an agreement on a path forward.' 9. FIRST IN PLAYBOOK — Email error: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Thursday accidentally scooped who the White House may be planning to nominate for the National Labor Relations Board by telling members of its labor relations committee before the formal rollout of the picks, according to emails obtained by POLITICO's Daniel Lippman. 'In the lead-up to the long Independence Day weekend, the White House today announced several much-anticipated appointments of two members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB): Scott Mayer, Chief Labor Counsel at The Boeing Corporation, and James Murphy, a former career official with the NLRB,' the Chamber wrote in an email. But the White House hasn't yet announced those picks. Fifteen minutes after its first email went out, the Chamber wrote to the same list: 'Please ignore our recent email on NLRB nominees. This was sent in error.' A Chamber spokesperson declined to comment on the mistake, except to confirm it was an error. A White House spokesperson had no comment. Mayer and Murphy didn't respond to requests for comment. THE WEEKEND AHEAD FOX 'Fox News Sunday': Speaker Mike Johnson … Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) … Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) … Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Panel: Horace Cooper, Meghan Hays, Mollie Hemingway and Hans Nichols. CBS 'Face the Nation': NEC Director Kevin Hassett … Ken Burns. ABC 'This Week': CEA Chair Stephen Miran … Larry Summers … Richard Besser. Panel: Donna Brazile and Chris Christie. CNN 'State of the Union': Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Panel: Scott Jennings, Shermichael Singleton, Jamal Simmons and Kate Bedingfield. MSNBC 'PoliticsNation': Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear … Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) … Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). NewsNation 'The Hill Sunday': Retired Adm. William McRaven … Robert George … Andrew Sullivan … Julie Silverbrook. NBC 'Meet the Press': Olivia Munn … Bob Costas … Sal Khan … Amanda Gorman. TALK OF THE TOWN FIRST IN PLAYBOOK — Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick was supposed to join EU Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security Maroš Šefčovič on Thursday for a meeting as Europe negotiates a trade deal with the Trump administration, but Lutnick had already left town to go on vacation with his family in Italy, a person familiar with the matter told POLITICO's Daniel Lippman and Daniel Desrochers. Instead, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he was meeting with the EU as the deadline for Trump's pause on his so-called reciprocal tariffs is due to expire next Wednesday. 'Secretary Lutnick met his wife and family for a July 4th trip,' a Commerce spokesperson said in a statement to Playbook. 'He has been on nonstop calls working for the American people and plans to be back in DC this weekend. President Trump's deal announcement with Vietnam earlier this week proves that Sec. Lutnick continues to level the playing field for the American worker.' GARDEN VARIETY — 'White House says Garden of American Heroes may not be complete until 2029,' by WaPo's Janay Kingsberry: 'The White House said it is working to finish President Donald Trump's patriotic statue garden by the end of his second term — an acknowledgment that comes as a key deadline for the project passed this week, and one that diverges sharply from a federal agency's stated plans to complete the ambitious installation before the United States' 250th birthday next year.' THE FRENCH CONNECTION — 'Why a birthday party in D.C. for a late French general was packed with guests,' by WaPo's Petula Dvorak: 'The honoree was Jean-Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, the comte de Rochambeau, who would be turning 300 on that day. And despite his advanced age, he can still draw a crowd of more than 100. For many in attendance, that was largely because his actions 244 years ago remain an important lesson for America today.' TRANSITION — Josh Craddock is joining the Justice Department as deputy assistant AG in the Office of Legal Counsel. He previously was an associate at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. … Lilia Dashevsky is now founder and CEO of Emet Strategies. She previously was SVP and democracy practice lead at CLYDE. BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY: The United States of America is 249 … Geraldo Rivera … WSJ's Natalie Andrews … Luke Tomanelli … former Reps. Dan Maffei (D-N.Y.) and Sam Farr (D-Calif.) … Ed Matricardi … Frank Donatelli … Lanhee Chen … Ripple's Susan Hendrick … Matthew Gravatt … Stat's Chelsea Cirruzzo … Ann Rulon … Dustin Todd … Kathleen Kennedy Townsend … Kevin McLaughlin … Ryan Williams … Will Ritter of Poolhouse … Catlin O'Neill … Sunshine Sachs' Taylor Friedman … Lauren Ashburn … Cassie Ballard of Chime … Malia Obama … Viveca Novak … Terry Wade … Brandon English … Matthew Lee Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here. Send Playbookers tips to playbook@ or text us on Signal here. Playbook couldn't happen without our editor Zack Stanton, deputy editor Garrett Ross and Playbook Podcast producer Callan Tansill-Suddath. Correction: Yesterday's Playbook misspelled Mychael Schnell's name.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Gets Polling Boost From Hispanics
