Discussion is growing around Social Security as Americans worry about the future. While Social Security is a crucial safety net for many, public discourse reveals concern about sustainability and a desire for reform. Americans are anxious about economic stability, intergenerational equity, and whether government leadership is trustworthy.
💯"We're pretending and lying to the American people that the social security funds that are extracted from their checks is sitting in a lock box...The money is taken out of your check now, and that money is then given to those people who are retiring now!" pic.twitter.com/1HPIZZwVg7
Most Americans express loyalty and concern for Social Security, though the degree of apprehension varies.
Roughly 55-70% of comments worry about the program’s long-term viability, fearing rising costs, inflation, and potential mismanagement could jeopardize future benefits.
Many view Social Security as an essential pillar of American life that should be preserved, but question whether current economic conditions will allow it to sustain future retirees.
Anxieties are amplified by discussions about inflation, with many calling for adjustments to benefits that better reflect the rising cost of living.
Reform and Modernization
Americans who support Social Security largely agree on the need for reforms to secure its viability without compromising the core mission.
Around 25% of voters want moderate reforms to improve efficiency, while another 15–20% urge for substantial overhauls.
Proposals include raising the cap on taxable income, implementing means testing, and modernizing payment structures to adapt to demographic and economic shifts.
Demands for reform are coupled with critiques of government waste and inefficiency, suggesting redirected funds could reinforce Social Security.
Generational Equity and Economic Tensions
There is also a generational divide in viewpoints. Younger Americans, skeptical about the program’s sustainability, worry they may never receive benefits equal to their contributions.
Some frame Social Security as a “pay-as-you-go” system at risk of insolvency due to shifting demographics and economic challenges.
older generations emphasize that they have paid into the system throughout their working lives and deserve the benefits promised.
Economic pressures also spark discussion about broader fiscal concerns like wage stagnation and inflation.
Political Divisions
Social Security discussions are further polarized along political lines, with partisan affiliations shaping views on reform.
Conservatives typically favor budget restraint and cuts to ensure sustainability, while progressives advocate expanded benefits and funding.
Recent reports reveal an added layer of division tied to leadership perceptions, with mixed expectations for Trump’s proposed efficiency-focused reforms.
While some anticipate positive changes, others express doubts about the sincerity or impact of his administration’s policies.
Discussions branch into related issues like tax policies and foreign aid, with some arguing resources allocated abroad could instead bolster Social Security.
Who is ready for tax cuts!?!?! We are ending taxes on social security, tips, and overtime!
A recurring theme across discussions is lack of trust in government.
Many Americans doubt current government structures can effectively protect Social Security, citing past inefficiencies and instances of mismanagement.
Skepticism extends across party lines, with people questioning whether promised reforms will genuinely strengthen the program.
Some say technology could enhance Social Security’s resilience by streamlining operations, reducing administrative costs, and increasing transparency, thus potentially restoring public trust.
Several leftist figures from news media like Don Lemon, Joy Reid, and The Guardian have announced their plans to leave X (formerly Twitter). This dramatic exodus is occurring against a backdrop of significant upheaval in traditional media.
Online discussions often view rumors of CNN facing layoffs, Comcast potentially selling MSNBC, major ratings declines, and Chris Wallace jumping ship from CNN as dying last gasps of legacy media. Elon Musk’s comment that “You are the media now!” captures a growing sentiment that corporate media is no longer the power center of information.
Reactions to prominent left-leaning figures leaving X are varied, but mostly unified against those leaving. This is demonstrated in a resounding ratio on Don Lemon’s announcement video and claims that Lemon didn’t actually leave.
Much of the commentary is negative, criticizing Lemon and others for abandoning X in a useless protest of the inevitable evolution of news. The lesser number of positive comments still criticize the Guardian, Reid, and Lemon, saying the chaff is separating itself.
Many view these exits from X as symptomatic of a biased new media who are incapable of withstanding opposing viewpoints.
Negative comments accuse those leaving of running from the new reality of media, thus personifying legacy media’s failure to adapt and include all voices.
People point out the shrinking pool of critical voices in media who are willing to hold politicians and institutions accountable. They say the leftist media would prefer to censor platforms like X, rather than integrate into the new media paradigm.
