While the Israel-Hamas war remains unpopular, Trump receives higher marks in trust and voters recall his leadership as more stable and peaceful.
Progressive Democrats’ protests against the Biden administration’s Israel policies reflect shrinking support from Biden’s base.
Most voters are worried about the current state of the war and the future of Middle Eastern relations, not able to foresee a quick and peaceful end.
Our Methodology
Demographics
All Voters
Sample Size
50,000
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.
Voter discussions surrounding the Israel-Hamas conflict presents a deeply polarized view with significant political undertones. Discussions largely revolve around the U.S. foreign policy actions, handling of military aid, and the implications of these decisions on the war's progress.
Trump shows higher approval on the topics of wars, Israel, and Palestine compared to Biden.
Despite higher discussion volume around the same issues, Biden's approval continues to drop.
Joe Biden vs. Donald Trump
While opinions are divided on whether the Trump and Biden administrations have positively influenced outcomes in the Middle East, many correlate Trump's decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem and the Abraham Accords with a more stable region.
Trump supporters cite his strong stance on NATO and Israel as a positive, contrasting Biden's perceived weakness.
The conflict in Gaza is often discussed in conjunction with other global issues like the war in Ukraine, reflecting a broader debate on how the U.S. should engage globally under different administrations. Biden's support for Ukraine contrasts with Trump, who is perceived to de-escalate bloody conflicts and end “forever wars.”
Foreign Policy Moving Forward
Voters often criticize Biden for his policies and administrative actions, which could erode public trust. Trump, while controversial, often evokes a nostalgic sentiment among his supporters for perceived better days under his administration.
The intensity of criticism against Biden, coupled with calls for impeachment, suggests a significant trust deficit. Trump continues to maintain a loyal base that trusts his leadership, as evidenced by supportive tweets and calls for his re-election.
Given current discussion trends and polarization in public opinion, it seems likely his base may trust Trump more than Biden’s base trust the current administration. This is particularly true for anti-Israel progressives. However, increased trust in Trump does not necessarily extend beyond his base, and the public might be more divided in their trust between the two leaders.
Stay Informed
Share:
More Like This
President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” clears the Senate by the slimmest possible margin—51 to 50—with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote. For Republicans, it’s a major legislative win for permanent tax relief, renewed border security funding, and cuts to welfare spending. But public reactions are often sour.
Even among Republicans, where support should be more consistent, the landscape shifts depending on which provisions are under scrutiny. When discussions center on taxes and immigration, support climbs to 74%. When the focus turns to Medicaid or Senate procedure, support fragments. The BBB is becoming a Rorschach test for Trump loyalists versus deficit hawks.
Voters Sentiment Divides
MIG Reports data shows:
Overall public sentiment: 34% approval, 66% disapproval.
Republican sentiment: 74% approval, 26% disapproval—excluding outlier and Medicaid-focused discussions which are overwhelmingly negative.
Opposition threads run across ideological lines. Fiscal conservatives blast the $2.4–3.8 trillion projected increase to the national debt. Populist conservatives rage over the failure to remove illegal immigrants from Medicaid. Moderates and Independents express concern about both spending and the opaque legislative process.
The common thread is disappointment with how the bill was assembled, debated, and sold. Many Americans see it as a rushed, thousand-page package that delivered some wins while sidestepping others that mattered more. However, most Republicans understand that passing the bill is a necessary evil and part of the status quo.
What Supporters Are Celebrating
For its supporters, the BBB delivers on core America First commitments. The bill’s strongest applause lines come from working-class tax relief:
No taxes on tips or overtime—a targeted nod to service and hourly workers.
Permanent extension of 2017 tax cuts—restoring certainty for small business owners.
Expanded child tax credit and higher SALT cap—middle-class relief that plays well in suburban battlegrounds.
The immigration provisions also score with the base. The bill allocates $70 billion to border enforcement—including $46 billion for physical barriers—and funds a significant expansion of ICE operations. For Trump supporters, the bill proves that Republicans, at least under Trump’s direction, still legislate with national sovereignty in mind.
The symbolism of Vice President Vance making the tie-breaking vote is framed as a display of unity and resolve, especially after years of party infighting and legislative inertia. For the MAGA wing this win shows Trump can push through his agenda despite elite resistance.
What Critics Are Condemning
Disapproval of the BBB is sharpest around three pressure points: Medicaid, the national debt, and the bill’s procedural handling.
Failure to eliminate Medicaid eligibility for illegal immigrants enrages the Republican base.
In Medicaid-specific discussions, 85% of Republican voices oppose the Senate’s handling of this issue, with blame largely directed at the Senate Parliamentarian.
Projected increases to the national debt—ranging between $2.4 and $3.8 trillion—trigger backlash from deficit hawks and fiscally-minded conservatives.
While they support tax cuts in principle, many argue the BBB lacks corresponding spending restraint.
The process itself—1,000 pages, last-minute revisions, and heavy reliance on the Byrd Rule—fuel distrust.
The Parliamentarian’s role in stripping provisions only heightens the sense that unelected staffers are driving critical outcomes.
