Recent polling shows Trump with around 50% support, but MIG data indicates a higher figure at 59%.
Trump appears to have strong support from the conservative base, while Haley is favored by moderate Republicans and those dissatisfied with Trump and Biden.
Trump's campaign gains momentum after DeSantis' endorsement.
Haley faces a mix of support and criticism, including concerns about her association with the World Economic Forum and accusations of elite backing.
Our Methodology
Demographics
Republicans
Sample Size
500
Geographical Breakdown
National
Time Period
7 days
MIG Reports leverages EyesOver technology, employing Advanced AI for precise analysis. This ensures unparalleled precision, setting a new standard. Find out more about the unique data pull for this article.
The New Hampshire GOP primary is garnering significant attention with key players including former President Donald Trump and former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley. The endorsement of Trump by Ron DeSantis seems to have contributed to Trump's edge in the race. Recent polling identifies Donald Trump receiving around 50% support, while MIG reporting is currently at 59%
Heading into the vote, Trump seems to have the support of the conservative base of the Republican party, while Haley seems to be the preferred choice for moderate Republicans and those dissatisfied with both Trump and Biden. There is also a significant percentage of the population open to a third-party candidate, as indicated by the readiness of the No Labels Unity Party to put forth a candidate if Haley does not get the GOP nomination.
Donald Trump's campaign appears to be gathering momentum, after Florida Governor Ron DeSantis suspended his presidential campaign and endorsed Trump. Many have speculated that this endorsement may cement Trump's standing in the race. The endorsement was hinted at by Rep. Matt Gaetz during a Trump event in Manchester, NH, which has generated much chatter in the political circuit.
On the other hand, Nikki Haley's campaign has been characterized by a mix of support and criticism. Haley, a self-proclaimed globalist, has been criticized for her association with the World Economic Forum (WEF) and their Agenda 2030, which some fear could massively limit personal freedoms. Her endorsement by Asa Hutchinson has also led to accusations that she is backed by elites.
Top Ten Discussions
The endorsement of Trump by Ron DeSantis.
The perceived bias in certain polls favoring Haley
The controversial tactics employed by MAGA extremists.
The potential of a third-party candidate by the No Labels Unity Party.
The public sentiment towards each candidate.
The potential of Haley beating Biden in the general election.
The divide among Republican voters.
Trump and Biden's close competition within the margin of error in some polls.
The possibility of a Biden/Trump rematch in the upcoming election.
The speculation about the potential failure of either Trump or Biden in certain areas.
Share:
Analysis
The Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI), who fashion themselves as a “neutral and independent organization” published a viral analysis asserting the expression “Christ is King” is used as an antisemitic tool. Conspicuously, it did not discuss the term as anti-Islamic, anti-Hindu, etc. The analysis, created by non-Christians, began firestorm of discourse.
Some say ideological agendas seize symbols, redefine, and weaponize them. They say "Christ is King" has moved from a self-assured declaration of faith to a front in the battle over linguistic sovereignty. Some Christians say this was not a spontaneous linguistic shift, but an engineered moment designed to reframe and control perception.
Online commentary prior to the NCRI report shows "Christ is King" operated primarily as a marker of religious and cultural affirmation. After the report, the phrase has mutated into a cultural rallying cry, a reactionary invocation against perceived ideological incursion.
"Christ is King" Before the NCRI Report
Prior to the report, approximately 80% of users who employed "Christ is King" did so as a straightforward assertion of Christian identity, its meaning self-evident, its function unquestioned. It was an anchor in tradition, a direct reference to religious sovereignty. Only 20% of discourse engaged with the possibility that the phrase carried exclusionary overtones, and even these discussions remained largely academic.
Pre-NCRI, the phrase was more initiatory than reactionary with 50% of uses proactively established identity rather than responding to external criticism. The remaining 35% appeared in reactive settings, though even here, the response was more cultural than defensive. It linked to an assertion of historical Christian roots rather than an attack on perceived adversaries.
Prior to the report, people used the phrase within a framework of historical continuity and national identity or as a reminder of religious dominance within Western civilization. Even among non-Christian observers, there was some recognition of this permanence as 30% saw the phrase as relatively neutral, while 60% found it implicitly exclusionary—a far cry from the intensification that would follow.
80% of discourse featured strong, capitalized syntax—CHRIST IS KING!—structured around a traditionalist, normative logic.
75% of discussions framed the as cultural, reinforcing the narrative of an unbroken Christian order.
50% of discussions mentioned political aspects, but these were more gestural than hostile.
20% tied the phrase to economic discourse, positioning Christian heritage as intertwined with economic structures that preserve traditionalist communities.