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump is gaining unexpected ground with Hispanic voters ahead of the 2026 midterms, according to new polling that shows his support ticking up among a group that has traditionally leaned Democratic. The latest YouGov/Yahoo poll, conducted between June 26 and 30 among 1,597 adults, shows that Trump's net approval rating among Hispanic voters stands at -30 points, with 32 percent approving and 62 percent disapproving. That is up from a net approval of -37 points in May, when 26 percent approved and 63 percent disapproved. President Donald Trump at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on July 4. President Donald Trump at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on July 4. Alex Brandon/AP Why It Matters Since at least the 1960s, Hispanic voters in the U.S. have generally supported Democratic candidates. According to Pew Research Center, about 66 percent of Hispanic voters supported Barack Obama in 2012, and 65 percent supported Hillary Clinton in 2016. In 2020, 63 percent of Hispanic voters supported Joe Biden, according to AP VoteCast. In 2024, Democrats saw their lead among the group cut substantially, with 55 percent supporting Kamala Harris and 43 percent supporting Trump—an 8-point increase from 2020 and the highest percentage for a Republican presidential candidate since such data has been tracked. The recent YouGov/Yahoo poll shows that Trump maintains his support among Hispanic voters. What To Know Trump's gains with Hispanic voters stand in sharp contrast to his slipping support among other key demographic groups. Across most other segments, the president's approval ratings fell in June. The most striking drop was among Black voters, where his net approval plunged from -49 points to -70. Among Gen Z voters, his net rating also deteriorated sharply, falling from -23 points in May to -41 points in June. These trends reflect national polling that shows Trump's overall approval rating hitting an all-time low for his second term. The latest ActiVote survey, conducted June 1 to 30 among 523 adults, found Trump's national approval at 45 percent and disapproval at 52 percent—putting his net approval at -7 points, his worst showing since returning to office. Despite this record low for his second term, Trump's current approval still outpaces his own first-term average, which ActiVote tracked at 41 percent. It also remains slightly higher than former President Joe Biden's full-term average of 41 percent and Biden's final-year average of 40 percent. A separate survey by Targoz Market Research and Overton Insights, conducted June 23 to 26 among 1,200 registered voters, put Trump's net approval even deeper underwater at -11 points—with 43 percent approving and 54 percent disapproving. That's a noticeable drop from a -5 net approval rating in March. Meanwhile, in the YouGov/Yahoo poll, Trump's net approval dropped from -13 points in May—when 41 percent approved and 54 percent disapproved—to -16 points, with 40 percent approving and 56 percent disapproving. A few outliers offer Trump a silver lining. An RMG Research poll from June 18 to 26 showed the president still slightly above water, with a net approval of +4 points (51 percent approve, 47 percent disapprove)—though that, too, was down from +7 previously. Some polls also suggest Trump's approval rating has ticked up slightly after a period of steady decline, underscoring how divided—and volatile—voter sentiment is in his second term. Newsweek's tracker puts Trump's approval at 45 percent, with 51 percent disapproving, giving him a net approval of -6 points. That marks an improvement from the end of last week, when his net approval rating sank to an all-time low of -10 points. The latest Navigator Research poll, conducted June 26 to 30, found Trump at 45 percent approval and 53 percent disapproval—a slight recovery from early June, when he hit a record low for this term at 43 percent approval and 55 percent disapproval. A YouGov/Economist survey from June 27 to 30 showed a modest uptick to 42 percent approval and 53 percent disapproval, up from a low of 40 percent earlier in the month. Poll Date Approve Disapprove Quantus June 30-July 2 47 49 YouGov/Yahoo June 26-30 40 56 ActiVote June 1-30 45 52 Navigator Research June 26-30 45 53 YouGov/Economist June 27-30 42 53 Morning Consult June 27-29 47 50 TIPP Jun 25-27 44 45 RMG Research June 18-26 51 47 The Tyson Group June 25-26 45 51 Targoz June 23-26 43 54 Similarly, Morning Consult's June 27 to 29 poll found 47 percent of respondents approved of Trump's job performance, with 50 percent disapproving—a slight improvement from May's 45 percent approval and 53 percent disapproval. A Marist/NPR/PBS poll conducted June 23 to 25 put Trump's approval at 43 percent and disapproval at 52 percent, a tick up from April's low of 42 percent approval and 53 percent disapproval. Meanwhile, the latest Quantus Insights poll, conducted June 30 to July 2 among 1,000 registered voters, showed Trump's net approval at -2 points, with 47 percent approving and 49 percent disapproving—relatively unchanged from previous Quantus polls. What Happens Next Trump's approval ratings are likely to fluctuate in the coming weeks.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
We all have a role in stopping political violence
The shootings of two Minnesota lawmakers and their spouses last month have shaken the political world and sparked a response from leaders of both parties. Yet, even as State House Speaker Melissa Hortman (D) and her husband, Mark, were laid to rest in St. Paul this week, the news cycle had already moved on to a new tragedy. We mustn't let this story fade, and we can't wait until the next attack. Political violence is absolutely unacceptable, and we have to do more than just condemn it; we must address it head-on now. America has a problem, and the shootings in Minnesota are a stark reminder that divisive rhetoric framing our political opponents as enemies has real consequences. As Minnesotans grieve and State Sen. John Hoffman (D) and his wife, Yvette, recover post-surgery, political leaders and voters in both parties must come together, denounce this violence and offer tangible solutions to