Donald Trump’s controversial tariffs policy may finally be blossoming into a more positively defining feature of his foreign policy and domestic brand. Two major events in the past week—the tense Oval Office meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and a new US-UK trade deal—show shifting sentiment.

In recent weeks, there has been significant negativity around Trump’s trade tactics, with criticism for his rhetoric and the potential consequences for the U.S. economy. But with results, more voters are starting to see tariffs as a national strength.

Peter Mandelson, British Ambassador to the U.S. thanks @POTUS:

"You’ve done what you said you would do... that you would do a good trade deal with the U.K., that you would do it at pace, and that we would be first, and you have delivered that. You’ve been true to your word." pic.twitter.com/bB3NhQlG42

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) May 8, 2025

The Polarizing Power of Tariffs

Tariffs, a significant focus of the media and Americans worried about the economy, have been a controversial topic in recent months. Previous MIG Reports data showed growing concern, even among MAGA voters.

But now, they are becoming shorthand for a broader nationalist worldview—one that asserts American leverage and rejects multilateral handwringing. Trump’s willingness to impose high tariffs, even on allies, has split the electorate. But the U.K. deal is swinging the majority in a positive direction.

• 55% of recent commentary on the U.K. trade deal supports the aggressive approach.
• 30% opposes it, citing retaliatory risks or inflation.
• In Canada-related discussions, criticism spikes higher—around 66% disapproval—driven by the tone of the meeting and the optics of Trump’s “51st state” quip.

Public Sentiment Metrics and Takeaways

• Canada Trade Sentiment: 66% critical, 20% supportive, 14% neutral
• U.K. Trade Deal Sentiment: 55% supportive, 30% critical, 15% neutral
• Tariff Floor Support: High engagement from nationalist and pro-industry users
• Supportive Themes: Tariffs are forcing the West to recognize U.S. leverage again
• Critical Themes: Tariffs are inflationary and alienate strategic allies

PM Carney and the “51st State” Gambit

Trump’s Oval Office meeting with Prime Minister Mark Carney generated dramatic reactions from critics and the media. Carney’s now-viral line, “Canada is not for sale,” was a direct response to Trump’s suggestion that Canada might someday join the United States.

The phrase became a lightning rod online, seen as both a diplomatic rebuke and a nationalist rallying cry, differing among Americans and Canadians. Roughly two-thirds of public reaction in the U.S. leaned critical, framing the event as unserious theater rather than a meaningful trade negotiation.

The meeting produced no tariff relief, no bilateral deal, and no reset in tone. Trump’s defenders say his posture reflects strength by refusing to budge on steel and auto tariffs. But critics, including many Canadians, interpret it as recklessness masquerading as diplomacy. The absence of deliverables fuel perceptions that Trump is leveraging trade not just for economics, but for narrative control.

U.K. and the Brexit Pivot

In contrast to Canadian talks, a new U.K. deal is giving Trump a high-profile win. Many tout the trade deal as a direct result of Brexit, “only possible because Britain took back control of its trade policy." Supporters agree. The deal plays well with Trump’s base because it capitalizes on Britain’s detachment from the EU, bypasses Brussels, and repositions the U.S. as a preferred trading partner.

'I was opening Turnberry the day you were voting… I said, I think they’re going to go their own separate way — and I think it’s better for them.'

Trump says Brexit was the right call, and the new US-UK trade deal proves it. pic.twitter.com/h0G4ePLYgI

— GB News (@GBNEWS) May 8, 2025

Trump has made clear that a 10% tariff floor is just the starting point. Critics argue this lopsided arrangement—where the U.S. increases tariffs while the UK cuts theirs—could hurt British industry. Yet among Trump’s supporters, that’s the point. Many see this as justified after decades of trade policy that favored European recovery at American expense. Some reference the post-WWII arrangements where the U.S. subsidized rebuilding Europe, saying now is the time to “rebalance.”

