Hillary Clinton's unexpected appearance at the Tony Awards has gotten fawning praise from liberals and disgust from conservatives. In her short speech, she mentioned her failed presidential campaign, celebrated women’s suffrage, and appealed to all Americans to get out and vote.

Many viewers were exhausted to see such a divisive figure like Clinton at an event traditionally dedicated to celebrating theatrical achievements. They view this disconnect as another indicator that mainstream media and entertainment are biased to the left.

Hillary Clinton gets standing ovation in surprise appearance at #TonyAwards pic.twitter.com/wtiKBLDjxK

— Deadline Hollywood (@DEADLINE) June 17, 2024

A tweet from Deadline Hollywood showing a clip of Hillary Clinton's appearance garnered significant criticism both for Hollywood and Hillary herself in the replies.

Liberal Elites Can’t Get Enough of Themselves

Supporters argue Clinton's presence is a positive endorsement of the arts and a recognition of their cultural significance. To them, her participation symbolizes how politics and entertainment can collaboratively advocate for important social issues.

Partisan celebrities and political figures say they appreciate a seamless integration of political figures into entertainment venues. They view it as an opportunity for politicians to engage with different audiences and to humanize political discourse.

Media and progressive narratives frame Clinton's appearance as an endorsement of the arts, rather than an opportunistic and desperate attempt to pump up Joe Biden’s campaign. Many in this group deny that entertainment is increasingly being politicized by Democrats, instead claiming both art and politics stand to gain from greater visibility and mutual reinforcement.

Normal Americans are Exhausted by Elite Smugness

Conversations surrounding her appearance also bring attention to the disconnect between political elites and average voters. Many people see her presence at such events as indicative of a cloying political strategy that fails to resonate with everyday concerns.

They argue political figures hobnobbing with celebrities at glamorous events, like Joe Biden’s recent fundraising event, reveals they are out of touch. People feel the struggles of ordinary Americans who face real-life issues are diminished by theatrical political pandering.

Many who used to be fans of art and culture also believe awards shows, which have become extremely politicized, should be apolitical entertainment. They believe the arts should be an escape from the relentless news cycles and partisan battles.

Normal voters say the appearance of political figures at entertainment events feels invasive, turning what should be moments of levity and creativity into platforms for political grandstanding. This sentiment is particularly strong among those who feel the entertainment industry already leans too heavily into political advocacy, often at the expense of diverse viewpoints.

Criticism Toward Hillary and the Media

Critics also argue that Clinton is one of the worst offenders when it comes to alienating voters and appearing insular and self-congratulatory. For this group, Clinton’s appearance is not only out of place but downright insulting. Most view Clinton as a washed-up politician who cannot let go of her loss to Trump in 2016.

This perception is particularly acute among voters who are weary of the symbiotic relationship between mainstream media, Hollywood, and the political elite. They view these entities as working together to marginalize dissenting voices and dismiss substantial issues facing Americans.

Further exacerbating these tensions is a broader sense of frustration at the entertainment sector becoming increasingly politicized—and almost exclusively in service to liberal ideologies. Leftist bias, conservatives say, diminishes trust in both the media and political figures. It also alienates conservatives, promoting a sense of disenfranchisement in those being sidelined by elite and media narratives.

Overall, Hillary Clinton's appearance at the Tony Awards once again spotlights the contentious relationship between politics and entertainment in America. While liberal elites praise the gesture, most Americans view it as a cringey attempt by elites to maintain their power over politics and the culture.

On Friday, June 14, the House of Representatives passed a measure to increase the age of Selective Service by one year, to include all men from ages 18 to 26. The proposal also includes additional guidelines like automatic enrollment and women being drafted. Analysis of public sentiment reveals a complex landscape of opinions, as citizens debate the implications of these changes. In the aftermath of the measure, there was an observable dip in sentiment towards the military.

Increased Draft Age

The proposal to increase the draft age limit from 25 to 26 generated considerable debate. Supporters argue this change is in alignment with the evolving maturity and life stages of young Americans. They say that, by 26, young people are often more settled and better able to contribute to military service if needed.

