Public sentiment on cartel-related issues in the United States is negative. As Americans grapple with the rising impact of cartel activities, including drug and human trafficking and gang activity, there is increasing tension between those advocating for a strong executive approach and those who still value traditional governance with checks and balances.

This analysis explores American sentiments regarding which form of leadership people see as most effective in addressing the perceived threats. Analysis also looks at how language—particularly the contrast between first-person and third-person usage—reflects the depth of personal investment in the problem and the expectation for leadership to deliver solutions.

MIG Reports data shows:

• 70% of Americans want a strong executive approach
• 25% want traditional governance to put protections in place
• 5% are ambivalent or resistant to addressing cartels

Strong Executive Approach

The 70% who want strong executive action express frustration with current government policies. They want strong, unilateral executive action similar to Donald Trump’s policies. These voters view the threats posed by cartels and immigration as immediate and urgent, requiring decisive leadership.

Traditional Governance

The 25% who favor a more traditional approach emphasize the need for bipartisan solutions. They seek full-scale immigration reform rather than over-reliance on executive power. This group would rather see it done procedurally than imminently.

Ambivalent or Resistant Sentiment

The minority who voice skepticism toward both executive overreach and traditional governance was genuine reform without partisan bias.

Issues Shaping Sentiment

Cartel Activities

Drug trafficking, violent crime, and human trafficking—including child trafficking—are recurring themes fueling public concern. The discourse often links cartel activities directly to the border crisis, which intensifies calls for stronger leadership and enforcement.

Fear and Urgency

Many Americans fear the consequences of Biden-Harris immigration policies, particularly rising crimes committed by illegal immigrants and the fentanyl epidemic. These fears drive the call for immediate and decisive executive action.

Perceived Government Failure

Public frustration largely stems from a belief that Biden and Harris prioritize political agendas over public safety and security. The perceived failure of traditional bipartisan methods, as well as policies like "Catch and Release," contribute to the urgency for stronger governance.

Language Analysis

First-Person Language: Problem Focus

When discussing the impact of cartel activities and border security, many Americans use first-person language. This reveals their personal investment in the issue. Statements like “We know this visit is just a political sham” and “I don’t feel safe,” suggest many are directly affected by the rise in crime, drug trafficking, and immigration failures.

The use of first-person language highlights the personal and emotional connection Americans feel regarding immigration. Many perceive cartel activities as a direct threat to their safety, families, and communities.

Urgency and Fear

First-person language amplifies the urgency of the problem, with emotional tones of fear, anger, and frustration dominating discussions. These emotions are particularly linked to alarming statistics such as fentanyl overdoses and crimes attributed to illegal immigrants.

Third-Person Language

Conversely, when Americans discuss solutions, they shift to third-person language, placing the responsibility on political leaders and government officials to act.

Detachment and Delegation

By using third-person language, voters place responsibility on political figures. Statements like “Kamala Harris is responsible for the illegal alien invasion” or “The government needs to step up” illustrate a belief that politicians are the ones who should resolve the crisis, since it’s their job.

Accountability and Criticism

This shift in language is often accompanied by criticism of current leadership. Public disappointment with figures like Kamala Harris and Joe Biden reflects a widespread sense that they have failed to address the border and immigration issues adequately. The use of third-person language to express frustration shows how the public holds these leaders accountable for the ongoing crisis.

The resurgence of the native red squirrel in Great Britain, particularly in parts of Scotland and Northern England, has sparked significant discourse on social media. While at face value this might seem like a simple environmental success story, many are co-opting the story as symbolic of broader socio-political sentiments around immigration and national identity.

Online discussions in the U.K. and America show a mix of enthusiasm and societal anxieties around "remigration"—a concept tied to protecting native populations and prioritizing local interests over mass migration.

MIG Reports analysis shows American sentiments about protecting national identity and stopping mass migration remain strong, evidenced by symbolism like red squirrels.

Britain's native red squirrels beat out 'invading' greys in fight for survivalhttps://t.co/dUYmndmQQZ

— GB News (@GBNEWS) October 1, 2024

National Symbolism and Cultural Preservation

Across online discussions, the red squirrel has become a cultural and national metaphor. It symbolizes a return to traditional British values and a reclaiming of what is perceived as lost due to external influences and mass migration.

The grey squirrel, by contrast, is portrayed as an invasive species that threatens the integrity of the local ecosystem, much like the perception of large influxes of foreign nationals disrupting societal stability.