29% Positive or Neutral Sentiment
About a third of responses voice approval over the X departures. They say it allows for new voices to emerge in an environment less dominated by leftist corporate media figures.
This group says things like, “Good riddance to biased reporting” and “We need more diverse voices not tied to the mainstream.” They hope X will foster independent journalism not influenced by corporate or partisan forces.
People view X under Elon Musk as a victory for free speech, seeing it as fertile ground for alternative perspectives and causing a tantrum among corporate media elites who are losing their grip on power.
8% Concerned Sentiment
A smaller fraction of comments is ambivalent but acknowledges both the potential positives and negatives of these high-profile departures.
There's a sense of uncertainty, as people grapple with the long-term impact on media quality and public discourse online.
Many in this camp worry the total collapse of legacy media might contribute to ideological echo chambers and the proliferation of “misinformation.”
Declining Trust in Legacy Media
Reactions to these dramatic exits are compounded by an ongoing bloodbath in legacy media credibility.
CNN Layoffs: Rumored CNN layoffs are seen as the continuation of a downward trend for legacy news, which struggles to maintain relevance post-election.
Comcast Selling MSNBC: Reports that Comcast is looking to sell MSNBC reinforces beliefs that news outlets have lost their once-powerful influence.
Ratings Declines: Major networks are reporting significant rating drops over the past year, further decimating the sentiment of distrust among viewers.
Reshaping News: A major news figure like Chris Wallace leaving CNN and saying podcasts are the future also indicates growing realizations within media ranks of the shifting reality.
More Americans say legacy media is out of touch with and fixated on advancing specific agendas rather than delivering reliable news. Increasingly, people are opting for independent and grassroots media sources, which they find on platforms like X and view as more genuine and less beholden to corporate interests.
Independent and Decentralized Media
Americans, particularly those on the right, place more trust in independent and decentralized media channels that bypass legacy gatekeepers. They want platforms where their perspectives can be freely shared without censorship or derision.
Direct Channels: Figures like Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson have built large followings by leveraging podcasts and social media as direct channels for unfiltered commentary. People see these figures as better alternatives to biased traditional media.
Free Speech: Many Americans see decentralized platforms like X as essential to free speech. By allowing diverse voices without institutional curation, platforms like X provide what voters feel is a more balanced discourse.
User Engagement Data: Social media engagement metrics show a steady increase in user participation on independent platforms, with conservative audiences comprising a significant portion of these active users.
The embrace of alternative media reflects a rejection of legacy media’s perceived elitism and disconnect from mainstream America. Online discourse confirms the sentiment as people move away from television news to online platforms.
Musk’s “You are the media now” sentiment embodies the shift toward participatory media, which empowers individual users over institutional authorities. As a result, more Americans feel they have a direct role in shaping political discourse, further diminishing legacy media’s influence.
Public Response: Many conservative voters view Musk’s statement as a call to action, empowering them to contribute directly to the public discourse.
Participation: By eliminating traditional gatekeepers, participatory media encourages a free flow of ideas, allowing the people to interact directly with rich and powerful influencers like Elon Musk and Joe Rogan.
Future Outlook: Many say legacy media will continue to lose relevance as younger generations abandon traditional institutions. They say the 2024 election sealed the fate of legacy institutions which were already crumbling.
In the week following Donald Trump’s reelection, social media discourse has continued to prioritize illegal immigration and other issues related to the border crisis. MIG Reports analysis shows heightened fears about cartel influence at the border, causing crisis and conflict.
Voters are deeply concerned that cartels don't just commit crimes but wield power across the border, exploiting lax policies for trafficking, violence, and economic gain. For many, the border is a front line where national security and American sovereignty are at stake.
Texas remains ready for any potential surge at the border by reinforcing vulnerable areas along the border with @TxDPS & @TXMilitary forces, resulting in deterrence & prevention by reducing illegal border crossings. Those efforts have led to an 86% decrease in unlawful border… https://t.co/WLiq0XAFsYpic.twitter.com/OkRGRpR7Ad
The language around child trafficking, cartel power, and border chaos evokes a crisis narrative and feelings of institutional distrust. As with recent discussions of Trump’s role in restoring order, people now look to stringent immigration policies as a form of defense.
