Immediately following his widely controversial conviction in New York City, former president Donald Trump:

• Raised more than $200 million.
• Created a TikTok account and gained 4.1 million followers.
• Continued to climb in betting markets for the 2024 Presidential election.

Since the end of May, Polymarket odds show Trump above a 50% chance at the presidency, hitting 56% over the weekend.

MIG Reports analysis shows Trump’s conviction created a significant and increasing level of support from his followers, despite the legal troubles. This is evident from various voter groups emerging on social media demonstrating overwhelming support directly because of the verdict. It appears the conviction has served to galvanize his support base.

From posts on social media, many of his supporters view his conviction as a political move by Democrats to "get Trump.” This view is echoed across various posts and groups, framing the entire legal process as a leftist attempt to target Trump. Many compare the legal measures against Trump to a lack of action against other political figures on the left, further cementing the view of political bias in the justice system.

There is a suggestion that political attacks against Trump have made MAGA stronger, implying the adversity is energizing Americans against Democrats. A sense of being “on the attack” over the perceived victimization of Trump is overwhelming in online discussions, particularly in those referring to Trump as an outlaw and a strong American.

Many voters suggest the election in November will see Trump return as President, indicating an expectation of his perseverance. Many also reminisce about his leadership, wishing to see him back in office, despite the conviction. Many are also talking about the major influx in campaign contributions post-conviction, underscoring the financial support backing him.

There are some posts critical of Trump and his supporters, describing his followers as a cult, decrying the narrative that he is a victim. Many among the opposition take every opportunity to refer to him as a convicted felon. It appears, however, that these criticisms are outweighed by the volume of support shown for Trump in the aftermath of the conviction.

Recent House subcommittee hearings with Dr. Anthony Fauci have brought conversations about COVID-19 and vaccines to the fore. As more information comes out and members of Congress question Fauci about his role in alleged information suppression during COVID, Americans’ trauma and anger seems to be boiling up.

Fauci's credibility is in question with heated and partisan disagreements about whether American voters believe what he says. Some accuse him of providing conflicting or misleading information with guidance on masks and COVID origins. There are frequent complaints that he continued to back policies such as social distancing and masking children in the absence of substantial scientific proof for effectiveness.

In general, people express frustration and confusion at the perceived inconsistency. There is also significant suspicion that Fauci and others involved in both pandemic response and pharmaceuticals related to COVID vaccines intentionally hid, obfuscated, and suppressed important information.

What Americans Are Saying

Online conversations show strong disapproval toward inadequate and questionable management decisions during COVID by health officials and politicians. Many condemn mask mandates and vaccine shaming which they say was perpetuated by Fauci and the media. This group vocally blames Fauci for death, illnesses, and social and economic consequences associated COVID-19 restrictions and vaccines.

There is still considerable debate on the efficacy and safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Many are also expressing concern about potential side effects such as DNA alterations, increased risk of cancer, heart conditions, and sudden deaths.

Many on both sides of the political aisle have become skeptical and disillusioned with COVID narratives presented by Fauci, the media, and politicians. Those who remain strongly in support of Fauci tend to be left leaning. They view him as a competent authority figure, accusing his detractors of being political. They maintain Fauci's policies saved countless lives during a dangerous pandemic and provided necessary restrictions.

Conversations about COVID often also include criticism of government actions in 2020 and the divisive role of media and political narratives in shaping public opinion.

Anger Over COVID Origins

One recurring topic is the origin of the virus. Many suggest COVID-19 virus was a product of gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. They blame Fauci for allegedly funding the research, suggesting he conspired to insulate himself from any repercussions.

Many people are also angry at the lack of consequences for the actions of officials who, voters believe, lied and covered up their own unethical behavior.

There is also some discussion about former president Donald Trump’s role in handling COVID. Many voters, including some of his supporters, criticize how President Trump handled the crisis and his rhetoric since. Most voters seem to have a negative view of any topic related to COVID.

