A New York court’s decision not to hear an appeal for Trump’s gag order is a flashpoint in the broader culture war between political and ideological opponents.
Liberals and other anti-Trump voters celebrate the denial. However, the court and its politicized processes remain unpopular with Americans.
Future cases where Americans feel justice is being politicized will likely continue to generate negative sentiment.
Our Methodology
Demographics
All Voters
Sample Size
1,000
Geographical Breakdown
National
Time Period
4 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.
On June 18th, the New York court of appeals declined to hear an appeal to remove Trump’s gag order. Americans took to social media with their reactions and MIG Reports is tracking a boost sentiment among anti-Trump voters. Outside of liberals celebrating the gag order remaining in place, the rest of Americans seem to disapprove of court actions against Donald Trump.
Reactions to Politicized Courts
The continuation of the gag order against Trump reveals both strong support and opposition to the former president. Those who support the gag order claim it is important to uphold the rule of law and maintain judicial integrity. They cite concerns over Trump's potential influence on ongoing legal proceedings.
Critics of the gag order view it as politically motivated and a violation of judicial integrity. They believe the order is aimed at silencing Trump and his supporters, describing it as blatant judicial overreach and partisan manipulation of the legal system. Discussions often extend to broader political issues, highlighting societal divisions and concerns about the precedent set by the court's decision.
Sentiment Trends
Those who support the gag order express glee and satisfaction at its continuation. They feel relieved at Trump’s continued hamstringing and feel cautiously optimistic about the justice system’s ability to "take down” their opponent.
Americans who view the judicial actions against Trumps as politically motivated react with intense disapproval and anger. They see the gag order as an attack on free speech and an attempt to weaponize the court against political opposition. They feel frustrated and perceive the decision as unjust, sparking calls for resistance and highlighting fears of future political reprisal.
Stay Informed
Share:
More Like This
President Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries has once again stirring global narratives around American power. A diplomatic trip is being spun by the media as a political spectacle—complete with a luxury jet from Qatar, denunciations of Western influence, and high-stakes ceasefire pressure in the Middle East. Voter sentiment began to climb with Trump’s public appearances and speech, defying how media outlets frame Trump’s foreign policy moves.
Rising Sentiment and Strategic Timing
In the last 30 days, voter sentiment toward Trump has been on an upward trajectory. MIG Reports analysis shows voter moods on tariffs, the border, and recent events like Trump’s Big Pharma EO are pushing an upward trajectory for his public sentiment.
After weeks of hovering near the 39% “critical” threshold, sentiment is consistently pushing into the 40% range, which is positive for such a divisive figure. The surge suggests Trump’s foreign relations efforts resonate with Americans, especially as Trump leaned into ceasefire negotiations, dropped sanctions on Syria, and signaled a broader break with U.S. foreign policy norms.
Supporters praise Trump for his showman style, which always seems to create maximum impact with the public and the media. In this case, people see his performance on the world stage as intentional play to recast America’s role in the world while reinforcing “America First” credibility.
Corruption or Realignment?
The gifted Qatar jet—a $400 million luxury 747 reportedly offered for Air Force One retrofit—is a public flashpoint. Critics say this is a textbook Emoluments Clause violation. Many say accepting a gift of a luxury 747 from the country that ran two 747s into the Twin Towers on 9/11 is outrageous. Others view the gesture as symbolic of Trump of selling out American sovereignty.
Trump’s defenders scoff. They say the plane is not personal property, but a state gift—no different than military partnerships or infrastructure support. They argue liberal and media anger is performative and rooted in double standards. To them, Trump is not violating laws or norms but successfully creating public attention for his administration and agenda.
For many, the Middle East trip is either the latest episode in Trump’s self-enrichment saga or a strong rejection of the post-WWII liberal order. His speech condemning “Western influence” struck a chord. Supporters heard defiance of globalism while critics heard a demagogue justifying cozying up to authoritarian regimes.
I've been arguing for close to a decade that the single biggest reason for the growing divide between the West and "the rest" was the West's inability to accept diversity (the genuine kind,…
A recurring theme in online discussions is that Trump acts while Congress dithers. Many voters accuse the House of being performative, feckless, and corrupted by donor interests. In contrast, they see Trump’s unilateral moves as necessary and even virtuous.
This populist framing extends to the media. Critics accuse mainstream outlets of failing to cover the Qatar jet story honestly or downplaying ceasefire developments to avoid giving Trump credit. Supporters claim the media exists solely to frame Trump’s actions as criminal, while ignoring far more egregious behavior from others in power.
Middle East Power Plays and Global Optics
There's also discussion of Trump pushing Israel toward a ceasefire and lifting sanctions on Syria—moves voters say set him apart from Biden and the typical diplomatic playbook itself. Posts praising Trump describe him as dragging world leaders “kicking and screaming” into deals.