For many, the issue of cartels has become the flagship border issue, tying cultural preservation, national security, and moral order together. Voters want more stringent policy measures and a statement of strength against adversarial forces undermining the American way of life.
There’s a Lot to do... Like NOW
There is urgency among voters and a feeling that current immigration policies have failed to protect the public. This exacerbates fears of cultural erosion and national vulnerability. Many align this fear with historical moments when immigration was similarly framed as an existential threat. They recall earlier periods where immigration protection intensified in response to economic uncertainty or perceived loss of control.
The sense of an “invasion” is strongly resonant, increasing populist sentiments of “us vs. Them.” Americans view cartels as a symbol of the corruption and lawlessness that have weakened the nation. While there is a feeling of 1980s Reaganism—a resurging America—there is also fear of amnesty and other immigration failures from the 1986 immigration bill.
Reports alleging FEMA officials instructed workers to bypass homes displaying Trump signs during disaster relief efforts are generating controversy. Initially reported by Daily Wire, the story suggests conservatives in areas affected by Hurricanes Helene and Milton may have been passed over for federal support based on their political views.
The story ignited a larger debate about the impartiality of federal agencies, with conservatives viewing the incident as evidence of unacceptable biases inside FEMA. Voters widely distrust FEMA, calling for accountability and some suggestions of decentralizing disaster relief operations.
On Nov. 8, when the Daily Wire story was first published, public sentiment in discussions mentioning natural disasters and FEMA dropped to 33%, with increased discussion volume.
What Caused the Stir
Voter Backlash: After Hurricanes Helene and Milton, Americans voiced strong dissatisfaction with FEMA’s lack of presence, failure to help, and active thwarting of hurricane relief efforts.
Relief Discrimination: Weeks later, reports emerged that FEMA workers were instructed to avoid homes displaying Trump signs while providing relief Florida.
Whistleblower Testimony: Initial reports were spurred by whistleblowers sharing screenshots of the discrimination directive, causing voter outrage and national news coverage.
FEMA Official Fired: Following reporting on the story, FEMA made a statement denying systemic discrimination and fired the official involved. The official, Marn’i Washington, spoke out claiming FEMA leadership is throwing her under the bus.
The FEMA official who was just fired for telling workers to avoid homes impacted by the hurricanes in Florida if they had Trump signs says that it was not "isolated" and that FEMA workers were instructed to do it in the Carolinas too. pic.twitter.com/BpBdZFSSPR
Conservative voters have largely responded with anger and frustration, viewing the FEMA allegations as a symbol of political bias infiltrating government services.
GovernmentDistrust: The claim that FEMA withheld aid from Trump-supporting homes has intensified conservative concerns that federal agencies are weaponized against them.
Demand for Reform: Voters are calling for an investigation into FEMA’s disaster response protocols. Many want the agency to provide explanations for how aid is allocated fairly across all regions, regardless of politics.
Decentralizing Disaster Relief: Many Americans who witnessed grassroots competence in performing rescue and relief after Hurricane Helene say FEMA is obsolete. They argue, if federal agencies are both politicized and incompetent, they serve no purpose, and programs should be outsourced or turned over to individual states.
Left-Leaning Perspectives
Liberal and left-leaning voters focus on FEMA’s overall effectiveness and disaster management reforms rather than allegations of partisan bias.
Skepticism of Allegations: Many liberals question the credibility of discrimination claims, viewing them as politically motivated narratives aimed at discrediting the Biden administration.
FEMA’s Performance: Rather than focusing on potential bias, liberals emphasize FEMA’s need to improve its efficiency and resource management.
Defense of DEI: Liberals support FEMA’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, arguing they ensure fairer service distribution across all demographics.
Government Transparency and Accountability
The FEMA controversy coincides with larger criticisms about the lack of transparency and accountability in federal agencies.
No Trust: Conservatives see FEMA’s alleged actions as typical of federal incompetence and politicization. This distrust extends beyond FEMA to public confidence in many other federal agencies like the FBI, CIA, and FDA.
Future Disaster Response: If conservatives perceive FEMA as biased, they will likely be less inclined to cooperate with federal initiatives, impacting FEMA’s ability to coordinate effectively in future emergencies.
Americans do not trust FEMA’s operational integrity and effectiveness, pointing to a range of systemic failures in disaster response besides alleged discrimination. People demand defunding and thoroughly investigating NGOs and federal officials tied to these failures.