Conversely there are concerns about the fairness and practicality of this shift. Critics highlight worries about disrupting the careers and personal lives of those establishing themselves professionally or starting families.

There is also a sentiment that extending the draft age could inadvertently discriminate against young adults who are more focused on higher education or starting their own businesses during these formative years.

Automatic Enrollment

While registering for the Selective Service is already mandatory for men, automatic enrollment as part of the Selective Service changes has sparked a heated discourse about personal freedom and governmental control. Proponents argue automatic enrollment would ensure a more equitable system, preventing any potential bias or administrative errors that might occur with self-registration.

Some believe it is efficient and can ensure no one is overlooked, thus strengthening national preparedness. However, this viewpoint is met with significant resistance from those who see it as an overreach of government power.

Opponents of automatic enrollment feel strongly that it infringes on individual rights and autonomy, making the idea particularly contentious. Many people worry about removing young Americans’ individual sovereignty. They also express fears about how automatic data collection might be used beyond military purposes.

Drafting Women

The possibility of including women in the draft has generated one of the most polarized discussions. Advocates for female inclusion argue from a standpoint of gender equality, noting that women have been serving in various military roles for years.

Those in favor of drafting women say including them would respect the principle of equal responsibility in civic duties. This view is often held by those who believe women can contribute just as effectively as men in various military and support roles.

Conversely, there are strong voices raising concerns about the potential physical and psychological burdens Selective Service would place on women – especially those with young families or health considerations. Some also argue from a traditionalist perspective, suggesting conscription should remain male-only due to historical precedents and societal roles.

News of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision not to hear a case challenging the abortion pill, or Mifepristone, has elicited significant reactions from Americans. A prominent theme is relief, mixed with caution.

Mifepristone is a prescription pill also known as the “abortion pill.” It works by inducing a miscarriage by blocking certain hormones, softening the cervix. It also requires a follow-up medication which sheds the baby from the uterus. The pill is considered effective within the first ten weeks of pregnancy.

Many pro-choice voters are celebrating the ruling, viewing it as a temporary safeguard for abortion rights. They view pro-life advocacy and initiatives as a threat to women’s abortion options. They emphasize the importance of codifying these rights into federal law to ensure lasting protection from future extremist attacks.

What Americans Are Saying

Relief and Caution

• Pro-choice voters celebrate the ruling as a temporary safeguard for reproductive rights.

• They place emphasis on the need to codify these rights into federal law for lasting protection.

Focus on Abortion Rights

• Many on both sides are taking the opportunity to reflect on SCOTUS overturning Roe v. Wade two years ago.
• There are concerns about the future preservation of reproductive freedoms.
• Some who lean left view the ruling as a procedural win, not a definitive safeguard.

FDA and Legal Standing

• The decision was based on the plaintiffs’ lack of legal standing, not a stance on abortion.
• It also highlights the fragility of the victory pro-lifers are hopeful for the potential of future legal challenges.

Political Discourse

• There are ongoing concerns about Republican efforts to restrict abortion access.
• Some call for political mobilization and electing representatives who defend reproductive rights.

Safety and Efficacy of Mifepristone

• Pro-choice voters view trust in Mifepristone as a reinforcement of the FDA's expertise and decisions.
• They advocate for medical decisions to be guided by science, not politics.

Broader Reproductive Health

• Discussions include debates about the potential need to use Mifepristone in cases of miscarriage.
• Some people highlight the multifaceted nature of reproductive care beyond just abortion.

Sentiment Trends

Most voters are polarized along ideological lines. On one side, many Americans are celebrating what they see as a crucial win for reproductive rights. They emphasize continued vigilance and activism. However, some express skepticism about the longevity of this victory and caution about taking comfort in what they see as a precarious ruling.

Pro-Lifers on Abortion Rights

There is a substantial counter-narrative challenging the legitimacy and morality of abortion rights. Pro-life voters who are critical of SCOTUS declining to hear the case argue abortion, including medication abortion, equates to the termination of unborn lives.