Critics say the bill prioritizes messaging over substance, and the hardest decisions around entitlements and enforcing immigration are sidelined for optics. The result is a bill that looks strong on paper but feels, to many, like a hollow win.
Inside the Fractures on the Right
The BBB exposes rifts inside the Republican coalition. While MAGA-aligned Republicans say the bill is a necessary part of Trump’s populist vision, other factions are less enthused. Fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and establishment-aligned voices view the package as sloppy, debt-heavy, and politically risky.
MAGA Populists view the BBB as a blunt-force affirmation of Trump’s 2024 mandate. They prioritize its immigration funding, tax relief, and symbolic value as a direct rejection of globalism and bureaucratic inertia. They see the system itself as rigged and believe brute legislative force is necessary.
Fiscal Hawks and Libertarians warn the bill abandons basic conservative principles. They point to the trillions in projected deficits and argue the bill ignores real structural reforms. The failure to reduce Medicaid spending or remove ineligible recipients is seen as a strategic retreat.
Establishment Republicans remain split or silent. Some oppose the bill outright, citing long-term risk and poor craftsmanship. Others stay quiet, wary of alienating their base, but their absence from the celebratory chorus underscores a lingering discomfort with Trump’s post-reelection legislative style.
The divisions are indicative of a larger struggle over what the GOP wants to be in the Trump 3.0 era: a populist party chasing big gestures, or a disciplined party managing hard realities.
The Cultural Backlash and Political Symbolism
Beyond policy, the BBB provokes symbolic and often satirical reactions. The bill’s title—Big Beautiful Bill—certainly draws derision and appropriation.
References to “Alligator Auschwitz” and the viral $KBBB memecoin emerge from both populist right and disaffected left circles, mocking the bill’s scale, speed, and contradictions.
Elon Musk’s opposition adds fuel, portraying the bill as an unsustainable “fiscal blob” designed to win headlines, not deliver results. His criticism, echoed by tech-aligned libertarians, amplifies generational and ideological divides.
The satire signals growing cynicism toward sweeping legislation wrapped in brand politics. To some, the BBB is just another D.C. circus act that fails to enact real reform.
Still, Trump’s branding works. “Big Beautiful Bill” may sound absurd to critics, but to supporters, it communicates boldness, confidence, and Trump’s unique ability to seize attention and force action. Even detractors are stuck using his language, which is one of his greatest political advantages.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis launched a visually dramatic migrant detention facility deep in the Everglades, branded by the public as “Alligator Alcatraz.” Using the region’s inhospitable terrain—snakes, swamps, and alligators—as natural security barriers. The facility is designed to house thousands of illegal migrants in trailer-based compounds. DeSantis is pitching it as a bold deterrent and a model of cost-effective containment.
🚨 JUST IN: Alligator Alcatraz will be funded with the money Biden set aside to put illegals in five star hotels, per @TriciaOhio
Illegals are going from the lush Roosevelt Hotel in New York City to a detention center surrounded by gators 🤣
President Trump visited the facility on July 1, signaling his support for strong immigration measures. However, voters are split on the way it’s being executed.
Doocy: With Alliagator Alcatraz, is the idea that if some illegal immigrant escapes, they just get eaten by an alligator?
Trump: I guess that’s the concept. Snakes are fast but alligators— we’re going to teach them how to run away from an alligator. Don’t run in a straight line,… pic.twitter.com/xnGTUTALDr
Rather than building credibility, the swamp-based facility is seen by many as undermining it. The response reveals a demand for competence over cosplay, especially when national security and taxpayer dollars are involved.
DeSantis and the Limits of Symbolism
DeSantis hopes to signal strength. But he is triggering a potentially avoidable wave of skepticism—much of it from those who support the goals he champions. The core problem is not the policy, but the packaging. Voters are saying he has mistaken aesthetic aggression for functional seriousness.
Among the dominant criticisms:
He is seen as mimicking Trump without his authenticity.
The facility evokes dystopian or fascist imagery even among conservatives.
The Everglades location raises environmental and logistical objections.
Phrases like “DeStalin’s swamp,” “ICE Barbie detention fantasy,” and “Survivor: Deportation Island” highlight the types of mockery online discussions display. While some of the jovial discourse is made in amused solidarity, many voters are displeased. Trump is remembered for results—Remain in Mexico, Title 42, ICE raids—DeSantis is associated here with optics.
In short:
Trump’s immigration policies are viewed as credible and effective.
DeSantis’s execution is seen as insecure and symbolic.
Trump’s Brand Still Dominates
While the Everglades stunt creates turbulence for DeSantis, Trump’s position remains largely intact. Voters continue to view him as the architect of effective immigration policy—not because of his rhetoric alone, but because of the results that followed it. The contrast is stark, and public sentiment reflects that distinction.
Voters trust Trump to execute mass deportations competently, without resorting to cartoonish tactics.
People reference his legacy programs—Remain in Mexico, Title 42, ICE expansion—favorably across all platforms.
Many frame DeSantis as someone trying to cosplay Trump’s policies, rather than carrying them forward with conviction.