These metaphors resonate strongly with conservative narratives in Britain and America, depicting a desire to preserve Western culture and protect native populations from perceived external threats.

Pro-Red Squirrel Sentiment

More than half of the discussion involves positive reactions to the comeback of the red squirrels, framing it as a victory for native species over invasive forces. The resurgence of red squirrels is celebrated as a triumph of environmental conservation and a restoration of a species that symbolizes British wildlife.

Brits and Americans draw parallels between the red squirrel’s return and the idea of maintaining national identity in the face of cultural invasion. They celebrate the squirrels as an icon of the resilience of native populations. In these discussions, protecting the red squirrel becomes an expression of pride in “native” British heritage, echoing a broader sentiment of safeguarding what is inherently local.

Anti-Grey Squirrel Sentiment

Around 25-30% of the discussion expresses negativity toward grey squirrels, framing them as an invasive species that threatens the survival of the native red squirrel population. The metaphor paints grey squirrels as representing immigrants who are perceived to disrupt national stability and identity.

Citizens use this narrative to advocate for the protection of the "native" red squirrel against the "foreign" grey squirrels. They link wildlife conservation with anti-immigration rhetoric both jokingly and seriously. The fear of ecological disruption mirrors concerns about immigration diluting or displacing native populations.

Government Responsibility and Resource Allocation

Another prominent theme is the role of government in prioritizing local populations. Around 35% explicitly advocate for a governmental focus on protecting its people, arguing citizens should be protected as red squirrels are being protected, receiving governmental priority over foreigners.

These sentiments reflect frustration with perceived governmental neglect, with criticism for policies citizens believe support foreign aid or immigration at the expense of native citizens. The narrative around the red squirrel becomes a rallying cry for policies that prioritize local interests, reinforcing calls for greater resource allocation toward national issues rather than global ones.

Donald Trump’s recent proposal to “staple a green card to every diploma” for graduates caused discussion within his base. The policy, which aims to retain skilled international graduates in the U.S. workforce, clashes with ongoing debates about immigration, the economy, and job competition.

Sentiment trends, potential voter impact, and deeper implications of this policy vary across Trump’s core base, Independents, and crossover voters. Analysis of voter discussions reveals the potential impact of this proposal on the election.

Summary of Findings

• 65-80% of Trump’s base endorses the policy for its economic benefits.
• 40-58% of Independents express cautious support but remain skeptical about job competition.
• At least half of crossover voters criticize the policy as politically motivated and say they would be less likely to vote.
• 10-15% of the base say this policy would increase their likelihood to vote
• 5-15% of Independents say it could increase their likelihood to vote.

Trump’s Core Base

The MAGA base is largely enthusiastic about the green card proposal. The policy resonates with those who see it as an economically sound solution to fill gaps in the American workforce. They appreciate that the policy focuses on retaining skilled talent, particularly in tech and innovation sectors, aligning with the economic nationalism that Trump has emphasized throughout his campaigns.

Comments from Trump’s base reveal a clear endorsement of the policy as beneficial to American economic growth. Voters feel Trump is prioritizing the U.S. workforce and addressing real labor shortages. However, around 20-30% are concerned about potential job competition, worrying the policy could lead to higher competition for American workers—particularly in lower-skilled sectors.

Independents

Independents are divided, with around half cautiously supporting it. These voters appreciate the focus on retaining high-skilled graduates, seeing it as a practical move to bolster economic growth and innovation in the U.S. However, many independents remain wary of Trump’s broader immigration policies and question the long-term impact of such a proposal on job competition.

The skepticism of this group stems from concerns about how the policy may affect the job market for American workers. Some view the proposal as a necessary economic measure, while others express doubt about its implementation and potential unintended consequences.

Crossover Voters

Crossover voters, or moderates, are overwhelmingly negative about the green card proposal. This group, which traditionally leans Democratic, views the policy as politically motivated.

For many, the proposal feels like an electoral ploy rather than a genuine attempt at reform, leading them to further distrust Trump’s intentions. However, there is a possibility this dialogue stems from anti-Trump voters who are reacting to these discussions merely to oppose any Trump policy as they normally would.

The dominant concern among this demographic is that the proposal will exacerbate existing immigration issues without addressing deeper systemic problems. Many see it as another example of Trump’s divisive approach to politics, which alienates them further. This opposition is likely to drive turnout against Trump, with crossover voters potentially mobilizing to vote for an alternative candidate.