Vaccine Skepticism

A significant portion of Americans are increasingly suspicious of the COVID-19 vaccines. They attribute a variety of adverse events, including sudden death and severe physical ailments, to the vaccines.

There’s talk about conditions people call "turbo cancer" and claims the vaccines alter human DNA in a way that can be passed on to future generations. This group is also highly critical of Dr. Fauci, questioning his integrity and blaming him for the negative effects they believe are related to the vaccines.

Those who believe vaccines are harmful are also likely to believe officials like Fauci participated in cynical cover-ups to suppress information and disparage dissenters. Recent testimony by Fauci only serves to further infuriate this group, entrenching their views that Fauci, big pharma, and the NIH conspired to protect themselves at the expense of public health.

Mainstream Media and Chris Cuomo

Many discussions also involve a deep-rooted distrust in mainstream media and institutions who remain "deathly silent" on the impact of COVID and emerging accusations. Some Americans accuse healthcare providers and media of altering death reports, misrepresenting vaccine safety, and silencing counter narratives

Infuriated voters call out media outlets and figures for ignoring critical pieces of information and remaining silent about perceived dangers of the vaccines. They also blame mainstream media for gaslighting and shaming Americans about COVID restrictions and vaccines.

A recent debate between Chris Cuomo and Dave Smith also generated viral discussion about Ivermectin, a drug notoriously debated during COVID-19. Cuomo’s claim that he did not agree with the criticism Joe Rogan received for advocating Ivermectin was very negatively received. The debate brought Cuomo’s credibility and consistency into question for many viewers.

Many people are labeling Cuomo a “liar,” suggesting the evidence contradicts Cuomo's denials about his role in shaping public opinion. This group believes Cuomo and others in the media intentionally demonized people who questioned the mainstream narrative. They insist these figures continue to ignore objective analysis as it unfolds.

After a New York Times article speculating Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito revealed sympathy for January 6 protesters with an upside-down flag at his home, liberals are calling for his recusal. Amid escalating political turmoil and wavering trust in the justice system, partisan arguments are breaking out between the left and the right.

Reactions to the media reporting and Democrat calls for recusal can primarily be divided along political lines. Those who support Democrats argue Alito's actions have demonstrated bias and breach of conduct. Republicans and those on the right label the recusal outcry as a politically motivated on conservative Justices.

Liberal Outcry Against Justice Alito

Left leaning voters tend to see the call for Alito’s recusal as entirely justified. They cite a belief in his partisan bias and claim he involves himself in political activities outside of his judicial duties. They argue for the necessity of maintaining impartiality and integrity in the judiciary, calling for transparency and accountability from judges. They also voice concern about the potential corruption of the judicial system, applying this fear specifically to Alito.

Mainstream media outlets and Democrats insist Alito’s refusal to recuse himself brings up concerns of fairness. They accuse his wife of sympathizing with January 6 protests by her flag choices, citing this as a violation of judicial ethics.

Conservative Reactions to the Idea of Alito’s Recusal

Most right leaning Americans take umbrage at the idea that Justice Alito should recuse himself for an unfounded rumor which they consider a nonstory. Republicans are more likely to see Democrat arguments as part of a larger-scale effort to control and manipulate judicial systems to their advantage.

Those on the right view accusations against Justice Alito as an attempt to undermine the balance of power on a Supreme Court with a conservative majority. There are also vocal questions and accusations about Democrats’ political motivations in attacking Alito.

Conservatives argue calls for Alito’s recusal are highly hypocritical when contrasted with Democrat reactions to judges like Arthur Engoron or Juan Merchan – who both side with Democrats in their judicial decisions.

Double Standards Applied to Conservatives

Critics who oppose Alito’s recusal highlight Democrat hypocrisy. They point to alleged ethical violations by liberal judges such as Judge Merchan, which Democrats dismiss as inconsequential.