"Christ is King" Post-NCRI Report
Once the NCRI framed "Christ is King" as an antisemitic dog whistle, the phrase no longer belonged solely to its original users. It became a site of conflict, its meaning subjected to the forces of ideological subjugation and countersubversion.
Now, only 60% of commentators define "Christ is King" as purely pro-Christian, a decline from pre-report sentiment. Meanwhile, the number of those who see it as exclusionary rose to 25-40%, depending on the dataset, with much of this shift occurring in academic and media-critical circles. The phrase has become unstable as some attempt to extract hostile intent from its mere utterance.
The shift in usage is stark:
The proportion of reactive uses skyrocketed to 70-80%, with the phrase now deployed as a direct response to ideological policing.
The language is aggressive, defensive, and sarcastic. 60-70% of discussions have tones of resentment and defiance, casting critics as "elitist" or "out of touch."
Post-report narratives shift toward populist opposition to establishment forces—55% of discourse now follows this logic.
Political usage expanded from 50% to 55%, with explicit anti-progressive sentiment woven into the debate.
20% of comments now frame the phrase in terms of taxpayer-funded ideological control, positioning the NCRI’s interpretation as a campaign against religious conservatism.
The meaning of "Christ is King" has become a contested artifact, shifting in response to pressure.
NCRI asserts “Christ is King” peaked at Catholicism’s Easter in 2024, which Google search trends also indicate. The report says, “shockingly, the most associated word to go along with ‘Christ is King’ was the word: Jew.” While the NCRI data and methodology is not replicable, “Catholic” and “Orthodox,” the two most traditional Christian denominations, also regularly use “Christ is King” and appear to outpace the phrase. April 20, 2025, is Easter for both Catholics and Orthodox, so the usage of “Christ is King” is likely to outpace previous years.
Further Examination and Expansion
Many commenters also took direct offense at the NCRI production being from a non-Christian perspective. Of note, Jordan Peterson positioned himself against numerous well-known Catholics, including Candace Owens. Peterson quoted Jesus Christ with “A warning: Not everyone who says ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 7:21). Peterson has been accused previously of not only usurping Christianity but also wearing it like a jacket, literally.
The narcissists, hedonists and psychopaths occupy the fringes, wherever they can obtain power and, using God's name, attempt to subvert the power of the divine to their own devices. A warning: Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. https://t.co/essOv0VkDp
— Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) March 13, 2025
Some of Peterson’s jackets include Eastern Orthodox icons and symbols like:
ЦАРЬ СЛАВЫ (Tsar Slavi, King of Glory)
The Crown of Thorns adorning the Cross
Peterson’s other Orthodox-inspired jacket include images of icons with the Virgin Mary depicted with a light blue background. In iconography, light blue is the color of Heaven and the Virgin Mary (known as the Theotokos, or God-Bearer). Another title is Queen of Heaven, with her Son being the King. Pictured here with Peterson is Ashley St. Clair, a Jewish woman. Events such as these are often pointed to as clear hypocrisy and attempting to usurp Christianity for the aesthetics while not understanding it.
"Christ is King" is moving toward full ideological entrenchment. Prior to NCRI’s involvement, it was primarily religious. Now, it has been politicized. This shift follows a familiar pattern:
The Establishment (NCRI, media, academic circles) identifies a phrase as problematic.
The Accusation becomes a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy—the phrase is now deployed because it has been attacked.
The Reaction escalates beyond the original controversy, turning into a metapolitical struggle over language itself.
In the end, language does not remain neutral when placed under interrogation. "Christ is King" has been set on a trajectory toward entrenchment and defiance, an unrelenting pushback against semantic colonization. What was once an affirmation of divine sovereignty is now a battlefield in the ongoing struggle over who controls the lexicon of power. Whether that control succeeds—or whether the phrase transcends the imposed definition—will define the next phase of this linguistic insurgency.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has reignited Republican enthusiasm and quieted many old criticisms from Democrats and Independents. His first month back has been a firehose of executive actions, foreign policy moves, and empowering border security.
Voter sentiment is high, with strongest sentiment among Republicans, rising among independents, and still strong opposition among Democrats—apart from immigration. While many Democrats remain staunchly opposed, particularly on things like foreign policy and federal budget cuts, overall national sentiment is steadily positive.
Top Issues in National Discourse
Trump’s early policy moves daily shape the national conversation. MIG Reports data for online engagement and voter discussion show five dominant topics:
Economy and Federal Spending – Tax reform, budget cuts with DOGE, and restructuring federal agencies.
Border Security – Crackdowns on illegal immigration, sanctuary funding restrictions, and deportation policies.
Foreign Policy – Trump’s approach to Ukraine, Israel, and military readiness.
Cultural Issues – LGBTQ and DEI policy rollbacks and the battle over education and parental rights.
Institutional Distrust – Growing anger at legacy media, intelligence agencies, and the federal bureaucracy.