Voters want transparency around funding mechanisms and the role of external organizations in distributing disaster aid.
Online discussions cite delays and misallocation of resources in disaster-hit areas as evidence that the federal response has been nearly nonexistent. The emphasis on state-level cooperation and bypassing FEMA exposes frustrations with chronic bureaucratic ineffectiveness.
President-elect Trump announced the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) with Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to lead, lighting a fire of discussion online. DOGE’s purpose is to root out waste and inefficiency from federal operations, with promises from Musk to enact swift change within the first year and half of the new administration.
Musk also promises transparency and public participation in spending audits, aiming to bring a business-like discipline to the federal government. MIG Reports data shows DOGE’s mission resonates strongly with a populist voter base eager for streamlined governance and an end to bureaucratic excess.
Transparency and Accountability
For many conservative and populist voters, the concept of DOGE is a breath of fresh air, promising a level of government transparency and public involvement that Washington elites have long resisted. Musk’s promise to post all DOGE activities online sparks enthusiasm, particularly among those who despise wasteful government spending.
All actions of the Department of Government Efficiency will be posted online for maximum transparency.
Anytime the public thinks we are cutting something important or not cutting something wasteful, just let us know!
Online Transparency: Many Americans believe Musk’s transparency strategy will empower them to hold budgets accountable and push back against bloat. This resonates with conservatives who often view government as self-serving.
Disgust at Federal Spending: Voters point to excessive and pointless spending as a major drain on taxpayer resources. They are hopeful that disastrous initiatives like the Biden administration’s rural broadband project can be destroyed.
Disdain for D.C. Elites
MIG Reports data shows:
82% of Republican voters are dissatisfied with current government spending.
75% express strong support for Musk and Ramaswamy's roles within DOGE.
48% of comments cite specific examples of government wasting taxpayer dollars to emphasize their frustration.
DOGE supporters voice strong anti-establishment sentiment, criticizing the D.C. elite class which appears both insulated from and indifferent to the challenges they face. Social media reactions are filled with disdain for the swamp—officials, lobbyists, think tank analysts, and contractors who have long profited from federal inefficiency.
There are probably 100,000+ people in the greater DC area in the government sphere - govt employees, lawyers, lobbyists, think tanks, and NGO grifters - who are now worried about losing their jobs.
They’ve got fat mortgages, Mercedes payments, club memberships, and school fees… pic.twitter.com/UhoojN3589
Frustration with Elites: Voters resent the lifestyle of D.C. insiders, who they see as preserving their own privileges over addressing public concerns. This sentiment is especially strong among those who feel abandoned by establishment figures in both parties who “grift” in Washington elite circles.
Hopes for Real Change: Average Americans are hopeful about cutting useless spending, foreign aid, and unnecessary projects. However, many are skeptical of how much progress DOGE can make with limited time and as an unofficial department.
The populist versus elite divide in politics seems to be growing, pitting the political class, the legacy media, and many of the ultra-rich against the people. DOGE is a symbol for challenging the old guard, though Musk is drawing sharp criticism from elites about using his power and wealth against the establishment.
Establishment Resistance
While DOGE excites many voters, the response from establishment figures and moderates is mixed. Some worry Musk and Ramaswamy’s “transparency revolution” may be more of a political maneuver than a meaningful reform.
Qualification Objections: Critics say the initiative’s success requires seasoned political professionals, not tech or business executives. Establishment GOP figures question whether Musk understands the complexities of federal bureaucracy.
Government Stability: D.C. elites also fear radical cuts and that increased transparency could destabilize essential government functions. Concerns about mismanagement and overreach echo through establishment circles.
Fear of Job Cuts: Thousands of government employees, lobbyists, and contractors fear DOGE is a direct threat to their livelihoods. Comments show anxiety over job security and resentment, claiming DOGE unfairly targets D.C.’s professional class.
GOP Divisions
Reactions to DOGE highlight the stark contrast between MAGA Republicans and establishment sympathizers. The populist wing of the party demands a major “cleaning out” and “swamp draining,” while RINOs argue for a more measured approach.