However, Trump’s foreign policy tactics are not universally celebrated. Critics say partnering with regimes known for sponsoring terrorism or perpetrating human rights abuses sends the wrong message.
For the most part, Americans say Trump appeared strong, decisive, and unbound by the institutional clutter that hamstrings traditional diplomacy.
Trade, Tariffs, and the Economy
Trade policy remains at the fore as voters connect Trump’s foreign travel with broader economic strategy. Public sentiment is still split. Supporters view tariff adjustments as flexible negotiations that force concessions from China and secure Middle East investment. Detractors see instability, conviction swings from the administration, higher consumer costs, and lingering consequences for small businesses.
Even so, the narrative that Trump’s deals are transactional rather than ideological resonates with his base. In this context, a Saudi-backed investment or a tariff reversal to strike a deal isn’t a betrayal. It’s leverage.
Public discourse about immigration and border security encompasses self-deportation programs to calls for mass removal without judicial review. Americans are adamant about rejecting leniency for uncompromising enforcement. Sentiment doubles down on the mandate to restore sovereignty, order, and fiscal sanity to a system many see as deliberately broken.
MIG Reports data shows, among American voters:
70-80% support mass deportation and strict border control
10-20% voice concern for due process and civil liberties
10% remain neutral or inject irony, often deriding both extremes
The dominant consensus is that the U.S. should enforcement first, due process later—if at all.
I’m pretty pro-Trump but tbh I can’t believe they’re deporting this guy just for being an illegal alien with an existing deportation order and several violent convictions including an arrest for rape https://t.co/F07vZj8SIQ
Trump's rollout of a self-deportation program, including flights and cash incentives, draws significant engagement. Many celebrate it as a clever policy trap to get illegals to leave before force is applied. Detractors call it humiliating but supporters say it’s brilliant. For both groups, self-deportation re-centers the debate and forces the opposition into a rhetorical corner.
Deporting Citizens
Liberals are discussing claims that Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee advanced a bill that would allow for the legal deportation of U.S. citizens. Most who support the administration do not take this claim seriously, accusing the media and Democrats of twisting facts. Critics say this is a dangerous trampling of citizens’ rights.
This is horrifying. Republicans voted to allow the fascist authoritarian Trump regime to deport US citizens. 2025 Trump America is 1934 Nazi Germany. There is no divergence. 😳👇 pic.twitter.com/NPXieoDLZQ
Several viral posts reference federal ICE officers being obstructed by local officials and activists. Calls for arrests of mayors, judges, and members of Congress are growing in online threads, with the public increasingly siding with field agents over activists.
BREAKING: Faith Ministers are BLOCKING the entrance to the ICE Detention Center, Delaney Hall in New Jersey where Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was arrested last week. pic.twitter.com/T5tzTewO3D
— Oliya Scootercaster 🛴 (@ScooterCasterNY) May 12, 2025
Racialized Amnesty Rejections
The administration fast-tracking white Afrikaners—while other refugee programs remain suspended—also dominates debate. To supporters, it’s a correction of past bias. To critics, it’s racism in policy form. This discussion has angered moderate voices on both sides and injected an ethnic dimension into an already volatile issue.
Turns out refugees can come to America waving American flags, not storm the border waving flags of their home countries.
Trump supporters passionately support his self-deportation program, calling it a “bombshell.” It’s a policy that resonates deeply with voters who believe the rule of law must be applied without exception and without apology.
Opposition to due process for illegal immigrants is growing. Many argue those who cross unlawfully forfeit constitutional protections, citing precedents from the Clinton and Obama years—where 75-90% of deportees received no hearings. Many say the legal system is being weaponized to delay justice and block Trump’s agenda.
Voters increasingly frame due process for illegal aliens as an open invitation to game the system. The rhetoric is uncompromising: “Deport every single one,” “No hearings,” “They don’t belong here.” These are becoming mainstream expressions of policy preference.
Refugee Politics and Racial Perception
One issue igniting online backlash is the administration’s decision to fast-track refugee status for a small number of white South Africans. While legal on paper, many see this as a racial double standard. The contrast is especially stark when compared to the treatment of Afghan, Central American, and Muslim migrants, who often face bureaucratic limbo or mass rejection.
This selective approach has triggered accusations of demographic engineering. Posts invoke the “Great Replacement” theory—not always by name, but often in spirit—arguing that immigration policy is being wielded to reshape the electorate.
Key Figures in the Administration
Tom Homan
Tom Homan generates near-universal praise on the right. He is viewed as the blueprint for serious enforcement: aggressive, unfiltered, and results driven. Supporters credit him with delivering a 98% drop in illegal crossings. His message resonates because it lacks euphemism. Homan represents decisive action in an age of executive excuses. More voters invoke his name as a symbol of national will.