Comments praising Trump’s “no-nonsense” approach appear alongside mockery of “Alligator Alcatraz.” The former is seen as a leader with teeth; the latter, a politician with props. For conservative voters, credibility on immigration isn’t about how loud the message is—it’s about who can enforce the law and survive the scrutiny.
The Supreme Court’s June 27 ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc. redefines the power dynamic between the judiciary and the executive. By curbing nationwide injunctions, the Court prevents individual federal judges from unilaterally freezing presidential policies across all jurisdictions.
This ruling immediately affects immigration policy and reshapes how executive authority can be exercised. The conversation among voters has shifted quickly from legal interpretation to real-world consequences, particularly for border enforcement and federal benefits eligibility.
Overall Public Sentiment
MIG Reports data shows:
58% of discussions support the ruling and Trump’s immigration push
35% opposethe decision, warning of authoritarian overreach
7% express neutral or mixed views
The supportive bloc frames the ruling as a green light to:
Restrict birthright citizenship
Accelerate deportations
Defund benefits for illegal immigrants
Opponents focus largely on constitutional concerns, citing the 14th Amendment and fears of a fractured legal landscape with varying enforcement across states. However, they are a minority in this discourse. Most voters are focused on outcomes—enforcement, border security, and fiscal responsibility. Many Americans say judicial activism has overstepped, and that reining it in is a correction.
Media Narratives vs. Public Sentiment
Legacy media outlets characterize the decision as a threat to civil liberties and a victory for unchecked executive power. But that view fails to capture the tone of online voter reaction, which shows strong alignment behind the Court’s move and Trump’s border agenda.
MIG Reports data shows public sentiment of:
Relief that activist judges are being restrained
Frustration over years of executive paralysis through lower-court injunctions
Support for a constitutional correction favoring elected over unelected power
Americans reject the media’s doomsday framing. They see the decision as a return to balance, where the executive can enforce the law without interference from ideologically motivated district courts. Many view the ruling as a structural fix which restores the constitutional order and cuts through bureaucratic and judicial obstruction.
Reaction to Birthright Citizenship Rollback
The ruling’s immediate effect on Trump’s executive order to limit birthright citizenship has become the focal point of conversation. Public sentiment treats the judicial green light as permission to proceed.
Core justifications from supportive voters include:
“Birthright citizenship is being abused” – a claim tied to concerns about anchor babies and border exploitation
“The 14th Amendment was never meant for this” – referencing a strict-originalist interpretation of the Constitution
“Citizenship must mean something again” – framing the issue as part of a broader identity and sovereignty battle
Critics warn that altering the long-held understanding of the 14th Amendment could destabilize the legal foundation of American citizenship. They argue it opens the door to stateless children and inconsistent enforcement across jurisdictions. But these arguments are largely confined to legal elites and progressive activists.
Sentiment Around Deportation
The ruling also reenergizes a majority demand for mass deportations and denying taxpayer-funded benefits to illegal immigrants. Americans view this as an ultimate test of seriousness in immigration policy.
Patterns in public commentary include:
“Deport them all” – blunt and repeated demands for full-scale removals
“No benefits for illegals” – a hard fiscal line resonating with working-class and older voters
“ICE needs more boots on the ground” – calls for hiring, funding, and expansion of enforcement agencies
In these discussions, deportation is moral restitution. Supporters argue that Americans have been forced to subsidize lawbreakers while veterans sleep on the street. The tone is punitive, but the justification is rooted in fairness and reciprocity.
A smaller group voices concern about logistics, economic impact, and due process. They question whether mass deportation is feasible orwill harm industries that depend on migrant labor. But these voices concede that enforcement has been too lax for too long.
Emotional Tone and Narratives
The language surrounding the Court’s ruling and Trump’s follow-up actions is aggressive and purposeful. Supporters speak in absolutes, seeing the ruling as a break from institutional decay and a restoration of constitutional order.
Dominant rhetorical trends include:
Rejection of judicial elitism – “activist judges” are now political villains
Sovereignty as a sacred principle – border control equals national identity
Moral urgency – deportation and benefit restriction are framed as overdue justice
In some discussions, SCOTUS, once viewed as neutral or detached, is now treated as a political actor. Conservatives hail it as finally doing its job. Progressives, meanwhile, frame it as captured by executive influence.
Political Implications
For Trump 2.0, the ruling is a legal victory and a galvanizing tool. His supporters view it as validation of their grievances around unelected officials, judges, and bureaucrats obstructing the will of the people.
Immediate political effects include:
Base enthusiasm spikes – especially among younger conservatives calling for mass enforcement
Moderates harden – Independents frustrated by inaction see the decision as a path to real results
Democrats splinter – unable to rally broad support for defending birthright citizenship in its current form
Democrats now face a difficult messaging task. They must defend abstract constitutional principles while Trump frames the debate in concrete, visceral terms of protecting taxpayers and protecting America. Even moderate voters who bristle at Trump’s rhetoric often find themselves agreeing with his policies.
If Trump delivers on this moment, he will both win a policy battle and reframe the authority of the executive branch for the future. The Supreme Court has given him the runway, and Americans are ready for liftoff.