MAGA is Anti-Elite: The new "America First” GOP despises bureaucracy, viewing DOGE as an affirmation of Trump’s promise to drain the swamp. However, intra-party disagreements are already under way with the Senate voting Sen. John Thune as Senate majority leader instead of populist pick Rick Scott.
Calls for Realignment: Many voters are setting expectations for major overhauls and changes with a Republican House and Senate. They urge the administration to act swiftly, within the limited timeframe before 2026 midterm elections.
Democratic Critiques
MIG Reports data shows:
80% of Democratic voters disapprove, saying DOGE may be a façade for partisan interests.
60% are critical of Musk's appointment, citing concerns about corporate influence.
Reactions from the Democratic establishment are similar to those of the GOP establishment. Democrats criticize the concept of DOGE, questioning both the motives and feasibility of the initiative.
Democratic voices in Congress, as well as prominent figures in media and academia, have expressed concerns over its realistic implementation. They say it’s an unserious endeavor which will produce little or no results.
Fear of Privatization: Many Democrats see DOGE as a thinly veiled attempt to privatize essential government functions. They worry cutting “wasteful spending” could endanger critical social programs that serve vulnerable populations.
Distrust of Business Mindsets: Appointees Musk and Ramaswamy, both known for their tech and entrepreneurial backgrounds, also raise alarm among Democrats. They see a business-led approach to government reform as conflicting with governmental accountability and public service mandates.
Democratic voters are reacting to Kamala Harris's presidential defeat and discussions about her relationship with Joe Biden. Online, there are growing divides within the party regarding who is to blame, leadership decisions, and strategic missteps.
Much of the discourse centers on President Joe Biden and his short remaining time in office. Many are speculating about the health of his relationships behind the scenes and implications for party unity.
Some Democrats attribute Harris's loss to Biden’s lack of effective leadership and failure to fully support her candidacy. They repeatedly express disappointment, describing Biden as lacking the proactive support to secure a win.
Refusing to place blame on Harris herself, they say things like "he could have done more" or "he didn’t take the lead." These discussions attempt to frame the loss as due to Biden’s missed campaign opportunities or not stepping down soon enough.
For the record this was meant to be The Art of Losing: Kamala Harris, but I wavered on it and eventually decided to leave her out of the headline. Whatever her flaws may be, Biden put her in an unprecedentedly difficult situation. https://t.co/EB1TJbXmbB
Though many blame Biden, others include Harris as a focal point of criticism, though in smaller numbers. MIG Reports analysis shows nearly half of discussions blame Biden, while around 25% include Harris in the blame.
Those who blame her say Harris "didn’t connect with the base" and was "not the right choice," for a party coronation. Creating continuity with her failed 2020 presidential bid, voters question her electability and effectiveness. Harris’s public perception emphasizes the disconnect between party leadership and the perspectives of the voter base.
The remaining 25% of the discourse critiques the Democratic Party's overall strategy, with calls for a complete overhaul of its approach. Comments such as "we need to rethink our approach" reveal frustration with the party's failed vision. Some contrast this with a more cohesive strategy they attribute to Republicans.
Living in the Past
While blame dominates much of the conversation, a smaller segment of Democrats defends Biden. They emphasize his stabilizing influence and achievements in a challenging environment
Supporters say things like, "Biden has done the best he can under the circumstances," framing him as a steady leader. However, even within these defenses, there is an implicit acknowledgment of unmet expectations. Voters grapple with their support for Biden’s legacy against the reality of the party’s recent loss.
...Maybe It’s Us?
Broader systemic concerns surface as well, pointing to issues like gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement. These conversations present election failures as caused by structural problems rather than individual shortcomings.
There are calls advocating for comprehensive reform to address these systemic challenges in the party. Discussions use emotional language and personal pronouns, as individuals express feelings of betrayal, disappointment, and personal responsibility.
The GOP has managed to maintain control of the House, energizing the voter base as they call for a strong "America First" agenda. Many view this control, combined with regaining the Senate majority, as a crucial opportunity to make Trump’s second term highly impactful.
Republicans emphasize loyalty to conservative ideals and a tangible alignment with figures like Rick Scott, who they see as fighting the establishment. With control of both the executive and legislative branches, voters expect concrete results in the first two years.