Those on the left claim to seek a stronger ethical code and accountability in the judiciary for figures like Justice Alito. However, many point to this as an outrageous inconsistency that is exclusively applied to conservatives.

Accusations of double standards are especially stark as voters on all sides voice concern with the allegations against Judge Merchan. Many are calling for thorough investigations into connections with his daughter and her financial dealings regarding Trump’s recent New York trial.

However, conversations about Judge Merchan have not generated the same amount of outcry as Justice Alito's controversy. Some critics perceive this as a display of political bias against conservatives by the media and Democrats. They accuse both of overlooking and under reporting ethical violations from liberal judges and becoming hysterical about benign issues like the flag choices at the Alito home.

Robert De Niro recently gained attention for an angry screed against former President Donald Trump in New York City. His comments, which included insisting that if America re-elects Trump, he will never leave office, drew heckles and boos from passing New Yorkers.

DeNiro losing it as someone starts honking their car horn over and over as he tries to say voting for Biden is how we fix America pic.twitter.com/kTSfnvexCg

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) May 28, 2024

De Niro then got into a yelling match with his hecklers, calling them gangsters. Video of the event online caused partisan discussion about Trump, De Niro, and celebrities using their influence for politics.

It’s embarrassing that even Vito Corleone AKA De Niro can’t win New Yorkers over.

Great actor but a bitter grumpy old man.

pic.twitter.com/pz0heFLUnX

— Patrick Bet-David (@patrickbetdavid) May 29, 2024

Right Leaning and Cringe-Sensitive Americans React

Mentions of De Niro online are mostly partisan, with left leaning commenters supporting him and right leaning voters ridiculing him. There are also less politically inclined Americans who simply view De Niro’s speech as a cringeworthy display by another actor desperate for attention.

Many voters perceive De Niro’s claims that Trump has dictatorial tendencies as unfounded and fantastical. People mock De Niro’s accusations of Trump wanting to "take our country down the black hole of dictatorship" and terminate the U.S. Constitution.

People are also discussing his integrations with hecklers during the political event, but reactions are similarly politically slanted. Some mention De Niro as falling from grace, calling him a "has been" who struggles with anger and TDS (Trump derangement syndrome).

• Even with criticism from De Niro and his leftist counterparts, Trump’s approval remains steady with sentiment towards him on the topic of president consistently at 50%.

Liberal Trump Haters

Democratic voters and anti-Trumpers compare Trump unfavorably with Robert De Niro. They say De Niro, unlike Trump, paid his taxes and has contributed positively to New York City. They express a belief that Trump has played a role in deteriorating conditions in New York. They cite issues like rising crime and high taxes, criticizing Trump for his impact in exacerbating both.

Many liberals also agree with suggestions that Trump has demonstrated dictatorial tendencies. This seems to be a common belief among those who oppose Trump – and many view the gravity of the 2024 election as democracy hanging in the balance. This group regularly accuses Trump of intending to act like a dictator if he were to regain power.

Anti-Trumpers also raise concerns about his alleged intentions to punish political opponents. They frequently draw comparisons between him and historical dictators like Hitler. Some comment multiple times on these points.

Views of Celebrity Influence in Politics

De Niro, like many left leaning celebrities, is known for his outspoken political viewpoints. He frequently speaks up about the need for gun control and other Democratic platform issues like climate change.

The ongoing tendency for celebrities to insert themselves into political commentary is increasingly a point of annoyance for many Americans. Reactions often convey strong negative feelings towards woke culture and left-wing commentary imposed by entertainers and mainstream media.

Some also point out that, while Democrats and the left have long been seen as having more star power and cultural influence, trotting out celebrities like Robert De Niro and Mark Hamill whose popularity is waning, may a sign of decreasing cultural cachet.

