There is significant negativity towards climate and anti-Israel protests at a Congressional baseball game, especially the become disruptive or violent.
Most voters dislike protesters who engage in disruptive or violent behavior, such as blocking roads or occupying buildings.
It seems most Americans either fully support Israel or recognizes the rights and struggles of both Israelis and Palestinians.
Our Methodology
Demographics
All Voters
Sample Size
1,000
Geographical Breakdown
National
Time Period
1 Day
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.
Anti-Israel and climate change protestors took the field yesterday at the annual Congressional Baseball Game. Reactions to the protests seem to be mostly influenced by political affiliations.
Many are irritated by the protests, feeling they are disruptive, and indicate a lack of respect for Israel’s right to exist. Some Americans voice strong support for Israel and a desire to see pro-Palestine protestors arrested or deported.
However, many liberals also voice support for the protestors, emphasizing the importance of their right to free speech. They claim Palestinians are entitled to the same rights as Israelis and argue against the actions of Israel in the ongoing conflict. There’s significant portion of the online conversation advocating for the rights and lives of Palestinians.
Several social media posts react critically to the protest disruption by referencing other recent protests where protesters burned American and Israeli flags and damaging a WWI monument. People argue this kind of behavior is violent and would potentially lead to arrests if perpetrated against other symbols like Pride flags.
Discussion sentiment varies widely between political ideologies, and protests don’t seem to move opinions. This suggests a deeply entrenched and polarized view of the Israel-Palestine conflict. It also seems most sentiments lean toward outright support for Israel, or an emphasis on the rights and struggles of both Israelis and Palestinians.
There's significant backlash against protestors who engage in disruptive or violent behaviors. Americans generally disapprove of blocking roads or occupying buildings. Many strongly condemn these tactics and call for punitive measures against such protestors.
Stay Informed
Share:
More Like This
Public sentiment around the job market is increasingly defined by distrust and narrative complexity. Despite low official unemployment, many Americans feel left behind in an economy marked by gig work, automation fears, and policy fatigue.
The economic conversation is shaped by four overlapping storylines:
Trump’s renewed tariff and layoff policies
The acceleration of AI-driven disruption
Concerns about manipulated job data
Rising frustration over partisan gridlock in Congress.
Together, these forces drive a narrative of distrust, fatigue, and unmet expectations.
Neutral Sentiment: 25% — Focused on data sharing and historical comparisons without ideological tone
Key Findings and Themes
Low Trust in Official Job Market Narratives
Many Americans believe unemployment figures are massaged to fit political narratives. Voters emphasize that real-life experiences with layoffs, contract work, and stagnant wages often contradict official reports. There are common refrains like, "everyone I know is struggling," dismissing unemployment rates as politically convenient fiction.
Tariffs Polarize Public
Trump’s reintroduction of aggressive trade measures is also dividing voter sentiments. While many support the concept of economic nationalism, others voice concern that poor enforcement, legal reversals, and retaliatory costs are undermining results. A recurring grievance is the clash between executive ambition and legislative inertia.
Government Spending and Layoffs
Defunding Job Corps and mass firings within agencies like the Department of Energy are causing backlash among many voter groups. While many in Trump’s base celebrate dismantling bureaucratic excess, others argue these cuts harm working-class Americans. Voters almost universally express frustration with Congress for contining to fund elite perks while undercutting programs that once provided upward mobility.
AI and Automation as Growing Threats
Anxiety over job loss due to AI and automation is growing. Workers across industries report being displaced or sidelined. Public frustration is mounting over what many call a lack of serious planning for the future of work. Voters see Trump as more attuned to the problem than Biden, but most are still losing patience with rhetoric lacking results.
Sentiment Now Versus Last Year
Previous MIG Reports analysis showed, in late 2024, voter sentiment focused on only 12,000 new jobs created in a month—most of which were government jobs. Last year, there was strong outrage toward the Biden administration and its inaccurate data.
Now in June 2025, sentiment is more diffuse. While jobs have returned on paper, many voters describe them as unfulfilling, short-term, or economically insufficient. A sense of betrayal has expanded beyond Democrats to include both parties and the institutions managing economic policy.
Sentiment Impact of Biden vs. Trump
Under Biden, employment sentiment was driven by accusations of data manipulation and short-term government hires. Voters were quick to call out "fake growth" and low-quality jobs, especially as inflation rose alongside job reports.