Turnout Implications

The overall voter turnout trends suggest Trump’s green card proposal may energize his base. Supporters feel empowered by the economic and nationalist rhetoric with all his economic policies and are likely to engage more deeply in local campaigns.

However, for Independents, the policy yields mixed results, potentially driving modest gains in turnout among those who prioritize economic growth but failing to inspire more skeptical individuals. Crossover voters, on the other hand, show strong opposition.

Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) recently published report revealing hundreds of thousands of criminals have illegally entered the country. The report said, “as of July 21, 2024, nearly 650,000 criminal illegal aliens were currently on ICE’s Non-Detained Docket (NDD) and roaming free in communities throughout the United States.”

MIG Reports analysis shows this story specifically eliciting anger from all voters, but especially Independents. This analysis examines voter discussions, including surface-level reactions and the deeper meaning underlying sentiment.

BREAKING: In a stunning letter sent to @RepTonyGonzales by ICE, the agency reveals there are currently 13,000+ noncitizens convicted of homicide & 15,000+ noncitizens convicted of sexual assault who are roaming the US as part of ICE’s non-detained docket.https://t.co/KgS5DAWzV9

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) September 27, 2024

Border Security Conversations

Discussions about border security are dominated by concerns over public safety. Independents are particularly critical of the Biden-Harris administration for its immigration policies.

• 61% express disappointment in the administration's border leniency.
• 55% support Trump’s stricter border policies, reflecting a belief that his approach was more effective at safeguarding national integrity.
• 30% have mixed sentiment, indicating dissatisfaction with both major parties.

The use of third-person language in these discussions displays collective outrage toward Biden and Harris, distancing the commenters from personal accountability and broadly critiquing political failures.

Immigration Conversations

When discussing immigration more broadly, Independents voice mixed opinions.

• 70% have negative views of the Biden-Harris administration, critiquing its leniency and failure to manage vast migrant surges.
• 40% are optimistic toward Trump’s potential return to office.
• 30% are concerned about how immigration is framed, focusing on treating migrants humanely, and questioning the validity of rampant criminality.

Citizen and community safety is a critical concern for Independents, though some want more comprehensive, humane immigration reform.

Deeper Meaning Analysis

Beyond direct conversations, larger themes emerge. Most Independents express disillusionment with the current political leadership. Particularly in relation to border security, but also in broader governance.

• 30% of Independents express hope for a third-party candidate, indicating growing dissatisfaction with both Democrats and Republicans.

They consistently use both first- and third-person language, showing a divide between personal stakes and collective critiques. This suggests Independents are politically disengaged as well as frustrated with a lack of effective solutions. This discontent could signal a shift in voter mobilization, with many expressing a desire for accountability and stronger leadership.

Urgency in Reactions

A strong sense of urgency underpins many conversations. Many present the upcoming election as critical, emphasizing decisions on immigration and border security must be made now to prevent further chaos. Some comments describe voting as a life-or-death decision, stressing immediate action as necessary to secure the nation. This heightened urgency appears to drive a belief that leadership—particularly Trump’s—is necessary to restore order and protect national interests. This signals an energized and mobilized electorate, which includes many Independents.

Vice President Kamala Harris visited the southern border, reigniting a long-standing debate about her role as "border czar" and Biden-Harris immigration policies. Arriving just weeks before the 2024 election, Harris's appearance in Arizona drew widespread criticism. Many reactions included some version of the sentiment too little, too late.

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY: “This border trip today happened at the WORST possible time for [Kamala], given the other news that came out — that her administration allowed nearly half a MILLION criminals, MANY of them violent criminals — to just be in the country and roaming FREELY.” pic.twitter.com/6Q8QIRcxuy

— Proud Elephant 🇺🇸🦅 (@ProudElephantUS) September 27, 2024

Photo Op at the Border

MIG Reports data shows:

• 76% of voters perceive her visit as politically motivated and a "last-ditch effort" to appeal to voters who are increasingly angry.

Harris's border visit just weeks before the election raises red flags for many. After spending nearly four years avoiding the border as “border czar,” many view the untimely visit as empty and politically motivated.

Most Americans view the trip to Douglas, AZ, as clearly designed to pander for votes over an issue the Harris campaign is losing on. The timing makes the visit appear even more performative as a photo op than a sincere attempt to fix an issue which Harris has failed to address for years.