General patterns of American views about celebrity political activism include:

• Partisan Responses: Some voters warmly embrace celebrity viewpoints if they align with their own political beliefs.
• Disregard for Celebrity Opinions: Most people seem to believe celebrities lack the requisite knowledge or expertise to offer valid commentary on complex political issues.
• Irrelevant Voices: People see celebrities as out-of-touch with the realities of ordinary citizens and therefore dismiss their perspectives as irrelevant.
• Annoyance: There is also hostility towards celebrities who use their fame to promote political agendas. This attitude is often expressed with strong negative language.
• Supporting Free Speech: Some express the belief that celebrities, like any other citizens, have the right to voice their political views, even if they disagree with these views.
• Conspiracy and Distrust: Other trends indicate a broader mistrust in mainstream media and celebrity clout. Many view celebrity commentary as part of a larger, orchestrated propaganda agenda.

Recently, a whistleblower report made headlines alleging that half of UCLA medical students fail basic tests of medical competence, eliciting serious concerns. MIG Reports analysis shows the discourse is mostly focused ongoing controversies and failures of U.S. higher education.

What Americans Are Saying

Many parents, alumni, and prospective students voice serious concerns about the implications of the report for public health and safety. They also question the integrity of medical education at UCLA. Some suggest the report might represent systemic issues like grade inflation, lower academic standards, or a failure of oversight and accountability within the medical school.

There is also some doubt about the whistleblower's report, with critics arguing it may have been exaggerated or unfounded. To them, the reported failure rate seemed unusually high compared to national norms, leading them to question the report's reliability.

Others are discussing the need for immediate measures to address the alleged failure of medical school education at UCLA. They argue for policy changes, stronger regulation, and potentially increased funding to promote better training.

Views of Affirmative Action

Those in favor of affirmative action argue it's a necessary measure to remedy inequalities caused by racial discrimination in America. They also suggest affirmative action brings about a diversity of perspectives in the professional field, which is seen as beneficial.

However, critics of the affirmative action policy fear it compromises the merit-based principle of admission or hiring. They believe the gateway to various positions or opportunities should be open to individuals based on their qualifications, not aspects like race or ethnicity.

Many suggest the standard criterion for selection, usually test scores, better predicts the realistic capability of students to complete their degrees. Some also fear those admitted through affirmative action might get into financial trouble with student loans. This is especially true if under-educated or underprepared students cannot complete their degrees.

Sentiment Towards ULCA

Overall sentiment following the whistleblower report is negative, but there appears to be a division. General negative sentiment towards higher education increases among those who believe universities are failing in multiple aspects of their mission. This group accuses academic institutions of failing to manage modern scandals like:

• Increasing and unruly campus protests
• Caving to anti-western ideologies among students
• Prioritizing unnecessary and woke programs over practical education
• Failing to provide a rigorous education for students who enroll

There is some positive sentiment from people who see universities as catalysts for social mobility and tools for societal development. They advocate for more accessible and less costly education, recognition and support for disabled students at colleges, and a fairer distribution of student financial aid.

Bronx Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the progressive "Squad," recently tweeted about rain before a Trump rally in her district saying, “God is good,” in response to suggestions there would be a “muddy mess” for the rally. This received a predominantly critical response from voters, particularly those identifying with the MAGA movement.

God is Good 🙏🏽 https://t.co/YUUCPhZ4oJ

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 23, 2024

Many responses to AOC’s tweet emphasized the notion that the Bronx, traditionally a Democratic stronghold, has now turned into "MAGA country." This sentiment was frequently repeated and expressed with a sense of triumph, suggesting a belief in a growing support for Trump and a shift away from Democratic dominance in the area.

Accusations of Hypocrisy and Meltdown

Some accused Ocasio-Cortez of having a "liberal meltdown" and being unable to accept that the Bronx could support Trump. These comments often included a tone of ridicule and mockery, suggesting her reaction was indicative of broader liberal discontent and denial.

Religious Undertones

Others took issue with Ocasio-Cortez invoking God, arguing as a self-identified socialist or communist, she should not be using religious references. Some comments directly accused her of using God’s name in vain or being insincere about her beliefs.