lower the temperature of our national political discourse. Our country has always had a political violence problem. However, there has been a noticeable spike in public acts of political violence over the last decade. In 2017, a gunman shot and nearly killed Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) at a congressional baseball practice. A year later, police arrested a man after he mailed pipe bombs to high-profile Democratic officials. Just weeks before the 2020 election, the FBI intercepted a plan to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) and arrested eight paramilitary extremists. On Jan. 6, 2021, a mob of rioters stormed the Capitol to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Dozens of Capitol police officers were viciously attacked. In October 2022, Paul Pelosi was hospitalized after an attacker broke into his home looking for then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). During the 2024 presidential campaign, there were two assassination attempts against President Trump and bomb threats in Ohio after he openly promoted false and hateful claims about Haitian immigrants. Just this year alone, a conspiracy theorist torched Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro's (D) home, two Israeli diplomats were assassinated in Washington and, now, the tragedy in Minneapolis. If that sounds like a lot, it is. This is not normal. These incidents provide an ominous picture of our current political landscape and underscore how misinformation, hyper-polarization and the televised crackdown on political dissent spark real-life harm — a pattern we've seen repeated in communities across the country. Amid a tumultuous political landscape, threats against local elected officials have been on the rise. There has also been an increased number of threats levied against marginalized communities, including Black, Indigenous, Latino, immigrant, gay, and particularly against transgender people. Political violence is not only perpetrated by individuals and extremist groups, but by elected officials as well. Just last week, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem allowed federal agents to forcibly remove Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) from her press conference and place him in handcuffs after the senator attempted to ask a question about the immigration raids and protests in Los Angeles. This sends a clear message: When you disagree with the administration publicly, you can expect to be manhandled by armed government agents. And President Trump's pardons of approximately 1,500 Jan. 6 defendants, including some who were convicted of violent actions, have created an atmosphere where certain types of violence are praised. Hate speech and violent rhetoric are also violence, as verbal threats significantly impact how someone can engage in the political process. While speaking about the ICE protests around the country, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) said on the Rubin Report podcast that drivers could run over protestors, two days before thousands of Floridians were set to join the 'No Kings' protests. Robust disagreement is important. The U.S. is full of different values, views, backgrounds and preferences, and still, hundreds of millions agree on the shared value that democracy — and not political violence — is how we resolve our disputes. The good news is that Americans are not as far apart as we think we are, and we have more in common than what divides us. Recent surveys consistently find that the vast majority of Americans across the political spectrum reject political violence. This spans political ideologies, age groups and identities. Americans agree that violence should never be a tool of democracy. To turn the tide, we must hold our elected leaders accountable for their violent speech and actions. Throughout U.S. history, progress has been achieved non-violently: when people have organized together, exercised their rights of free speech and assembly, participated in elections, and ensured that abusive power holders are held accountable. The women's suffrage movement, the labor rights movement and the Civil Rights movement are a testament to this, despite the intimidation and violence these movements faced along the way. These moments in history remind us that democracy is strongest when people push back together, not just in one place but collectively across the country. In our everyday lives, the best way to counter violence is through getting to know our neighbors and getting involved in our communities. Making the effort to inoculate yourself against disinformation is essential to turning down the temperature. Standing up against bigotry and hate is another way to fight back. When people are targeted with threats, violence and the taking away of their rights because of who they are, we must all speak out. Fortunately, we aren't in this fight alone. Organizations such as mine, among many other groups, work around the clock to monitor possible threats, deeply analyze the issues, and provide responses to violence and attacks on our freedoms. During the 2024 election, local, state and national organizations came together with thousands of volunteers to support people in voting without fearing for their safety. These coordinated responses show the power in national solidarity, where communities band together to speak out, act and protect each other across regions and identities. Change starts locally and takes time, but there is so much that we can do both collectively and as individuals. Our democracy works best when all voices can be heard. It's up to every one of us to reject political violence and intimidation in all of its forms — our elected officials must be brave and follow the lead of the majority of Americans. Virginia Kase Solomón is CEO of Common Cause.
