Most discussions regarding Israel and Iran begin with an established bias, usually pro-Israel or anti-Israel, which has led to negligible movements in public opinion on either side.
Given the complexity and longstanding historical conflicts in the Middle East, combined with entrenched public opinion, it is unlikely that overall sentiment will be changed significantly in the near future.
Americans also worry about growing escalation in the conflict and see this as a potential route to WW3.
Our Methodology
Demographics
All Voters
Sample Size
73,000
Geographical Breakdown
National
Time Period
7 Days
MIG Reports leverages EyesOver technology, employing Advanced AI for precise analysis. This ensures unparalleled precision, setting a new standard. Find out more about the unique data pull for this article.
Recent conflict escalations between Iran and Israel have generated conversations among Americans about the U.S.'s position on the issue. Some Americans favor a more aggressive stance towards Iran, while others advocate for a balanced approach towards both countries.
Israeli Support vs. Iranian Support
Israel
Supporters tend to be older, Republican, and Christian.
There are also strong Israel supporters among Jewish liberals and Democrats.
Support for Israel is driven by a belief in shared democratic values, the historical alliance between the U.S. and Israel, and a sense of obligation to protect an ally from Iranian aggression. Supporters often highlight Israel's right to self-defense and the need for U.S. intervention. They also stress the importance of passing aid packages for Israel. This sentiment appears to be particularly strong among conservative and right-leaning individuals, as well as those of Christian faith who often express religious reasons for supporting Israel.
Iran
Supporters are generally younger, Democrats, and secular or Muslim.
This coincides with younger Americans being anti-Israeli and supporting Biden’s nuclear deal efforts with Iran.
Support for Iran appears to increase when the discussion centers around perceived Israeli aggression, the plight of Palestinians, and belief that Israel is in violation of international law. This perspective is often espoused by liberal-leaning Americans, many of whom criticize U.S. support for Israel. Much of this group has become increasingly involved in protests and gatherings to support Palestine. These individuals often cite Israel’s alleged violation of Iran’s sovereignty, such as the bombing of the Iranian consulate, as a reason for their empathy towards Iran.
Discussion Trends
U.S. Military Aid
One of the most common discussion trends concerns U.S. military aid to Israel. Many Americans express support for the aid, particularly in light of recent attacks from Iran. However, some criticize the U.S. for providing aid to Israel while not supporting other nations in conflict, such as Ukraine.
Accountability
There are calls for holding Iran accountable for its actions, with many Americans labeling Iran as a “terrorist nation.” On the other hand, some argue Israel also needs to be held accountable for its actions, accusing them of instigating the conflict.
Peace vs. War
A significant number of Americans advocate for peace in the Middle East. They express fatigue over the continued conflicts and call for an end to hostilities. However, there are also fears of potential escalation into a larger conflict, possibly leading to World War III.
Political Implications
The political implications of the Israel-Iran conflict are a hot topic. Some Americans criticize certain politicians for their stance on the issue, alleging that they are acting against the nation's interests. There are also concerns about the potential impact on U.S. relations with other countries, particularly Russia and China.
Economic Consequences
The economic consequences of the conflict, particularly the cost of military aid to Israel, are also a point of discussion. Some Americans express concerns about the sustainability of such expenditures in light of the U.S. debt situation.
Stay Informed
Share:
More Like This
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is beginning to overcome early skepticism about his IRS downsizing to full-throated approval following Treasury revenue gains. Many conservatives see Bessent’s results as a proof-of-concept for technocratic reform within a MAGA framework.
Critics of @POTUS’ efforts to modernize the IRS warned that the effort would result in a 10% shortfall in receipts.
Instead, the opposite happened.
April receipts this year were up 9.5% over the previous year. And receipts in May were up 14.7% over the previous year.
— Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent) June 11, 2025
Public sentiment toward Bessent is increasing with positive news this week, despite criticism from Democrats. He has become a policy executor as well as a cultural symbol perceived as smart, non-performative, and politically effective.