Kamala Harris was on the border for less than 20 minutes yesterday.

It wasn’t a border visit, it was a poorly ran photo opportunity. pic.twitter.com/rGVVkucswq

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) September 28, 2024

For many, Harris’s visit is both suspiciously timed and a slap in the face to millions of Americans who have been outraged about the Biden-Harris administration’s refusal to address citizen concerns and protect the country.

• Following her border visit, national sentiment toward Harris regarding the border moved very little, increasing from 39% the day before to 42% the day after.
• However, in Arizona, Harris’s sentiment was more significantly impacted, dropping from 49% a week ago to 33% today.
• Harris’s overall sentiment in Arizona dropped from 44% a week ago to 42% today.

A Record of Neglect and Failure

MIG Reports data shows:

• 67% of voters distrust Harris’s motivations and approach to border security.

Disbelief about the sincerity of Harris’s overtures at the border springs from outrage at her track record—or lack thereof—on border security. Since taking office in 2021, Harris has been truant in her task of managing immigration and the border. Illegal crossings have been at all-time highs in the last several years.

Recent reports from ICE reveal the Biden-Harris administration has overseen 13,099 murderers and 15,811 rapists within a larger 425,431 convicted criminals entering the U.S. illegally.

🚨🚨BREAKING: According to a new report from the Deputy Director of ICE, Joe Biden and Border Czar Kamala Harris allowed a SHOCKING number of criminals into America, including:

- 13,099 Murderers
- 15,811 Rapists
- 425,431 Convicted Criminals

Treason. Disqualifying. Evil. pic.twitter.com/XG1oClyDNe

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) September 27, 2024

One of the most recurring accusations voters make against the Biden-Harris administration is the rollback of "Remain in Mexico" and other stringent Trump-era immigration policies. Among border communities, conservatives, moderates, and some Democrats is the belief that Harris intentionally left the border wide open, allowing dangerous criminals to enter. Voters see Harris’s policies as fostering lawlessness, further eroding confidence in the Democratic Party’s ability to manage immigration.

Cartel Trafficking, Rising Crime, and Safety

Voters often mention the tangible impacts Harris’s policies have had on crime rates, both along the border and within American communities. People criticize sharp increases in migrant crime and the fentanyl and larger drug crisis perpetuated by Mexican cartels under the Biden-Harris administration.

• 67% of voters link rising crime rates directly to Harris’s border policies.
• 77% favor stricter border policies and support reinstating Trump-era policies.
• 60% express preference for Donald Trump’s leadership on immigration.

In areas hardest hit by illegal immigration, voters are increasingly vocal about the lack of accountability and action from Washington. Many feel abandoned, left to deal with the fallout from policies that seem more focused on humanitarian optics than protecting American citizens.

Media Complicity in Border Gaslighting

Negativity about the Biden-Harris border is compounded by voter frustration toward media coverage. Many voters believe mainstream media willfully refuses to report the severity of the border crisis—particularly when it comes to crime statistics and cartel activity.

• 68% of voters accuse the media of underreporting or downplaying the immigration crisis.

Americans view the media as complicit in shaping a narrative favorable to the administration. Many voters choose alternative news sources for information on platforms like X, knowing the media will not report the reality of the situation.

What Does This Mean for the 2024 Election?

Sentiment about border security and the number of illegal immigrants flooding American communities is likely to play a pivotal role in the presidential election. Harris’s track record on the border is both a black mark on her vice-presidential record and a major liability for the Democratic Party.

If voters continue to feel highly motivated by border issues, it will likely play a role in deciding votes in November. Trump’s focus on law and order and his track record of reducing illegal crossings will likely resonate with voters who feel betrayed by Harris and her lax policies. Harris’s border visit rings insincere to many, coming too late to reverse the tide of public opinion.

In Nantucket, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested four illegal immigrants charged with raping or sexually assaulting children or residents. Voter discussions about illegal aliens and sex crimes reflect an intense and emotional reactions. There is particular vitriol toward the Biden-Harris administration for its part in the border and crime crisis.

Americans are outraged, afraid, and frustrated as these crimes repeatedly shine a light on border security, migrant crime, and the incompetence of the Biden-Harris regime.