Sentiment around the Europe deal is mixed but leaning supportive as 55% of online discussions back Trump’s posture. About 30% warn the deal could fracture existing trade alliances or push Europe closer to Asia, where new deals are already accelerating.

Tariffs as Political Branding

Tangible wins like the deal with Great Britain help Trump demonstrate the positive impact of tariffs. Where earlier presidents treated them as economic levers, Trump uses them to signal defiance against adversaries like China and, in some eyes, the Fed. His ongoing feud with Jerome Powell, whom he labeled a “fool,” reinforces the image of Trump as an unfiltered nationalist willing to disregard elite consensus.

The potential of rising prices and inflation warnings seem easier to stomach when positive outcomes outweigh the perception of “national sacrifice.” The U.S.-U.K. deal functions as narrative proof that tariffs can generate movement. When combined with populist rhetoric, Trump’s trade policy becomes positive as supporters see realignment.

As tensions flare between India and Pakistan, public discourse among Americans shows concern over foreign policy priorities and the role of American leadership in an unstable world. While the stakes in South Asia, for now, are regional, voters interpret the conflict through ideological and partisan lenses. The reactions underscore how foreign events are increasingly absorbed into domestic political discussion.

Public Sentiment Overview

MIG Reports data shows an Americans are divided in tone but unified in concern. The dominant reactions include:

• Aggressive support for India’s military actions and national sovereignty
• Condemnation of Indian tactics as human rights violations.

Within the debate over whether India and Pakistan’s conflict is justified, there is tension between order and liberty, strength and restraint. Americans have been grappling with our country’s role in foreign conflict for years, trying to separate responsibility as a global power from national sovereignty.

There is also growing anxiety over the fact that both India and Pakistan are nuclear-armed, with fears that skirmishes could escalate into catastrophe. Some warn reckless leadership, whether in South Asia or the U.S., could inadvertently trigger a wider conflict.

In addition, India’s role within economic coalitions like BRICS has sparked debate about shifting global power. While some see India’s alignment with BRICS and its historical arms deals with Russia as strategic liabilities, others argue its growing influence offers the U.S. a valuable economic and geopolitical partner—if the relationship is managed with clarity and strength.

Support for India and Calls for Strength

On the right, many see India’s strikes on terrorist bases in Pakistan as decisive and justified. They frame the actions as parallel to Trump-era foreign policy—proactive, forceful, and unapologetically nationalist.

Supporters say India, like the U.S., is confronting radical Islamist threats within and across its borders and should not be constrained by globalist expectations or left-wing moralizing. Around 60% of supportive comments praise India’s clarity and reject diplomatic dithering, viewing Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism and a destabilizing force in the region.

The argument is both strategic and ideological. Many consider India is as a natural ally in the Indo-Pacific, a counterweight to Chinese expansion and a firewall against jihadist influence. They say international trade, security, and values—particularly religious freedom and civilizational identity—justify alignment. Critics of Biden’s foreign policy accuse Democrats of being too deferential to global institutions and unwilling to take sides.

Criticism of India and Sympathy for Pakistan

On the left, conversations accuse India of orchestrating human rights abuses in Kashmir and misusing the terrorism label to justify aggression. These posts highlight allegations that India funds groups like the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), painting it not as a victim but as an instigator.

Among critics, Pakistan is framed as a beleaguered nation, fighting insurgents while simultaneously being maligned by international media. Commenters cite decades of violence against Muslims—particularly cow-related lynchings and the suppression of Kashmiri civilians—to argue that India’s actions are ideologically motivated.

These narratives, while less prevalent in volume, use high emotional intensity. Roughly 30% of these posts show concern that American silence or support for India reflects a dangerous double standard in U.S. foreign policy.

Weaponizing Foreign Conflict

Online discourse suggests the India-Pakistan conflict may soon become a rhetorical football in America’s own partisan battles. Pro-Trump voters cite India’s actions to validate the efficacy of bold counterterrorism approaches. Posts praising Trump’s prior designation of groups like the Houthis as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) are juxtaposed with calls for the U.S. to encourage similar action by India. Opponents accuse Trump of reckless language and claim he is failing to deescalate global tensions.