Criticism of Democratic Policies

Several responses linked their support for Trump to dissatisfaction with liberal policies, both at a local and national level. They blamed these policies for various social and economic issues and expressed a desire for change, which they believe Trump represents.

Personal Attacks and Accusations

A portion of the comments included personal attacks on AOC, calling her a communist, a hypocrite, and questioning her authenticity and background. These responses often conflated broader political ideologies with personal character judgments.

Celebration of Rally Success

There was a strong emphasis on Trump rally turnout, with claims of thousands attending, despite the rain. This was used to further argue support for Trump is strong and growing, even in areas presumed to favor Democrats.

Expressions of Solidarity and Celebration

Many responses included celebratory language and emojis, expressing joy over what they perceived as a political victory. Phrases like “liberal tears” and “God is good” were used to underscore their satisfaction with the event and its implications.

Accusations of Violence and Incitement

A few responses went as far as accusing AOC of inciting violence, referencing past events and suggesting her comments could lead to unrest. This reflects a deeper animosity and distrust toward her and her political actions.

Memorial Day is dedicated to honoring and remembering military personnel who have died in service to the United States. The day is marked by various activities including parades, ceremonies, and moments of silence. MIG Reports analysis shows public sentiment and discussion around Memorial Day can vary significantly across different ideological backgrounds.

General Sentiment

Most Americans respect and honor Memorial Day as a solemn and significant day. However, many discussions emphasize different aspects of the holiday. The sentiment attached to these discussions can differ markedly between conservative and liberal or progressive circles.

Conservative Perspectives

Conservatives emphasize the themes of patriotism, sacrifice, and national pride. They use Memorial Day as an opportunity to celebrate the military and express gratitude for the freedoms secured by fallen soldiers.

Discussions in conservative circles focus on attending parades, visiting memorials, and participating in ceremonies. There is often a strong sense of community and collective honor in these activities.

The sentiment in conservative circles is predominantly positive but can also be solemn and reflective. There is a strong emotional attachment to the military and a high level of respect for those who have served and sacrificed.

Liberal Perspectives

Liberals often use Memorial Day as a time to reflect on the consequences of war and the importance of peace. They emphasize the human cost of conflict and the need for diplomatic solutions to global issues.

Discussions tend to focus on the experiences of minority groups in the military, how we treat veterans, and issues like mental health and homelessness among former service members.

The sentiment in liberal and progressive circles can be mixed. While there is respect and honor for fallen soldiers, there is also critical reflection on the reasons for war and the treatment of veterans. Emotions can range from solemn to critical, with an underlying call for systemic change.

Partisan Differences on Social Media

Platforms and forums conservatives congregate often feature highly patriotic posts and discussions supporting the military. Users share stories of bravery and sacrifice, often accompanied by American flags and other national symbols.

Liberal social media discussions tend to include tributes to soldiers but are also likely to feature critiques of military interventions and discussions on how to better support living veterans. There are calls for policy changes and discussions on the broader implications of military actions.

Despite ideological differences, both conservative and liberal discussions share a common thread of honoring those who serve the country. However, the context and additional themes discussed can differ widely.

News of 86-year-old Klaus Schwab’s plan to step down from his position at the WEF has generated discussion among Americans who have been following global economic issues and the alleged “Great Reset.” Schwab, also known as “Davos Man,” is the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum. He has been a central figure in shaping its vision and activities since he founded it in 1971.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) is an annual gathering of global elites in Davos, Switzerland. It has long been a focal point for discussions on international economic policies, technological advancements, and social issues. However, it has also become a lightning rod for criticism, especially among American voters who are skeptical of globalist agendas.

Many American voters are suspicious, viewing the WEF as an elitist organization which lacks transparency and accountability. This sentiment is often fueled by the perception that the WEF prioritizes the interests of the global elite over those of ordinary citizens.

Views of Klaus Schwab

Klaus Schwab’s leadership style and public statements have made him a polarizing figure. While a few admire his foresight and commitment to global cooperation, most criticize his perceived elitism and advocacy for policies that infringe on national autonomy and personal freedoms.