Voter Sentiment Trends
MIG Reports data shows Bessent's approval trajectory is on the rise:
In the last three days, public sentiment has increased from 42% to 47%.
Discussions around taxation, Trump’s Cabinet, and monetary policy all hover around 45%.
In the last week, top discussion topics mentioning Bessent include Trump’s Cabinet, fiscal policy, trade, and taxation.
Sentiment in his top eight topics are all above 40%.
Even with confrontations during Bessent's House testimony on Treasury priorities, many voters criticize Democrats like Del. Stacey Plaskett.
Excuse you!! This twat, cunt, pum pum whatever you want to call it represents an organ that gives LIFE and is resilienr so thanks for the compliment. I can take one interruption but Bessent was out of control. And…. I know I look good for my age but baby I’m post menopausal and… https://t.co/04jSJPVknP
— Rep. Stacey Plaskett (@StaceyPlaskett) June 11, 2025
Narrative and Meme Realignment
Narrative Control Flip
In recent online discussions among Democrats and those on the left, sentiment skews negative. They criticize how Bessent is handling the Big Beautiful Bill (BBB), fearing IRS layoffs would cripple revenue enforcement. Those themes peaked around June 6 but are eroding with Bessent's announcement showing strong revenue returns.
Bessent’s supporters now tout the Treasury’s release of April (+9.5%) and May (+14.7%) tax revenue growth, using it to pivot from “reckless” to “reformer.” Even Axios coverage accelerates the narrative shift, with the headline framing Bessent as “delivering results under pressure.” The positivity is particularly strong among fiscal conservatives. They see Bessent as competent and making conservative governance work.
Meme Culture and Linguistic Tone
Meme trends provide a further window into cultural repositioning. Earlier sarcastic slogans such as “One Big Beautiful Scam” and “Budget Axe Barbie” have been overtaken by celebratory or taunting phrases like:
“Audit This”
“Receipts > Rhetoric”
“He Bessented Them”
“Fewer Agents, More Money”
These shifts bolster Bessent’s persona online, evolving from faceless functionary to cultural weapon. Linguistically, the use of assertive verbs like “delivered,” “dismantled,” “restructured” now dominate supportive discussion.
Policy Substance Driving Approval
IRS Modernization and the Revenue Windfall
The Trump administration’s IRS overhaul is the keystone of Bessent’s rising credibility. While the political left forecasted disaster following mass IRS staffing cuts, the Treasury’s May receipts show robust growth. Bessent’s claim—that AI-assisted auditing and tech upgrades would outperform headcount expansion—is being validated in both numerical and narrative terms.
His June testimony before the House further solidifies support. When Bessent stated, “We don’t need 87,000 agents—we need smart enforcement,” it was immediately clipped and memed, especially across Trump-aligned audiences.
One Big Beautiful Bill
Trump’s BBB remains divisive. The bill’s failure to remove taxes on Social Security and tips generated early backlash. But online rhetoric has cooled. Supporters see the BBB as “a tactical half-measure” or “first phase reform,” using it as justification for continued support rather than a dealbreaker.
Debt Limit Messaging Advantage
Bessent’s revenue success pushes the X-date further into the summer, giving the administration some budgetary breathing room. Internal discourse in conservative financial circles describes Bessent as a “calm strategist.” The delay itself becomes part of the approval surge—a signal that Treasury is under control.
Cultural and Symbolic Role
Bessent is now positioned as an anti-DEI success story. Right-leaning voters increasingly cite him as an example of how inclusion doesn’t need to be performative to be effective. Many acknowledge his openly gay and financially elite identity status, but argue these characteristics don’t matter. Instead, supporters press for “Merit first, labels last.”
Those who defend Bessent online contrast him with more bombastic or ideologically driven officials. They say things like, “While others are lecturing, Bessent is cashing the checks.” The alleged Musk-Bessent spat, once fodder for criticism, has faded. In its place is a sentiment that perhaps Bessent was right.