BREAKING: Dave Smith is currently watching a YouTube video on the Indian-Pakistan conflict, and will soon decide which side is committing war crimes. pic.twitter.com/FOXqXD9FfB

— Han Shawnity 🇺🇸 (@HanShawnity) May 7, 2025

Humor and sarcasm play a key role in this partisan weaponization. Some make jokes about preparing for uniformed India-Pakistan takes and overnight “experts” in India-U.S. relations. Others make cracks about the cultures and religions of these foreign countries.

India vs. Pakistan, winner gets to take a shower

— Siraj Hashmi (@SirajAHashmi) May 7, 2025

Trade, Tariffs, and Strategic Realignments

Beyond potential war, the economic dimension looms. The conversation around tariffs and trade ties with India—especially Trump’s deal with India to eliminate all tariffs on U.S. goods—is causing concern. Some fear that favoring India in trade talks could further alienate Pakistan, exacerbating regional instability. Others argue the economic pivot toward India is a long-overdue correction that fortifies the West against China, Russia, and Islamic extremism.

Around 45% of comments about trade focus on inflation and domestic implications, 15% directly connect tariff policy to geopolitical alignment, warning that economic levers may serve as provocations in volatile areas like South Asia.

Media Coverage and Trust Deficit

There’s a predictable undercurrent of skepticism toward how media outlets cover the conflict. Multiple posts allege legacy platforms are soft on India but harsh on other nationalistic actors like Israel or Trump. Conservatives criticize selective outrage and want balanced scrutiny. Leftists accuse media of whitewashing India’s Hindu nationalist movement and villainizing Muslim-majority nations.

This distrust contributes to a fragmented information ecosystem, where many rely on partisan echo chambers to interpret events abroad. Among politically engaged audiences, the belief that media coverage is agenda-driven has become nearly universal.

National Security and Foreign Policy Lessons

If there’s a unifying theme among conservatives, it is the call for clarity of language, alliances, and identified threats. The India-Pakistan conflict reinforces the argument that strategic ambiguity, moral relativism, and multilateral dithering do not deter adversaries. Trump’s legacy of naming enemies and deploying hard power, while controversial, is cited as a deterrent model.

Dialogue on the left insists America protect civil liberties, maintain diplomatic avenues, avoid militaristic overreach. But this perspective, though present, is increasingly outnumbered by hard-nosed calls for resolve and moral distinction.

Real ID was designed as a security measure in the aftermath of 9/11, intended to create uniform identification standards nationwide. Yet decades later, it’s only now being implemented. In the eyes of voters, Real ID has become emblematic of federal overreach, state complicity, and the erosion of civil liberties.

The public response to Real ID enforcement is polarized. Many conservatives view it as an infringement on personal freedoms and an example of federal overreach, questioning the necessity of such stringent identification measures. Liberals and civil liberties advocates are concerned about potential discrimination and the erosion of privacy rights.

The association of Real ID with deportation policies further fuels apprehension. Critics argue the enhanced identification requirements could facilitate expedited removal processes, potentially affecting illegal immigrants but also legal residents and citizens lacking proper documentation.

Starting on Wednesday, Americans will need a Real ID to fly.

According to Democrats:

ID to board a plane = 100% acceptable.
ID to vote in elections = 100% racist. pic.twitter.com/9A2wVw1MBx

— Christian Collins (@CollinsforTX) May 5, 2025

Public Sentiment Overview

MIG Reports analysis of online discourse shows sentiment toward the Real ID rollout:

• 0% support
• 50% opposition: direct criticism, especially from conservatives
• 50% neutral: informational, procedural updates

In all discussions there is an absence of support for or defense of Real ID. Americans either discuss it passively, without strong sentiment, or frame it as another brick in the wall of a growing surveillance state.