Some of the reactions include:

• "With Schwab retiring, does this mean we can finally upgrade from 'you'll own nothing' to 'you'll own a little bit'?"
• "BREAKING: Klaus Schwab to spend retirement knitting sweaters for underprivileged billionaires."
• "Klaus Schwab retiring? Guess the WEF will just have to find another Bond villain look-alike."
• "Klaus Schwab retiring? Sounds like a distraction. What's the next move, Illuminati?"
• "Schwab's retirement won't change anything. The WEF will just replace him with another puppet pushing the same agenda."

Schwab’s retirement could lead to significant changes in the WEF’s direction and priorities. New leadership might adopt different approaches to global issues, potentially altering the forum’s influence on international policy.

Supporters of Schwab and his vision may be concerned about continuity and whether the new leadership will maintain the same commitment to issues like climate change and economic inequality.

Many others, however, view Schwab’s retirement as a positive development. They hope new leadership will steer the WEF in a different direction or reduce its influence significantly. There are some voices who express a desire to see the WEF completely lose all influence on the world stage.

Globalists and World Domination

Most Americans who are aware of Klaus Schwab and his globalist initiatives criticize the WEF as an elitist organization. They say it is disconnected from the needs and concerns of ordinary people. This view is held among both conservatives and progressives who object to centralized or excessive corporate power.

The WEF's focus on globalism and its influence on international policies has led many Americans to view it negatively. They argue it promotes policies that undermine national sovereignty and prioritize international agendas over local needs.

Announcements about Klaus Schwab's impending retirement have elicited mixed reactions. Some critics see it as an opportunity for the WEF to reform, become more transparent, or even dissolve. Supporters worry his departure could lead to uncertainty and instability within the organization.

A prevalent theme in Americans discussions is the belief that globalist policies benefit multinational corporations and the wealthy at the expense of middle and working-class people. Average Americans view figures like Klaus Schwab and George Soros as seeking power and even world domination through surreptitious means.

The WEF’s emphasis on global trade and open borders is often seen as a direct threat to American jobs, particularly in manufacturing and other blue-collar sectors. This is particularly salient among voters who support "America First" policies and advocate for stricter immigration controls and protectionist trade measures.

A common refrain many Americans cite in criticism of the WEF is its suggestion that people will “own nothing and be happy.” This, many say, is antithetical to Western values and the American dream.

Populist rhetoric often highlights the disparity between the wealth of the global elite and the economic struggles of ordinary Americans. This discourse is sometimes a point of agreement between conservatives and progressives in that both groups believe the wealthy and large corporations take advantage of average taxpayers.

Fears About the Great Reset

The Great Reset, an initiative launched by the WEF, aims to address global economic disparities, environmental sustainability, and societal challenges through a comprehensive restructuring of global systems. This initiative gets mixed reactions among Americans, often divided along ideological lines.

Many American voters view the Great Reset with skepticism and distrust. This sentiment is often rooted in concerns about sovereignty, individual freedoms, and economic autonomy. These voters worry the Great Reset represents an overreach by political elites seeking to impose a one-size-fits-all solution to undermine national interests and local governance structures.

Many conservative and right-leaning voters are particularly wary of the Great Reset. They perceive it as an attempt to centralize power in unelected global institutions. This group is also concerned about potential infringements on personal liberties and market freedoms.

There is fear the Great Reset would lead to increased regulation and taxation, stifling economic growth and innovation. People view the emphasis on sustainable development and climate change as a pretext for imposing burdensome regulations to harm traditional industries, particularly in sectors like energy and manufacturing.

Many viewed the WEF’s influence during COVID as a demonstration of the risks of trusting globalist elites with issues which have domestic impact. Many pointed out the dangers of global interdependence and continue to advocate for a return to more isolationist policies.