Positioning Within the Cabinet and Beyond
The buzz around Bessent’s next move is growing. His name is circulating as a potential Federal Reserve Chair nominee or head of a consolidated economic reform council. His unique appeal—part policy hawk, part anti-bureaucracy operative—makes him a natural fit for continued leadership.
The administration sees him as an asset in the fiscal messaging war. The Trump base sees him as proof that results matter more than showmanship. A strategic elevation could lock in both camps.
An online scuffle between Simone Biles and Riley Gaines riles up the debate about women’s sports and bullying.
Biles' recent criticism of Gaines—who has become a vocal opponent of transgender inclusion in women’s athletics—ignites a sharp backlash online. Public sentiment among politically engaged Americans overwhelming support in Gaines’ favor.
bully someone your own size, which would ironically be a male @Riley_Gaines_
Support leans heavily in favor of Gaines and preventing transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports.
70% of reactions express criticism toward Biles, both for her stance on transgender athletes and the perception of hypocritical bullying.
70% support or defend Riley Gaines, aligning with her desire to protect women.
25% link the debate to issues of fairness, trans rights, and cultural decay.
The numbers suggest this topic resonates deeply with Americans who are becoming more vocal about women’s sports. The reactions align with previous MIG Reports data showing this as a strong, bipartisan issue.
Gaines as Defender of Fairness
Riley Gaines increasingly emerges as the face of athletic fairness. Her advocacy resonates because it comes from within the system. As a former collegiate swimmer forced to compete against trans-identifying male athletes, Gaines channels firsthand frustration into a broader argument that women are under siege by political ideologues who conflate inclusion with equity.
Online commentary describes Gaines as principled, courageous, and grounded. She is viewed as a key figure defending women. In these discussions, Gaines becomes a symbol of resistance to institutional capture. Critics, largely from progressive or legacy media circles, view her as controversial, calling her names and criticizing her swimming record.
Simone Biles when she had to endure a predatory man
As a decorated Olympic athlete, Simone Biles has long been praised by all Americans. Her achievements are undeniable. But she has also drawn criticism for some of her actions as an athlete, and now for her foray into the gender policy debate. Her criticism of Gaines—however subtle—has triggered a rapid shift in how many on the right view her.
Among the 70% of critical posts, recurring sentiments include:
“Stick to gymnastics”
“Biles sold out fairness for woke points”
“It’s hypocritical to bully Riley for looking ‘manly’”
“Biles is closing the door behind her, now that her success if over”
“Mental health retreat now looks like moral retreat”
The backlash underscores a growing impatience with celebrities who use their fame to enter divisive cultural debates, only to fall back on their accomplishments when challenged.
Here’s Simone Biles competing against a male gymnast and getting absolutely humiliated.
This is not an isolated controversy. It’s a node in a larger clash over values. The redefinition of sex-based rights and the scope of government and media power is an ongoing debate.
Those defending Gaines consistently tie her cause to:
Her critics often deflect by elevating emotional or identity-based claims—an approach that increasingly fails to persuade a public which demands clarity and boundaries.
The Media's Role and Narrative Distortion
Legacy outlets largely ignore Gaines or cast her as divisive. Biles, meanwhile, receives soft coverage, often framed as a mental health icon rather than a political actor. This contrast fuels online perceptions that media elites protect their ideological allies and punish dissenters.
Among voters, this double standard reinforces a broader belief that the media no longer reports truth but serves a progressive agenda. Americans increasingly form opinions based on direct observation and peer discourse, not editorial framing.
Implications for the Political Right
Riley Gaines offers the GOP and the conservative movement a potent cultural figure who blends traditional values with youthful clarity. She’s articulate, morally grounded, and focused. Republicans looking to engage young voters—especially women—should see in her a strategic ally.
Simone Biles, once considered apolitical, now functions as a cautionary tale. Many feel that any number of medals cannot shield someone from public critique when they endorse policies that voters see as harmful. The right no longer defers to celebrity consensus.
