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.

USAID was funding over 6,200 journalists across 707 media outlets and 279 "media" NGOs, including nine out of ten media outlets in Ukraine.https://t.co/tLUoBT2GfNhttps://t.co/Siq2RJOXQf pic.twitter.com/LyaUFuq3He

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) February 6, 2025

NGOs, a Political Battleground

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

— JD Vance (@JDVance) February 5, 2025

Echo Chambers Stifle Debate

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.

Your hard-earned money is going to NGOs that are facilitating or directly sex trafficking… https://t.co/xrGytKPTwO pic.twitter.com/SaRh4U24Xu

— LIZ CROKIN (@LizCrokin) January 26, 2025

Demographic and Ideological Divides

• 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 legal implications of Trump's NGO-related policies.
• 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.

— unseen1 (@unseen1_unseen) February 1, 2025

Fear and rumors about the potential of overturning of Obergefell v. Hodges in the wake of Roe v. Wade being overturned causes concern among many Americans. The landmark 2015 Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in the United States has the potential to become a contentious partisan issue as Trump takes his second term with a conservative majority Supreme Court.

Concerns about the future of same-sex marriage are emerging, creating debates about civil rights, states’ rights, and judicial overreach. While many are firmly opposed to reversing Obergefell, there is not an overwhelming majority and there may be significant opportunities to influence voter sentiment.

Sentiment on Overturning Obergefell

MIG Reports data shows partisan division on overturning Obergefell, shifting the conversation around same-sex marriage from a question of legal rights to debates about the role of the judiciary, individual liberties, and federalism.

37% Oppose Overturning Obergefell

A slight majority of online discussion voices strong opposition to any move by SCOTUS to reverse Obergefell. They focus on equal rights and say overturning it would be a severe setback for civil liberties and societal progress.

Concerns about broader attacks on LGBTQ rights and protections are prevalent among critics. Many argue reversing gay marriage would facilitate eroding individual rights, as they say Roe v. Wade has done.

25% Support Overturning Obergefell

A strong minority voice support for the idea of overturning Obergefell. They argue a reversal aligns with states’ rights and preserving religious freedoms. They say marriage should be defined by individual states, reflecting local values and beliefs rather than a federal mandate—which many say is unconstitutional.

There is frustration with perceived judicial overreach in legalizing same-sex marriage, saying the issue should be returned to the states. There are some who argue gay marriage should not be legal at all. However, there is significant debate about federalism versus morality among conservatives.

20% Religious and Anti-State Views

A significant group calls for a complete restructuring of marriage laws. These views are more anti-state. They don’t just want to repeal Obergefell but also challenge the very concept of marriage as a legal institution.

This group frames their arguments within societal norms, often advocating for a return to traditional, religiously rooted family structures. Many here express moral objections to same-sex marriage. When combined with those who focus only on the legal battle, potential support for repealing Obergefell could be as high as 45%.

33% are Ambivalent or Uncertain

The neutral or uncertain stance on the issue is significant in discussions. This group has mixed views about the implications of overturning Obergefell. While they may not be entirely against or in favor, many are concerned about the societal and personal implications it would create—particularly for gay couples already married.

Uncertainty is driven by a desire for further dialogue and a deeper understanding of how a reversal might impact both marriage equality and LGBTQ rights overall. This portion of the electorate maybe be a persuadable group, open to messaging that presents the issue in a balanced but legally grounded context.

Targeting Persuadable Voters

Understanding which voter segments are open to persuasion is crucial for shaping effective messaging.

Moderates and Independents

• These voters are typically not committed to either side but are generally receptive to arguments grounded in judicial neutrality and local control.
• They value pragmatic solutions, and a message emphasizing states’ rights and judicial restraint could resonate with them.
• Many are not ideologically tied to either progressive or conservative values, making them more open to arguments about personal freedom and federalism.

Disenchanted Conservatives

• Many in the conservative base feel alienated by the mainstream political establishment, particularly when it comes to imposed values.
• These voters, while perhaps not outright hostile to same-sex marriage, are more likely to view the issue as judicial overreach by the left.
• Messages advocating for a return to the Constitution’s original intent, focusing on local governance and cultural influence, may appeal to this group.
• Wary of federal mandates, they may support returning decisions to the states to preserve geographical pockets with traditional conservative values.

Rhetorical Drivers for Reversing Obergefell

Supporters of reversing Obergefell use a reactionary rhetorical framework, using historical references, emotional appeals, and highlighting disillusionment with the judiciary.

• Historical Framing: Supporters draw parallels to past judicial decisions, like Roe v. Wade, positioning Obergefell as similarly unconstitutional and ideologically driven.
• Emotional Appeals: Terms like "traitor" and "betrayal" are used to describe justices perceived as betraying traditional values.
• Disillusionment: Skepticism of the Court's role in safeguarding civil liberties drives discussion. Many say the courts, including SCOTUS, can become a political tool.
• Reactionary Sentiment: Critics say prioritizing LGBTQ initiatives in governance, such as public appointments based on DEI, detracts from more important issues.

National Messaging Approach

The issue of same-sex marriage and overturning Obergefell can be framed as part of a social and legal reckoning following pushback against progressive and woke policies.