Under Trump, expectations have shifted. His base wants results, not slogans. While many appreciate his aggressive stance on trade and bureaucracy, they also note failures like court blocks on mass firings, inconsistent tariff policies, and a lack of clarity on how his policies will handle automation.
Still, Trump enjoys relatively stronger trust. The phrase "at least he fights for us" is common among conservatives, Independents, and the working class. But symbolic trust is conditional—and eroding.
Voter Commentary Highlights
In discussions about both presidents, there are recurring sentiments or phrases. Some of these include:
On Biden
“Government jobs aren’t real jobs.”
“The numbers lie. Everyone I know is struggling.”
On Trump
“At least Trump’s trying to bring jobs back.”
“I want the tariffs to work, but not like this.”
“He talks about jobs, but I want to see factories reopening.”
Ukraine’s recent drone strikes against Russian targets have reignited American political discourse about tactics, escalation, and continued U.S. involvement. Public sentiment remains stable, with a majority opposing Russia and a split regarding Ukraine.
Americans still broadly oppose Russian aggression but their sympathy for Ukraine is softening, and the tone of the conversation is skeptical, transactional, and more focused on U.S. national self-interest.
American Sentiment
MIG Reports data shows:
Ukraine
54% express support
46% voice criticism or opposition
Russia
67% oppose Russia
33% show any level of approval
Key Implications
While Ukraine retains a slight majority in support, that margin is tightening.
Enthusiasm for Ukraine is fading, and support now feels conditional rather than emphatic.
Voters still oppose Russia by a wide margin, but the emotional intensity behind that opposition has weakened over time.
Americans increasingly question whether ongoing Ukraine support serves U.S. interests—or merely prolongs a war disconnected from national priorities.
Tactical Success, Strategic Doubt
Ukraine’s drone campaign is widely seen as tactically impressive and symbolically potent. The strikes demonstrate Kyiv’s resilience and ingenuity, pushing the boundaries of Russia’s air defense systems and bringing the war closer to Moscow’s doorstep. But reactions to the strategy are mixed. Many Americans worry the offensive risks provoking more conflict which could entangle the U.S. directly or trigger dangerous retaliation.
Where strikes initially drew admiration, newer reactions reflect growing concern. Voters worry whether Ukraine striking back compromises the American taxpayer or military posture. The drone strikes are creating narrative shift—from “defensive survival” to “offensive escalation”—and with it comes greater scrutiny.
Rising Fatigue and Fiscal Pushback
Public fatigue over U.S. aid to Ukraine now outweighs moral appeals. Commenters frequently invoke the disparity between billions sent abroad and neglected problems at home like securing the border, fighting inflation, and managing the fentanyl crisis. These discussions dominate high-volume threads where voters promote Trump’s America First agenda over foreign involvement.
Support for Ukraine is more conditional and less bipartisan than ever. The once-unifying outrage over Russia’s invasion is fracturing into distinct camps—those who still see Ukraine as a bulwark against tyranny, and those who view it as a distraction from America’s own unraveling.
Corruption Allegations and Institutional Distrust
A major narrative cluster focuses on corruption, both in Kyiv and Washington. Many Americans discuss their suspicion that the Ukraine war is being exploited by political elites and defense contractors for personal gain. Common accusations include money laundering, no-bid contracts, and aid kickbacks.
Figures like Joe Biden and Lindsey Graham are singled out in this discourse, not just for policy decisions but for perceived self-dealing. These narratives blend populist suspicion with anti-globalist sentiment, positioning Ukraine aid as a symptom of institutional rot.
This framing doesn’t necessarily benefit Russia—it simply deepens the public’s distrust in the leadership class. Ukraine becomes another vector for disillusionment with the American establishment.
The Decline of Moral Framing
The narrative around Ukraine is no longer driven by moral clarity. Fewer users invoke democracy, liberty, or sovereignty. Instead, the conversation increasingly references NATO expansion, the 2014 Maidan uprising, and regime-change history. These arguments complicate the binary framing of Ukraine as hero and Russia as villain.
Such skepticism doesn't translate to Russian approval, but it does erode the moral high ground. In its place is a more clinical evaluation of whether this war is worth Americans’ money, risk, and strategic bandwidth.
Strategic Realignment on the Right
Underlying all of this is a shift in foreign policy posture. The dominant energy on the right is moving from hawkish interventionism to guarded nationalism. The idea of “peace through strength” is giving way to “peace through disengagement.” Many voters now view endless foreign commitments as a threat to national stability rather than a defense of it.