The Republicans have secured the trifecta, with Trump set to begin his interrupted second presidential term alongside GOP control of both the House and Senate. Unlike in 2016, Trump will start with a more unified Republican leadership—one less inclined to work with Democrats to…
MAGA voters want accountability and transparency in GOP leadership. They are particularly vocal about the need for leaders who are openly committed to their cause. Some also demand transparent voting processes and ending secret ballots in leadership decisions.
This demand for visibility speaks to a sense of vigilance among voters. Republicans wish to ensure their representatives are held accountable and act in alignment with the principles that secured them the House.
There is also vocal frustration with establishment “RINOs” (Republicans in name only). Many express dissatisfaction with figures who don’t uphold MAGA’s America First agenda. Voters want strong advocates who do not cave to Democratic pressure, and many say they plan to primary anyone who fails to meet expectations.
Looking for Strength
Among Republicans, there’s a sense of social and political alienation. Some are apprehensive about displaying their support for GOP causes, fearing backlash from opposing factions.
This caution in the electorate spurs voters’ resolve to support leaders who will boldly counter societal pressures and “woke” influences. They want greater transparency, advocacy for a clear conservative agenda, and unity of action among GOP representatives.
MAGA’s Moment
Trump voters are motivated by both aspiration and urgency. Many see the GOP’s House control as an essential leverage point, allowing them to influence a broader conservative agenda and safeguard their values within the political landscape.
Following huge election victories, GOP voters are politically engaged but also intent on shaping the party's path. They are committed to solidifying conservative principles and advancing a vision for the country that resonates with traditional values.
Democratic voter discourse around Kamala Harris’s $1 billion campaign spending spree is fraught. Conversation about the staggering expenditure reflects disillusionment in the party. Democrats are frustrated by what they perceive as a misalignment between party leadership and the working-class electorate it claims to represent.
After Harris spent $1 billion dollars only to perform worse than Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden voters say:
Campaign spending is symbolic of current party flaws
Leaders refuse to embrace the base
They expect no fix anytime soon
Many also wonder how they managed to spend $1 billion in just a few months.
The calls for accountability in response to Harris’s campaign spending demand party leaders own up to their mismanagement. Voters view Democratic leaders as unwilling or unable to address the concerns of the base around issues that matter to working Americans.
Voters want accountability and meaningful change, saying the party risks further alienating an already disillusioned base. The sentiment resonates with recent critiques of the Democratic National Committee’s campaign strategies and its perceived corporate alignment. Many believe the party has dismissed voters and sacrificed grassroots connections in favor of top-down establishment protections.
Broke Beats Woke
Democratic voters hope for reforms that prioritize everyday issues like healthcare, housing, and economic stability. Many highlight the disconnect between party priorities and the economic struggles of the middle and lower classes, demonstrated by the spending mentality in the Harris campaign.
Americans are concerned about rising living costs, housing affordability, and Democrats’ failure to address inflation concerns. Some Democrats feel the party’s focus on identity politics has worsened division, detracting from core issues that resonate with a broader swath of voters. Voters want to return to unifying messaging that bridges ideological divides rather than emphasizes them.
🇺🇸 Kamala Harris's team reportedly spent the following:
Some Democrats are questioning their loyalty to the Democratic Party in the wake of Harris’s disastrous campaign. Explicit statements from voters expressing their intent to leave the party capture the severity of disillusionment.
Voters say things like, “I’m done with the Democratic Party” to emphasize their disengagement. Many describe feeling “betrayed” and “disappointed,” over the party abandoning its prior unifying values of supporting the working class.
Disillusionment comes with nostalgia for a time when Democratic policies more directly aligned with the needs of average Americans instead of catering to elites and protecting establishment enclaves.
President-elect Trump is already changing sentiment tides on the border, just a week after being elected. For most of 2024, polling showed upwards of 75% of voters viewed the border as either a serious threat or a crisis.
CBS POLL: 75% of Americans "see the situation at the U.S./Mexico border as either a 'crisis' or a 'very serious situation'" — a "notable increase" from previous surveys pic.twitter.com/uumUM0gCQs
Following Trump’s win, sentiment immediately improved—particularly with news of new leadership and promises of deportation. Americans on the left and the right demand secure borders and national sovereignty, though some leftist Democrats still object to Republican border plans.