They highlight the moral and ethical considerations, saying the decision reflects broader political attempts to diminish the sanctity of life. This perspective frequently associates the protection of reproductive rights with broader societal and moral decline.

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.

Justice Samuel Alito was secretly recorded talking about the discontented nature of American politics and partisan divides. During the interaction, Justice Alito said, “One side or the other is going to win. There can be a way of working, a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised."

What Americans are Saying

MIG Reports analyzed voter sentiment on the themes Justice Alito spoke about across varying online conversations to determine if voters agree with his position. While reactions to Alito’s comments themselves are scattered and indirect, the themes he spoke about are prominent.

The state of political divides in the country and increasingly irreconcilable value clashes are at the forefront of American discourse. Most people agree that ideological, political, and cultural differences have dwindling prospects for national unity or resolution.

Analysis indicates a clear sense of worry Americans have about the future of the country’s institutions, event beyond government institutions. There are concerns about the erosion of educational institutions, corporations and small business brands, and cultural institutions like the news media and entertainment.

However, there are stark disagreements on the causes and solutions to these concerns. Alito's comments speak to the broader political polarization present in America and real-time voter discussions seem to substantiate his position.

• Discussion topics in three top categories for online conversation demonstrate the accuracy of Justice Alito’s statements about the fracturing of American political and cultural unity.

Ideologies in America

Discussion Trends

• Wokeness: Many people express negative views on wokeness, criticizing it for promoting political correctness, cancel culture, and societal sensitivity. Critics argue it leads to societal decay and stifles free speech.
• Role of Government: There is significant disagreement over government initiatives, with some criticizing perceived overreach and authoritarianism. Opinions are split between support for libertarian or conservative policies versus socialist or liberal measures.
• Identity Politics: Discussions on race, gender, and sexual orientation show defensiveness and hostility towards changing societal norms with little room for compromise.
• Political Partisanship: The division between conservatives and liberals is clear, with each side blaming the other for societal issues and accusing each other of spreading propaganda. There is a yearning for a return to “normalcy,” despite skepticism that normalcy is possible.
• Media Bias: Many believe mainstream media is biased, promoting a leftist agenda or lacking impartiality.

Sentiment Trends

• Society feels upheaval from changing values or oppressive norms.
• Both sides are frustrated and fearful, longing for unity but failing to see a path to it.
• Disagreements hinder understanding, leading to confrontational discourse.

President

Discussion Trends

• Political Focus: Many Americans are discussing political affairs, particularly focusing on President Biden's administration, impeachment efforts, political lies, and border-related issues.
• Polarization: There is a clear divide in discussions between those who support President Biden and those who are against his presidency.
• Accusations and Defense: While both sides engage in accusations and defense, there is also distrust towards the actions and decisions taken by Biden's administration. Some accuse leaders of lying, and others question their motives.
• Lack of Constructive Dialogue: Discussions lack constructive dialogue, with participants engaging in personal attacks and derogatory statements. This contributes to further discord and division rather than seeking solutions.

Sentiment Trends

• There is a prevailing sentiment of disagreement and frustration with the current political landscape.
• Voters express resentment and dissatisfaction towards politicians, accusing them of inaction, political bias, and crimes.
• Sentiments are polarized between those who support President Biden and those who oppose his presidency.
• Overall, there is a sentiment of division and discord, and Americans fear a lack of compromise and peaceful coexistence.

Weaponized Government

Discussion Trends

• Government Criticism: There is much talk about government overreach. Voters express concern about losing control of the government and the growing power disparity.
• Political Party Division: Discussions are marked by a clear divide in political party preferences. Both Democrats and Republicans receive blame for the nation's issues, reflecting deep partisan divides.
• Calls for Citizen Action: Many people emphasize the need for citizens to reclaim government control. There is a strong emphasis on protecting democratic principles and citizen rights.
• Government Involvement in Specific Issues: People discuss federal government involvement in issues like birth control. Discussions highlight the need for a clear delineation of roles between state and federal governments.