The Los Angeles ICE protests damaged public trust in both state leadership and federal enforcement. Following chaos over the weekend, the story quickly became a national flashpoint, exposing the breakdown of institutional trust across party lines. Figureheads on both sides like Gavin Newsom and Tom Homan draw sharp criticism from the opposition.
Timeline and Trigger Events
The protests started as a response to a coordinated immigration enforcement campaign by the Trump administration. Discussion around deportations escalated as anti-ICE protesters took to the streets.
Federal ICE actions spark backlash. Viral footage of arrests and aggressive enforcement tactics, fueling protests at detention centers and federal buildings.
Protest optics intensify the narrative war. Rioters waving Mexican flags, chanting anti-American slogans, and destroying police cars. Creating national controversy.
Allegations of coordination. Online discourse flags possible NGO involvement, raising suspicions that the protests are neither spontaneous nor civilian-driven.
— Phil Holloway ✈️ (@PhilHollowayEsq) June 9, 2025
Trump moves swiftly:
National Guard debate. Trump offers to send federal troops to support ICE operations and secure federal property, stirring hysteria among Democrats.
Tom Homan goes scorched earth. Homan warns protestors obstructing enforcement: “You will be detained, and you will be deported.”
🚨#BREAKING: California Governor Gavin Newsom has just dared former ICE Director Tom Homan and President Trump to arrest him for allegedly aiding and abetting undocumented immigrants in the state. “Get your hands off these poor people, they’re just trying to live their lives and… pic.twitter.com/77jaGNw3cd
Newsomdares arrest. In a press event, Newsom declares, “Let them arrest me,” positioning himself as a martyr figure. But the performance draws more ridicule.
Credibility collapses. As looting and street chaos spread, Newsom’s calls for calm appear disconnected from reality. Democrats and the media deny violence and vandalism, drawing incredulity from the public.
Public reactions are overwhelmingly negative, sweeping up Republican figures like Trump and Homan in negativity toward ICE. But liberal leaders like Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass are also receiving severe backlash.
There is outrage, fear, and exhaustion in public discussion. The debate over immigration enforcement exploded into a broader reckoning with civic order and national identity. Each ideological bloc responds according to its core worldview, but a shared undercurrent emerges that no one believes the system is functioning as it should.
On the right, people describe the events as “a riot by foreign nationals,” fueled by open borders policies and Democratic complicity. Footage of protestors waving Mexican flags, looting stores, and setting fire to federal property goes viral as outrage ramps up.
Terms like “invasion,” “anarchy,” and “domestic terrorism” dominate right leaning discourse.
There are renewed calls for mass deportations, ICE raids, and full use of federal authority, including the Insurrection Act.
A subset of right-leaning voices glorifies vigilantism, invoking imagery from the 1992 LA riots—most notably the “Rooftop Koreans” meme.
On the left, pundits frame the protests as moral resistance to an authoritarian crackdown. Activists and progressive influencers claim immigration enforcement is being used as a political weapon. Trump and Homan are cast as agents of state repression.
The rhetoric shifts toward warnings of fascism and ethnic cleansing.
Narratives emphasize historical injustices, with some claiming the land “was stolen from Mexico” and framing ICE as an occupying force.
However, even among progressive circles, concerns emerge about the optics—particularly the aggressive imagery and potential alienation of swing voters.
The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor.
This is a day I hoped I would never see in America.
I don’t care if you’re a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward… pic.twitter.com/tsTX1nrHAu
Among Independents and disengaged moderates, the response is more cynical. There is little support for the protest tactics, but there is equal skepticism toward state and federal responses.
Many frame the protests as a breakdown of order caused by years of leadership failure.
These voices often express disgust with both parties, seeing the entire incident as a sign that no one is in control.
However, despite media and Democratic criticism, Trump’s public support on immigration is holding strong.
President Trump’s net approval on immigration has skyrocketed.
— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) June 9, 2025
Media and Democratic Response
Legacy media coverage of the ICE protests amplifies the fragmentation already visible in public sentiment. Progressive outlets frame the unrest as a justified reaction to heavy-handed federal enforcement or downplay it.