Conservative Frustration

On the right, voters frequently reject the concept of Real ID. Once justified as a post-9/11 necessity, conservatives view it as incompatible with the constitutional freedoms. Many feel certain liberties and freedoms are under assault with the implementation of Real ID. Some call it an "affront to our individual sovereignty," especially as illegal immigrants are "jetted across the nation" without such ID requirements. This pairing of Real ID with broader border frustrations is a recurring theme.

Many view its enforcement by Trump’s DHS Secretary Kristi Noem as contradictory to her public image as someone fighting against federal overreach. This dissonance explains why her support of the policy has made her a lightning rod for criticism among the MAGA base. To many, Real ID is a federal control mechanism disguised as security reform. This causes objections when figures who are supposed to resist federal encroachments push policies like this.

Liberal Humanitarianism

While liberals engage less frequently with Real ID directly, their criticism is no less sharp. They frame it as part of a broader authoritarian trend under the Trump administration and DHS.

One common critique is that Real ID, along with deportation incentives and mass surveillance, disproportionately impacts marginalized communities and sidesteps due process. Though not emotionally central to liberal discourse, sentiment suggests they see Real ID one more tool to exclude, surveil, or intimidate minorities.

The Kristi Noem Factor

Kristi Noem’s role in promoting Real ID also impacts sentiment. Her concurrent media appearances touting deportation incentives and border crackdowns have made her the face of DHS policy, and by extension, the face of Real ID. That makes the backlash more personal and politically explosive.

• Noem’s ads and public statements—such as offering $1,000 and a free plane ticket to illegal immigrants who self-deport—draw mockery.
• Her presence in Real ID discussions intersects with discussions of performative governance and contradictory messaging around sovereignty.

The Administrative State as Political Enemy

Criticisms are less about logistics, though that's part of the discussion, and more about what the mandate represents. Concerns about surveillance, facial recognition databases, and centralization of power plague both sides, deepening distrust of the state.

Conservatives strongly opposed enforcing Real ID compliance or limiting air travel without it. Liberals view this issue as an example of power being used to marginalize the vulnerable, but discussion is equally critical.

Neither side trusts the government to handle Real ID fairly or competently. And with Kristi Noem as its public face, the backlash extends beyond policy into personal vilification.

Data Snapshot

Real ID-specific post sentiment breakdown:

• 0% Support
• 50% Opposition
• 50% Neutral/informational

Real ID withing broader conversation:

• 5% of total discussions touch on Real ID, along with Noem and DHS, often linked to travel restrictions or constitutional concerns.

Deportation-related posts by comparison:

• 65% supportive
• 25% opposed (mostly citing due process and human dignity concerns)
• 10% sarcastic, mixed, or performative in tone

The Real ID–Deportation Nexus

Public sentiment around deportation policy casts a revealing light on how Real ID is perceived. Though a majority support more aggressive deportation measures, Real ID has become a flashpoint in the fight over who the government targets and how.

Among some mass deportation supporters, Real ID may be implicitly embraced as a mechanism that enables law enforcement to identify and remove illegals. The underlying assumption is that Real ID will help authorities distinguish legal residents from those who “don’t belong here.”

However, many question whether this claim by Real ID representatives like Noem is unrealistic or even disingenuous. Many who support deportation also question whether a policy like Real ID is necessary to achieve successful and efficient deportations.

Other critics voice concern about due process violations. They don’t see Real ID as a neutral sorting tool, but a dangerous accelerant. These voices argue that requiring federally approved identification for basic mobility or access to services risks creating a two-tier society where immigrants, naturalized citizens, and even marginalized U.S. citizens are more easily surveilled, detained, or wrongly deported.

This concern is especially amplified by liberals who allege that U.S. citizens are already being swept up in expedited deportation processes. The prospect that Real ID could serve as a precondition for constitutional protections raises alarms among civil liberties advocates, who warn of an emerging administrative regime where identity is used as both barrier and justification.