Immigration
Around 32% of discussions about the Trump administration focus on immigration.
Most Americans express support for Trump's stringent immigration measures.
Supporters say his policies are necessary for national security and stopping illegal entries.
They praise the administration designating cartels as terrorist organizations.
Voters who prioritize law and order voice gratitude for measures Trump has taken to curb the influx of illegal immigrants. However, a counter-narrative exists with critics lamenting the impact strict policies might have on migrants and criticizing funding cuts for social programs.
Economy and Taxation
Roughly 25% of the conversation is about the economy and taxes.
Voters see these moves as beneficial for average citizens rather than the political class.
Many express optimism about a return to more business-friendly policies and economic recovery.
Critics challenge the sustainability of tax cuts and budget cutting policies, especially regarding federal employees and programs like Medicaid and veterans’ benefits.
Foreign Policy
International relations, particularly regarding Ukraine and Israel, represent 16% of the discussion.
Trump's stance on Ukraine ignites heated debate, with critics saying he’s betraying an ally.
Supporters say cutting aid will halt wasteful or corrupt spending and draw the U.S. back from perpetual involvement.
Critics accuse Trump of capitulating to authoritarian regimes, causing his foreign policy to be one of the most divisive topics.
LGBTQ and DEI
Around 14% of the discussion is about LGBTQ rights, catalyzed by recent executive orders and school policies regarding women's sports and DEI.
Supporters voice strong approval for Trump's actions, framing them as a reclamation of traditional values.
They say banning DEI and men in women’s sports is a necessary check on liberal overreach in education and other sectors.
Trump’s policies have generated rising sentiment among conservatives who also speak positively about defunding the Department of Education.
Republican Sentiment
Republicans overwhelmingly support Trump’s policies, negating the hopes of many Democrats who believe the base will abandon him.
I agree with Carville that we're about a month or so away from a larger collapse in Trump's support. They badly misjudged why they won the election—grievance politics isn’t a viable governing strategy. Most Americans don’t like what they’re seeing from Washington right now.…
63% of Republicans express strong approval for Trump’s efforts to cut government waste and reduce spending.
37% worry over the potential impacts on veterans’ programs and essential services.
Border Security
75% support Trump’s border policies, citing reduced illegal crossings and restored national sovereignty.
25% question the humanitarian consequences and long-term effects on labor markets.
Foreign Policy
68% approve of Trump’s pro-Israel and anti-Hamas stance.
32% are less critical of Trump than negative about the financial burden of continued foreign aid.
Republicans remain deeply invested in the Trump administration’s success, but some factions are beginning to question the balance between aggressive policy action and sustainable governance.
Democratic Sentiment
Among Democrats, opposition is as fierce as expected, but divisions are emerging.
Economic Policy
56% of Democrats view Trump’s tax cuts as disproportionately favoring the wealthy.
44% hope tariff policies and tax cuts will be an advantage for the U.S. economy.
National Security
70% express concern over military budget cuts and leadership reshuffling.
30% are open to Trump’s negotiation tactics, particularly those who support Israel.
Immigration
54% oppose Trump’s border policies, labeling them draconian.
46% support Trump’s border crackdown, agreeing it is time to shore up the border.
The party remains unified in its rejection of Trump’s agenda, but internal disagreements about Israel-Palestine and growing support for Republican immigrations policies suggest fractures continue to cause friction in a disillusioned party.
Independent Sentiment
Independents are split, with notable divisions across key policy areas but with immigration remaining the top issue.
Immigration
65% support Trump’s crackdown on benefits for illegal immigrants.
35% worry about humanitarian consequences.
Foreign Policy
55% are skeptical of Trump’s stance on Ukraine, fearing weakened alliances.
45% see it as a necessary recalibration of U.S. commitments.
Economic Policy
70% express concern over tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy.
30% believe they will stimulate economic growth.
Independents remain policy-focused rather than ideological, evaluating Trump’s moves based on impact rather than partisanship. Their skepticism toward both major parties continues to grow, but they remain solidly in support of Trump’s border policies.
Looking Forward
Trump’s first month has reinforced the existing political divide, though most Americans are warming to his border policies. His base remains energized, while Democrats increasingly express demoralization and resignation. Independents remain wary, but many align with Trump on immigration and defunding wasteful federal programs.
Staying strong on the border is likely the highest priority as an extremely popular, bipartisan issue.
Showing results on the economy will continue to draw independent and Democratic sentiment up.
Deescalating foreign conflict and reducing U.S. involvement will also likely continue to increase overall sentiment.
Public sentiment toward non-governmental organizations (NGOs) is sparking fierce disagreements over immigration, governance, and institutional trust. Americans once viewed NGOs as humanitarian entities, but now they’re at the center of a political and cultural conflict.