This clip is for all my L.A. friends who texted me tonight saying things like "I'm sure you know this, but 99.9% of LA is going about their Sunday normally" pic.twitter.com/9NwaRzMruK
Democratic leaders struggle to maintain narrative discipline. Gavin Newsom’s media appearances—ranging from defiant press conferences to vague condemnations of violence—land poorly. His now-infamous “let them arrest me” line is widely mocked, not only by conservatives but also by moderates who view it as theatrical and unserious.
Media coverage aligned with the Democratic establishment compounds the problem:
Footage of foreign flags, looted businesses, and ICE buses under siege areignored or reframed as “community pushback,” which alienates Californians.
Conservative discourse highlights this as proof that the media is protecting the left, reinforcing accusations of a coordinated narrative shield.
Meanwhile, local Democratic figures scramble to convince the public that local law enforcement has everything under control.
JUST IN: California Rep. Judy Chu (D) says the LAPD has the situation in Los Angeles under control as MSNBC plays a split screen of multiple cars on fire.
Even left-leaning voters grow restless. A subset of liberal voices warns that the party’s handling of the protests could cost them Independents and alienate working-class voters who fear rising disorder.
Ideological Narrative Split
Public discourse follows ideology, each side interpreting the same events according to predefined beliefs. Discourse is not a debate, but a tripartite split in how Americans perceive reality—each group assigns blame, defines legitimacy, and interprets violence in ways that reinforce its worldview.
For the Right, the protests validate long-held warnings about open borders, leftist chaos, and Democrat-run cities. They also view the riots as potentially astroturfed or coordinated by activist groups. The right mocks media coverage for downplaying threats and deliberately obscuring the facts on the ground.
Progressives elevate the protests as necessary resistance to a creeping authoritarian state. They view ICE as inherently illegitimate and see the federal response—particularly Trump’s use of the National Guard—as confirmation of a racist, fascist agenda. Their frustration does extend to liberal leaders like Newsom for doing nothing.
Independents increasingly express fatigue with the entire political structure. They see a system incapable of maintaining order or delivering truth. In their view, the media manipulates, elected officials posture, and the public pays the price.
Collapse of Leadership Symbols
The ICE protests accelerate a trend already in motion where American trust in leadership is quickly decaying. While both right and left leaning figures drew volatile responses, liberal leaders are getting the brunt of public anger.
Tom Homan and Gavin Newsom both took a sentiment hit after the weekend, but Newsom dropped to 35% support while Homan only fell to 41%.
Homan’s no-nonsense posture and unapologetic stance win praise from law-and-order voters who see the protests as taking advantage of soft law enforcement under Democrats. Gavin Newsom suffers stronger public wrath. His sentiment decline comes atop already-low trust levels. Newsom remains the poster child for failed governance—a man more concerned with optics than outcomes.
Broader Political Fallout
The fallout from anti-ICE protests extends far beyond California. Initially a localized confrontation, these events are causing the political class scrambling to reorient, but the public has already drawn conclusions.
On the right, the protests reignite calls for uncompromising immigration enforcement.
Expect a surge in proposals for mass deportations, expanded ICE operations, and executive crackdowns on sanctuary cities.
GOP-aligned influencers push the narrative that California has become a failed state—an emblem of what happens when ideology trumps enforcement.
On the left, the protests expose the limits of Democrats' grip on their own coalition.
Democratic leaders struggle to control the messaging, caught between condemning disorder and signaling support for “the cause.”
The fracture between party leadership and grassroots activists widens as activists want open confrontation while elected officials issue tepid statements.
This tension creates strategic confusion heading into the 2026 elections. Democrats risk alienating moderates who crave stability while failing to satisfy far left progressives.
Independents—already skeptical—grow more disillusioned.
Online discussion among swing voters reflects a mix of fear and disgust, with phrases like “no one’s in charge” and “collapse of authority.”
The longer the protests drag on without resolution, the more these voters drift toward any candidate promising decisive action, regardless of partisanship.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)