• Judicial Fairness: Advocate for a judiciary that upholds the rule of law and ensures decisions are based on legal principles, not political agendas. A message that positions overturning Obergefell as a return to constitutional norms will resonate with conservative and independent voters.
• Legal and Social Stability: Connect the consistency of legal decisions to social and legal fabric of society, maintaining both individual freedom and rule of law. Argue that Obergefell was a judicial overreach, regardless of personal views on gay marriage.
• Voter Trust: Focus on the importance of depoliticized SCOTUS rulings. Emphasize that Obergefell was decided by a politically motivated court rather than by legislative consensus. It is essential to communicate that returning marriage decisions to the states is in line with constitutional principles.

American culture and politics are undergoing a seismic transformation. Many Americans express disillusionment, a demand for justice, and a sense of alienation from a country they no longer recognize. MIG Reports analysis reveals an ongoing struggle to reconcile evolving societal norms with traditional values.

My illusion that America was what I thought it was has been gone for years now. Every major city is getting gross, crime is rising, theft is common, Big Pharma controls both parties with the good cop/bad cop routine, the food is toxic, everyone is addicted to pills, the…

— An0maly (@LegendaryEnergy) May 31, 2024

Disillusionment

• 60% express frustration with political hypocrisy, highlighting institutional decay as a root cause of societal unease.

The widespread erosion of trust in leadership and public institutions is spearheading national sentiment. Across the ideological spectrum, many perceive the justice system and political mechanisms as biased or manipulated by elites for personal gain.

Disillusionment fosters cynicism about the legitimacy of governance, with Americans citing recent events, corruption revelations, and systemic failures as evidence.

Political Partisanship

• 45-50% of discussions have a tribal dynamic, casting one’s own side as defenders of justice and the opposition as harbingers of decay.

The hyper-partisan nature of online discourse perpetuates the divide between ideological camps. Many frame societal issues in binary terms, focusing less on solutions and more on condemning opposing factions. Loyalty to one’s party is often equated with moral integrity, furthering division.

Losing Traditional Values

• 40% of discussions lament the perceived erosion of familiar values, equating this shift with broader societal decline.

Americans want to preserve or restore traditional American values. Many view cultural changes, such as shifts in education or diversity initiatives, as undermining the moral and societal foundations of the nation. The rapid pace of these changes exacerbates feelings of alienation.

Justice and Corruption

• 47% worry about accountability and the erosion of legal integrity, framing these issues as emblematic of a failing system.

The conversation often circles back to issues of fairness and accountability. Many feel that justice is selectively applied, favoring powerful figures while ordinary citizens face harsher consequences. This perceived imbalance fuels narratives of systemic corruption and demands for transparency.

Identity Crisis and Alienation

• 65% of discussions touch on American identity, with feelings of disconnection and a desire to clarify what defines the nation.

Americans increasing talk about, "not recognizing America." This reflects a deeper identity crisis, grappling with rapid cultural and political shifts. Generational divides and ideological conflicts further intensify this alienation, with many struggling to reconcile their vision of America with its evolving reality.

Take note of the people on the street cheering him on—this kind of behavior is why we have boarded-up towns across America.

In just 48 days things will change… pic.twitter.com/6f4g1PrPb7

— Civil Disco (@Civil_Disco) December 3, 2024

Emotional Complexity

Some discussions are more introspective and emotionally complex. There are tensions between personal sympathies and ethical expectations, particularly when discussing issues like political favoritism or perceived injustices.

For example, familial loyalty versus public morality emerges as a recurring theme. Many grapples with progressive social and moral obligations which place pressure on traditional family norms and relationships.

Divisive Media

Media narratives play a significant role in shaping these discussions. Many distrust media coverage, questioning its accuracy and the motivations of legacy institutions. This distrust exacerbates divisions, as echo chambers reinforce pre-existing biases and narratives.

Historical Analogies

Some discuss historical comparisons, likening current frustrations to the revolutionary sentiments of America’s founding. This creates a desire for systemic change, often described in terms of a moral or political revival.

Asians de-assimilate. The first generation is much more positive about America than their kids are, and older groups (eg Vietnamese) are more pro-America than newer ones (eg Indians). Every political issue with Asians gets worse with time by default, not better. pic.twitter.com/GZx7t7K7Iv

— arctotherium (@arctotherium42) September 29, 2024

Reasons Behind the Trends

Political and Cultural Shifts

The rapid evolution of progressive norms—particularly around issues of justice, race, and gender—provokes strong reactions from those who see these changes as undermining traditional values. For many, this woke transformation represents not progress but erosion.

Polarized Media Ecosystem

Partisan media amplifies ideological divides, creating echo chambers that reinforce existing narratives. As a result, discussions often focus on critiquing the "other side" rather than engaging in constructive dialogue.

Perceived Elitism

Americans increasingly believe the system is manipulated by elites for their own benefit, deepening feelings of disillusionment. Many view this as evidence of a broader societal failure, where the average citizen’s concerns are ignored in favor of maintaining power structures.

The redesign of American society over the last 15 years in basically every sphere of life was purposely done to remove your sense of connection with places and things as a reset for the new world they are manufacturing.

Every rebrand, every corporate redesign, Every new…

— Paul (@WomanDefiner) August 14, 2024