NEW: In a multi day operation on Nantucket Island, ICE’s Boston office announces they arrested four illegal aliens who are charged with raping or sexually assaulting Nantucket children or residents - all of whom were released from local custody despite the serious charges.

They… pic.twitter.com/K3LlfR6NqP

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) September 24, 2024

Sentiment is overwhelmingly negative toward Democratic immigration policies and border security failures.

• 80% of discussions focus on the administration’s perceived failure to address sex crimes, particularly child rape and trafficking, committed by illegal immigrants.
• 70% mention concerns about rising crime rates due to illegal immigrant crime and border policies.
• 60% express anger and frustration towards the Biden-Harris administration.
• 55% voice fears related to national security and public safety.
• Americans criticize what they see as Democrats prioritizing political gain over the safety and welfare of American citizens.
• Many call for stricter immigration laws and better enforcement of border security measures.

Throughout voter conversations, people demand greater transparency and accountability from the government. Many believe the Biden-Harris administration is mishandling the border situation, which they view as enabling criminal activity, particularly child exploitation. This pervasive distrust reflects a deeper fear about the erosion of safety and values in American society. Voters want immediate, tough action on border control and immigration enforcement to protect children.

🚨Holy sht

Former Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Tom Homan reveals that there are OVER 500k unaccompanied minors that have crossed over our southern border.

They are then released to “sponsors” and often sold into indentured servitude or the s*x… pic.twitter.com/f1Q44vVfCg

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) September 25, 2024

Recent news about Chicago Public School teachers being forced by administrators to pass migrant children has stirred significant debate and concern. MIG Reports analysis of discussions among moms and teachers shows concerns about the potential impact in their communities.

Both of these groups express mixed emotions about the impact on their children's and students’ education and school experiences. Reactions show a complex dynamic between empathy for migrant children and anxiety over how this shift will affect American children's academic and social experiences.

🚨Huge scandal unfolding in @ChiPubSchools!

Chicago elementary teachers have come forward alleging that administrators instructed them they have to give migrant students a passing grade of 70% in every subject.

Teachers say they spoke no Spanish, the kids spoke no English and… pic.twitter.com/opwlMKfOEn

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 19, 2024

Mom Concerns: Anxiety and Empathy

American moms are addressing the difficult nature of this dilemma. Across numerous datasets, between 62-75% fear the influx of migrant students will disrupt their children's education. They cite concerns about the strain on resources, overcrowding, and reduced individual attention from teachers.

Around 40-45% are also worried about social and cultural conflicts, such as bullying, that may arise in the integration process. Another 30% of moms caveat their discussions to express empathy, acknowledging that migrant children deserve a chance to rebuild their lives through education.

Teachers and Educators: Managing Practical Realities

Teachers and educators are at the forefront of this challenge as well. They are trying to balance empathy with the practical realities of accommodating a larger and more diverse student population.

MIG Reports data shows around 65% of self-described educators express concerns about the strain on resources. They note that current school infrastructure—staff, textbooks, and technology—may not be sufficient to manage the influx of new students.

Approximately 55% are particularly worried about the potential impact on the academic performance of their existing students. They say integrating migrant children will likely lead to disruptions in the classroom.

Despite teacher worries, around 40-45% remain committed to the principle of providing quality education for all children, regardless of background, and are determined to make it work with the right support.

A Complex and Nuanced Reaction

Reactions to this story reflect the complexity of empathy from mothers and teachers with the realities of the border crisis. Both groups grapple with balancing their desire for fairness and empathy with concerns about how illegal immigration is affecting the quality of education and social dynamics in American schools.

This all comes on the heels of American schoolchildren still reeling from the effects of school lockdowns during COVID, with parents still distrusting the school system.

In discussing mass deportations, Vice President Kamala Harris recently asked, “How’s that going to happen?” This comment, along with the U.S. government not knowing exactly how many illegal immigrants are in the country stirs impassioned reactions from Americans.

Kamala appears to be campaigning for Trump: "They have pledged to carry out the largest deportation, a mass deportation, in American history. Imagine what that would look like and what that would be." pic.twitter.com/l6CVbvZUwA

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) September 18, 2024

How Americans View Kamala

The public sentiment is predominantly critical toward Harris’s stance on immigration. Around 70% of Americans disapprove of her immigration policies and her views on open borders. MIG Reports analysis shows 55% support mass deportations, citing concerns over national security, crime, and the economic burden of illegal immigration. This figure aligns with a recent Scripps News/Ipsos survey showing 54% of Americans support mass deportation.