TOM HOMAN ON MORNING JOE -- Not one person was vetted coming into America, now Democrats want to vet everyone we deport.pic.twitter.com/IC7IGiRGs8
Stephen Miller remains the ideological center of the enforcement-first doctrine. Supporters praise him for keeping immigration rooted in sovereignty, security, and identity. They credit him with initiatives like self-deportation and suspending habeas corpus in deportation proceedings.
While critics invoke fascism and use Nazi analogies to attack him, these denunciations have the unintended effect of solidifying his credibility with a populist-right audience that sees those attacks as badges of honor.
Pam Bondi
Pam Bondi is creating controversy between the media and voters. Media reports repeat allegations surrounding her past as a foreign lobbyist for Qatar, including earning more than $100,000 per month. They say her legal justification for Trump accepting a $400 million private jet from Qatar is suspect.
Bondi’s critics accuse her of helping legitimize constitutionally dubious behavior and turning a blind eye to institutional failures in border enforcement. Critics see her perceived coziness with foreign influence and her legal maneuvers around congressional oversight as clever but corrupt.
Donald Trump’s recent announcement of a sweeping executive order on prescription drug pricing ignites a fierce and fractured debate on the right. This exacerbates ongoing discussions about whether Casey Means is a good pick for Surgeon General.
While the MAHA movement (Make America Healthy Again) has strong grassroots momentum, it also creates internal tensions between populist reformers and institutional conservatives. Public discussion around these recent events is intense, polarized, and illustrative of how the new right is approaching certain issues like healthcare in ways that used to be reserved for populist Democrats.
BREAKING: President Donald Trump announces he will sign an Executive Order that will reduce Prescription Drug and Pharmaceutical prices. pic.twitter.com/gc83P0K9x1
MIG Reports data shows sharp ideological divisions:
Pro-MAHA voices say Trump’s moves are bold strikes against corrupt institutions, especially Big Pharma and the regulatory class.
Critics, including many on the right, warn of medical populism, unvetted leadership, and performative politics.
Discontent is growing among MAGA loyalists who are uneasy with MAHA’s rapid ascent and its perceived deviation from Trump’s original mandate.
MAHA Movement Discourse
MAHA is becoming a proxy for growing tensions among conservatives who find themselves under MAGA’s new, larger tent. Many say MAGA, known for challenging entrenched bureaucracies, should not let economic nationalism be replaced with medical populism.
Online discussions often use campaign-style slogans and frame Trump's drug price initiative as an anti-establishment health realignment. Still, a vocal contingent questions its coherence.
Critics say MAHA lacks operational maturity and relies too heavily on personality politics. Key factions are openly divided, with loyalists viewing MAHA as a necessary evolution and critics dismissing it as unserious or conspiratorial.
Trump’s Executive Order on Drug Pricing
Trump’s recent EO pegs U.S. pharmaceutical prices to those paid by foreign governments. Supporters say this is a long-overdue correction—including some on the left who have supported Democrats like Bernie Sanders. Many praise Trump for going after pharma profits directly, bypassing congressional inaction.
MAHA voices say the executive order is evidence that Trump is finally wielding federal power to protect working-class Americans from exploitative pricing schemes. Critics, however, see the order as symbolic and risky.
Some raise concerns about stifling R&D. Others point out the contradiction that costs may decrease in one area (pharmaceuticals) while rising elsewhere due to Trump’s high tariffs. Others say recent price claims are incoherent, citing one example of supposed 89% savings from tariffs, which actually resulted in a 30% cost increase.
RFK Jr. just exposed why everyone in DC is panicking about President Trump's executive order lowering drug prices.
"There's at least one pharmaceutical lobbyist for every congressman, every senator on Capitol Hill, and every member of the Supreme Court... The industry itself… pic.twitter.com/lywGOCSZ1z
Nominating Casey Means as Surgeon General amplifies divisions. Supporters say she represents a necessary outsider perspective willing to take on entrenched interests. They say ties to RFK Jr. and the broader MAHA movement show ideological coherence and reformist intent.
Yet many conservatives are deeply skeptical. Questions over her qualifications, ties to alternative health circles, and lack of mainstream medical credentials dominate much of the backlash. Critics say her nomination risks politicizing public health further and undermining the credibility of Trump’s administration at a critical juncture.
These concerns extend to institutional sabotage. One major flashpoint is the disappearance of the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, which many claim sabotages MAHA-aligned studies. Posts demand criminal accountability for former CDC leaders, accusing them of obstructing reform through data suppression.
Cultural and Political Underpinnings
MAHA’s rise reflects a shift in conservative identity. The policy disputes are laced with cultural symbolism, including memes, ridicule, and factional trolling. MAHA supporters accuse establishment conservatives of protecting pharma interests. Detractors dismiss MAHA activists as unserious or delusional.
Posts reveal a shared frustration with elite governance but no shared plan for replacing it. The conflict is growing into a power struggle between MAGA traditionalists and MAHA newcomers, with Trump caught in the middle—seeking to reassert control while keeping both factions engaged.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)