Ukraine, once a consensus cause, now serves as a litmus test for how Americans—particularly conservatives and independents—want their country to project power.
Pride Month, which has been a cultural mainstay of progressive politics for years, is starting to show cracks in public perceptions and adherence. Once marketed as an inclusive celebration, Pride month has lost favor for its imposition on corporate marketing, education, media, and more. Americans increasingly view ostentatious Pride displays as politicized and irrelevant.
Public Sentiment Slipping
Starting a couple of years ago with a Bud Light and Target controversy, conservatives pushed back against LGBT ideology coopting American brands. Now, as more voters acknowledge that cultural tides are turning, compulsory Pride displays are no longer in vogue as they were a few years ago.
MIG Reports data shows in overall discussions:
Just 7% of all recent online discussions touche on Pride Month or LGBTQ+ issues.
Within that, 30% of discussions expressly support deemphasizing Pride Month.
10% cite the dominance of transgender issues as a reason for Pride’s erosion.
12% identify corporate pullback, with major brands scaling down Pride marketing.
In LGBTQ-specific discourse:
35% express support for Pride or LGBTQ rights.
40% are critical or oppositional.
25% are neutral, sarcastic, or conflicted.
While Pride discussions are shrinking in general online discourse, many of the mentions carry a mocking, hostile, or derisive tone. There is still significant support from the progressive and cultural left. However, saturation is waning.
Pride Falls Off the Radar
Across wide-ranging conversations—from tariffs to foreign policy to immigration—Pride Month remains on the edges. Where it does appear, it is often used as a punchline or ideological flashpoint.
Comments range from outright hostility to ironic dismissal. Even positive references tend to be sarcastic, often paired with mocking imagery or partisan rhetoric. Discussions among conservatives often touch on related cultural issues like trans ideology and corporate shilling.
Discussions today are a departure from previous years, when corporate campaigns, media coverage, and social media coordination made June a month of wall-to-wall Pride visibility. Now, the silence is telling.
On the right, people point out Trump’s return to office as an indicator of public consensus swinging away from cultural progressivism to patriotic Americanism.
My Southern California Target June 1, 2024 vs Target June 1, 2025
In conversations centered on LGBTQ rights, sentiment remains divided but pointed. A solid third of commenters defend Pride as a necessary commemoration of civil rights victories. But they are outnumbered by those who see the month as stale, over-marketed, or politically captured.
More voters now see Pride exclusionary rather than inclusive. To critics, it signals state-sanctioned cultural values imposed through schools, government contracts, and corporate branding. Even on the left, there is division about appropriate ways to celebrate Pride. Cultural fragmentation on the left is evident here, mirroring cracks in left leaning politics.
A more neutral “woke fatigue” is also notable among swing-aligned independents. This group increasingly treats Pride messaging as background noise or virtue signaling.
Transgender Politics Eclipses the Brand
In many discussions, transgender issues dominate the Pride conversation. The topics range from trans athletes to gender-affirming care to pronoun mandates in schools. They’re often referenced as the defining features of Pride discourse.
That shift has consequences. Those who support deemphasizing Pride often blame this cultural takeover by trans ideology. They argue the movement has lost focus—what began as a call for dignity and civil rights has become an ideological minefield centered on gender politics and institutional compliance.
Even among supporters, there’s discomfort. Some, particularly more moderate LGB groups, express frustration that trans issues now overshadow gay and lesbian narratives. Others see trans emphasis as alienating to a majority of Americans who do not identify as LGBTQ.
Corporations Step Back
The public is also noticing that Pride is no longer an automatic marketing fixture. Comments point out that brands are either staying silent or carefully neutral. Rainbow logos are fewer. Activist tie-ins are more subdued. The language has shifted from celebration to risk management.
Where once ESG consultants encouraged brands to out-pride one another, many now recognize the political cost. Critics on the right frame the pullback as an overdue correction that has not come soon enough. Progressives more often accuse companies of cowardice.
For many, corporate Pride is now seen as a liability, not a layup.
As Pride, imposed on public consciousness, declines in prominence, a counter-demand emerges. Americans repeatedly ask why LGBTQ identities are elevated over other labels like military service, trades, faith, or national heritage. This refrain shows up in memes, rhetorical questions, and calls for replacement observances—Veterans Month, Faith Month, or “Straight Pride.”
This impulse to realign identity politics isn’t fringe. It’s part of a broader cultural push to reassert traditional civic symbols. To many, the death Pride signifies a cultural spring where traditional American values return to the forefront of public celebration.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)