Americans Are Angry

The conversation around immigration is heated, with many Americans expressing frustration and anger towards Biden-Harris policies. Some common complaints include:

• Government failure to enforce existing immigration laws
• Large influxes of illegal immigrants
• Migrants receiving preferential treatment over American citizens

Around 60% of Americans say the Biden-Harris administration's open border policies are responsible for overwhelming surges in migration. This, they say, includes the subsequent problems associated with it—like issues Ohio residents are facing. Many express concerns over safety and security in their communities, citing crime, violence, and exploitation by illegal immigrants.

Only 25% argue mass deportations are inhumane and unjust. This group says a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to immigration reform is needed. They argue immigrants, regardless of their status, contribute to the economy and enrich American society.

The Border is an Election Issue

MIG Reports analysis of other conversations regarding the border crisis show several supporting narratives.

In election discussions:

• 53% of Americans believe Trump would handle immigration well
• 45% believe Harris would handle it well
• 50% of black Americans believe immigration is negatively impacting their economic opportunities and communities

In swing state discussions:

• 71% of Americans are concerned about the economic impact of illegal immigration
• 55% believe Harris's open-border approach is harming the country

These patterns mirror the national perspective that immigration is deeply intertwined with concerns about national security, jobs, and the economy.

The relationship between non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and their relationship with Mexican cartels and other transnational criminal organizations is complex. MIG Reports analysis shows significant American concerns about these issues, particularly human trafficking and government complicity in crime activity.

There is a noticeable focus on the perceived failures of both NGOs and the Biden-Harris administration in addressing cartels furthering human trafficking and illegal immigration. This analysis highlights discussion trends, dominate concerns, and public sentiment about border security and the role of NGOs.

How Americans Feel

Voter discussions across thousands of comments is overwhelmingly negative:

• 39.4% of the conversation focuses on human trafficking
• 50.1% conveys belief in illegal activities by cartels and NGOs
• 27.8% focuses on criticizing the Biden-Harris administration
• 28% links cartels to fentanyl trafficking, emphasizing the connection between the opioid crisis and border security concerns.

The conversations reflect deep skepticism toward the government’s ability to protect citizens and frustration with the perceived complicity of NGOs in facilitating illegal activities through funding channels and logistical coordination.

Government Criticism and Accountability

Many Americans mention the Biden-Harris administration negatively in conversations about illegal cartel activity and border issues. They blame the administration’s border policies for enabling human trafficking and fentanyl smuggling. Voters argue the government’s refusal to secure the border has led to a rise in both trafficking and opioid-related deaths.

Americans are particularly vocal about their frustration with Democratic inaction. There is sharp criticism and concern that Biden-Harris policies prioritize the needs of immigrants over the safety of American citizens. This harsh critique reveals a widespread sentiment that government leadership is not concerned about protecting vulnerable Americans or addressing pressing border control problems.

NGOs and Their Role in Immigration and Trafficking

NGOs come under heavy fire in these discussions, with 50% linking them to illegal immigration and human trafficking. Americans believe NGOs, often funded by taxpayer money, facilitate illegal activities either through direct involvement or by offering support that allows traffickers and cartels to operate freely.

Many express outrage over NGOs profiting from the very problems they claim to solve. The conversation also highlights concerns that NGOs are enabling child exploitation by allowing traffickers to use legal loopholes to smuggle children across borders. This widespread criticism of NGOs reflects a deep sense of betrayal, as users perceive these ostensibly humanitarian organizations as working against national interests and using public funds.

Human Trafficking and Fentanyl Crisis

Human and drug trafficking is another deeply negative conversation. Nearly 40% of the discussion focuses on illegal trafficking. Americans are angry and worried about the exploitation of vulnerable populations, especially children. Many view child trafficking as a growing crisis which the government does nothing to solve.

Voters say government negligence, coupled with the actions of NGOs, is exacerbating the problem. Conversations are deeply emotional, often sharing personal stories or using vivid imagery to convey the severity of the safety issues for kids.

Drug trafficking, specifically fentanyl smuggling, is also linked to cartel activity and border security. Americans view Biden-Harris policies as directly contributing to the fentanyl crisis ravaging communities and families across the country. The connection between human trafficking and drug trafficking is a recurring theme, reinforcing the idea that these are intertwined issues which government has failed to address adequately.