Since November 5, border and immigration sentiment has increased, reaching the high 40% range.
MIG Reports data also shows sentiment toward Biden’s DHS secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on a consistent decline to 41% in the days after the election.
A slight bump in Mayorkas’s sentiment over the weekend is due to celebrations over his imminent departure from DHS.
The Immediate Trump Effect
A distinct mood change has been evident in the first few days since Trump’s victory. Voters, especially Republicans, express confidence that a Trump 2.0 administration will address longstanding border issues.
Voters regularly say things like, “More has been accomplished in 72 hours than in the previous 3 1/2 years.” Trump’s pick of former acting ICE director Tom Homan as Border Czar fuels excitement and optimism. Border Patrol and ICE agents who were constrained for years, now feel empowered to enforce policies effectively.
Rapid Mood Change
Border Patrol and ICE agents report a “total 180” shift in morale, with many expressing renewed hope in their ability to fulfill their duties.
The morale boost comes from Trump’s victory, and Homan’s leadership, which are both seen as positive for immigration enforcement.
Republicans Versus Democrats
Around 80% of Republicans voice support for Trump’s immigration plans, emphasizing mass deportations and border wall completion.
Democrats are less vocal as only 20% are commenting. Those who are engaging in the discussion express concern about the humanitarian impact of stricter policies.
Immediate public perception shifts show the early impacts of Trump’s win are already evident. Voters are eager to improve border enforcement for several key reasons.
Key Issues Voters Want Addressed
Migrant Caravans being discouraged and even disbanded are a positive for voters. Many view reports that caravans are dissolving as a concrete result of Trump’s tough image. Voters see stopping caravans as symbolic of regained control of the U.S. border.
Mass Deportation is still high on the list of things voters want. Enthusiasm for mass deportations is high, particularly among those who link illegal immigration to crime and economic strain. Voters hope deportation will be a cornerstone of Trump’s immigration agenda, especially for illegals who commit crimes once inside the U.S.
Prioritizing Public Resources is a common refrain among Republicans. They say taxpayer funds should prioritize American citizens over illegal immigrants. Many advocate reallocating resources to benefit veterans and citizens in need, instead of providing aid to people who should not be here.
Job Market Benefits are another expectation for securing the border. Many say a reduced strain on social services and less job competitions will create more opportunities for American workers. People point out that most of the job growth under Biden-Harris benefitted foreign-born workers.
Sanctuary City Policies remain a focal point for Trump supporters. They view migrant sanctuaries as a roadblock to federal enforcement. With the new administration, voters expect stricter immigration policy alignment nationwide, overriding local policies that protect illegal immigrants and enforcing federal policies.
New Leadership in Tom Homan and speculations about North Dakota Governor Kristi Noem replacing Alejandro Mayorkas as DHS secretary spark discussion. Voters want strong leaders who will take decisive action to shore up the border and combat Democratic influence.
Mood Shift and Enthusiasm
Empowered Law Enforcement for Border Patrol and ICE agents under Trump 2.0 generates excitement and energy. Many agents, previously constrained by restrictive policies, are reportedly “ecstatic to go to work,” ready to act without Biden-Harris limitations tying their hands.
Killing "Woke" Policies drives hope for shifting away from progressive open border policies. Americans want a return to past norms where national sovereignty and citizen protection take priority over globalist and progressive immigration ideals.
Law and Order emphasis under Trump brings relief to voters who see current Democratic policies as detrimental to American communities. Voters believe Trump can stop increased crime among illegal immigrants and restore the rule of law.
Crime and Trafficking connected to illegal immigration also motivates voters. An open border is often synonymous with increased violent crime, drug trafficking, and gang activity. Voters point to problems like those in Aurora, Colorado, as exemplifying the need for anti-gang and anti-cartel border enforcement.
Partisan Divides cause friction between Republicans who are celebrating renewed border security and Democrats who fear mass deportations could lead to human rights abuses. Despite an overwhelming majority of Americans supporting strict borders, Democrats continue to oppose Trump’s policies—many of which were standard under Obama.
NEW: @ScottJenningsKY takes CNN panel to school by dropping some simple facts about deportations:
“It’s overwhelmingly popular. Everybody is trying to make this controversial. This is not controversial. Presidents always deport people."
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)