Some view them as corrupt extensions of elite influence and the other sees them as essential forces for global stability. MIG Reports data captures this growing divide, revealing policy disagreements and fracture on leadership and international responsibility.
The dominant narrative in discussions is one of intense skepticism toward NGOs, particularly among Trump-aligned voters. The most explosive allegations center around beliefs that these organizations are complicit in facilitating illegal immigration and even human trafficking.
Many allege they benefit from billions in taxpayer dollars funneled through USAID. The claim that a single NGO receives $600 million every two months has fueled widespread outrage, reinforcing the idea that public resources are being siphoned away from American citizens to support what critics call a orchestrated invasion. Voters want audits, defunding, and criminal investigations, with many viewing NGOs as an extension of a broader, corrupt political ecosystem.
Opponents of Trump push back by emphasizing the humanitarian role of these organizations. They say dismantling them would cause human suffering, weaken America’s global standing, and create diplomatic crises. However, these defenses struggle to break through in a climate where anti-NGO sentiment has gained significant traction.
How did we get to the point where America is sending taxpayer dollars all over the world to NGOs that undermine religious freedom?
That is not what protecting religious liberty looks like, and it ends with this administration. pic.twitter.com/YVBxqoybUo
Rather than a structured policy discussion, the discourse is largely ideological. Trump supporters overwhelmingly frame his actions regarding USAID and funding NGOs as protective, portraying NGOs as hostile to national interests. Critics say his policies are reckless and cynical. There is no real dialogue happening—just competing narratives.
Around 70% of comments contain logical fallacies, ranging from ad hominem attacks to exaggerated slippery slope claims. Some accuse Trump critics of suddenly caring about Palestinian issues only because of their opposition to his foreign policy, dismissing the broader complexities of Middle Eastern geopolitics. Opposition accuses Trump’s base of blindly following a leader who disregards humanitarian obligations.
Only 30% of the discourse engages around policy impacts. Meaningful discussions are largely drowned out by partisan rhetoric. This creates a climate where positions are reinforced rather than challenged, discouraging resolution.
Americans are discussing recent news about USAID funding, perceiving the agency as a tool for leftist and globalists causes and institutions. Public discussion increases in volume while dragging down sentiment toward NGOs. Similarly, with efforts led by President Trump and DOGE, sentiment rebounds as Trump 2.0 focuses on ending corrupt systems and practices.
The Rise of Reflexive Distrust
There is also an increasing presence of immediate and negative narratives regarding NGOs. Trump’s base frequently frames these organizations as fronts for illicit activities, claiming they serve as vehicles for "elite money laundering" or backdoor influence operations for the Democratic Party. Memes and mockery are emerging as shorthand for a shadowy network of political figures profiting from these alleged schemes.
Opposition voices counter these claims by emphasizing the historical necessity of NGOs in global crisis response. However, their arguments often rely on emotional appeals rather than evidence debunking corruption claims. Both sides talk past each other, reinforcing their own versions of reality rather than confronting competing perspectives.
The Save the Children charity that’s been raided by authorities and under investigation for child sex trafficking received $534 million of the taxpayers’ money in the fiscal year 2023.
Pro-Trump Sentiment (60%): Predominantly older, white, working-class, and rural. This group views NGOs as corrupt institutions undermining American values, particularly in relation to immigration and global governance.
Anti-Trump Sentiment (20%): Younger, urban, diverse, and more likely to support social justice movements. This group sees NGOs as a necessary component of global stability and warns of humanitarian fallout from Trump’s policies.
Inquisitive/Disengaged (20%): Some are skeptical of both narratives, often asking for clarification or expressing doubts about the extreme positions dominating the discussion.
Neglected Issues in the Debate
Despite the intensity of these conversations, certain key issues are not being meaningfully addressed. There is little focus on:
The impact on foreign aid and diplomatic relationships.
The role of traditional media in shaping narratives around NGOs.
Instead, the conversation repeatedly circles ideological battles rather than specific policy consequences, leaving crucial aspects of the issue unexplored.
Predictive Trends
As discussions continue, the following trends are likely to intensify:
Escalating Division: Expect increased hostility between pro- and anti-NGO voices, especially as the Trump administration amplifies narratives around immigration and government corruption.
Shift Toward Extremes: Radicalized views are gaining traction, pushing moderate perspectives to the margins and making compromise increasingly unlikely.
Potential for NGO Alternatives: With mainstream NGOs under fire, there may be a rise in new organizations emphasizing transparency and local empowerment, attempting to fill the space left by declining public trust.
NGOs were invented to allow the government to do all the things it's not allowed to do.
They are a direct counter to the concept of limited government designed in the Constitution, and all NGOs should be outlawed.