There is also a segment of American voters who occupy a middle ground, neither fully endorsing nor outright rejecting the Great Reset. A likely reason for this is a lack of awareness about the WEF and its initiatives.

Leftists and Progressives Support Globalism

The only obvious segment of Americans who support the WEF are Progressives who subscribe to a globalist view.

This group often emphasizes the importance of transitioning to a green economy and implementing policies that promote social equity. They argue the initiative offers a unique opportunity to build a more resilient and inclusive global economic system.

They see WEF initiatives as ushering in economic opportunities, technological innovation, and sustainable development. They appreciate the forum's role in bringing together business leaders, policymakers, and academics to address global challenges collaboratively. Voters who prioritize environmental sustainability and social equity often align with the WEF’s advocacy for the United Nations' SDGs.

Some liberal voters, however, critique the WEF for being too aligned with corporate interests. Despite the forum's progressive rhetoric, they worry it may not do enough to challenge entrenched power structures and economic inequalities.

Pope Francis recently made several statements regarding the U.S. border and immigration policies. He emphasized the importance of compassion, solidarity, and treating migrants and refugees humanely. His comments highlighted the moral obligations of Christians to support those in need and he advocated for more lenient immigration policies.

The Pope’s overall stance on the current state of the U.S.-Mexico border is to, “Open the doors to migration.” He also commented, “For an immigration policy to be good, it must have four things: for the migrant to be received, assisted, promoted and integrated. This is what is most important, to integrate them into the new life."

Reactions from American Voters

The American public appears to be sharply divided over the Pope's statements. On one hand, liberal and progressive groups tend to support his compassionate stance, viewing it as a necessary call to action for humane immigration reforms. On the other hand, conservative groups criticize his comments, arguing they undermine national security and the rule of law.

Discussions on social media platforms show a clear polarization. Hashtags such as #SupportThePope and #SecureTheBorder reflect the ongoing debate. There's a notable trend of emotionally charged language, with supporters lauding the Pope's moral leadership and detractors accusing him of political interference.

Reactions Among Christians

Evangelical Christians

There are some prominent evangelical leaders – particularly those aligned with progressive values – who appreciate the Pope’s stance. But a substantial faction of protestant Christians aligns more closely with conservative and America First sentiments, emphasizing border security and legal immigration processes.

The reaction within evangelical circles often correlates strongly with political ideology. Evangelicals who support more conservative political figures, like Donald Trump, are more likely to criticize the Pope’s statements.
Reactions Among Catholics

Catholic Community

Many Catholic leaders and organizations like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), have long advocated for comprehensive immigration reform and humane treatment for migrants.

Support for the Pope is particularly strong among the clergy, who often preach about social justice and the moral teachings of the Church. Among the laity, despite broad support for adherence to dogma, some conservative Catholics express concerns similar to conservative evangelicals. They focus on the rule of law and national security.

Opinions can be difficult to parse according to religious membership. However, most Americans recognize significant problems with the state of the border and Biden’s immigration policies. These include impact on American's economic success, loss of values and culture, increasing crime and property crime, and feeling deprioritized by taxes spent to support migrants.

Child trafficking remains a critical issue directly linked to illegal immigration and the current state of the border. Approximately 67%, or around $120,000,000 of USCCB’s grant money year-to-date for the fiscal year comes from Dept of Health and Human Services. HHS administers the Unaccompanied Child Program, which it admits has lost track of at least 35% of the children it processes.

The Pope’s Previous Statements and the Future

In 2016, Pope Francis made similar statements about the U.S. border, calling for compassion and criticizing the idea of a border wall. Reactions then were similarly polarized, with significant support from liberal and progressive circles and criticism from conservative factions.

Given the historical context and today’s political climate, it is likely any future statements by the Pope on this issue will continue polarize Americans – both politically and religiously. The entrenched political ideologies and the highly charged atmosphere around immigration in the U.S. suggest call for border solutions that can be interpreted as politicized will be met with both fervent support and staunch opposition.