Sentiment Trends

• There is a prevailing sentiment of dissatisfaction with the current political landscape and government actions.
• Sentiments are polarized along party lines, with both sides blaming each other for societal problems.
• There’s a strong sensitivity to political partisanship and mutual distrust.
• Many people feel an urgency for the American people to take action on their beliefs.
• There is a call for a proper balance between state and federal government roles.

Reparations, which refer to compensating descendants of African slaves in America for the economic disparities black Americans suffered, are a growing topic of political and social discourse in the United States. However, opinions on this matter vary broadly among various demographics and political affiliations, causing various proposals for reparations to elicit mixed reactions.

• National sentiment toward racial reparations hovers in the low 40% range, suggesting it has not become a widely popular issue.
• In general, Democrats have a more negative sentiment on racial issues than Republicans, suggesting they may see more of a need for something like reparations.

Supporters and Detractors of Reparations

Many African American voters view reparations as a necessary act of justice and financial redress that should address hundreds of years of institutionalized slavery, racial discrimination and inequality. Advocates argue economic compensation would be an effective way of remedying the racial wealth gap. They also believe it would be a required step to achieving racial justice. They contend slavery helped build the wealth of the nation on the backs of the enslaved, and the benefits of that economy have lingered into the 21st century.

However, not all Americans support reparations — particularly conservatives and Republicans who consider it part of woke ideology. Those in opposition to racial reparations argue slavery was a historical event that current generations bear no responsibility for. Many express fears about the potential economic costs and social implications of racially motivated and imposed payments. They raise concerns about the practicality of determining who would qualify for reparations, and how a program might be administered.

Reparations critics also worry about the economic feasibility of such a large and coercive transfer of wealth. They fear they could lead to increased taxes or government debt, without effectively or fairly solving problems for economic classes or races.

Others argue reparations could potentially increase racial tension and divisiveness. These critics, spanning the spectrum of political ideologies, often promote targeted policies aimed at improving education, housing, and job opportunities for minority communities rather than directly compensating individuals for past injustices.

Political and Generational Divides

The dividing lines of how Americans view reparations seem to be largely political and perhaps generational. The Democratic party has generally been more supportive of reparations, with some democratic presidential candidates in 2020 urging studies on the issue. Conversely, Republicans have been broadly opposed to reparations, with several key figures arguing they would be costly, divisive, and unfair.

The progressive left are the strongest advocates for reparations and say they are necessary to confront the country’s history of racial injustice. More centrist Democrats focus on broad social programs aimed at reducing economic inequality, rather than reparations specifically for black Americans.

Younger people like Gen Z are also more open to the idea of reparations than older generations. One study indicated less than one-third of white adults of any age support reparations, compared to about three-quarters of black adults. While Democrats have been more receptive to reparations, polls show that the party is divided along racial and generational lines.

A significant proportion of African American voters support reparations, viewing it as necessary for achieving racial justice. Other minority groups have also expressed support, drawing parallels between their experiences and the historical injustices faced by African Americans. However, white voters are generally less supportive of reparations.

Ideological Drivers

There is a portion of black conservative voters who do not support reparations, as well as white liberals who do. This suggests support for or opposition to reparations is not wholly racial in nature, but largely ideological.

Talk about reparations often goes beyond the question of financial compensation and ventures into addressing systemic racism, wealth disparity, educational opportunity gaps, and other forms of inequality that persist in modern America.

Those who believe in equity and systemic racism are more likely to support the idea of reparations. Those who believe in meritocratic achievement, personal responsibility, and free market capitalism are less likely to support reparations.

Recently, a group of 57 scientists from around the world who used United Nations-approved methods concluded a study which determined global warming is increasing. However, the study was only able to point to an increased use of fossil fuels across the globe. The collection of authors was formed to provide annual scientific updates every seven to eight years for major U.N. scientific assessments.

MIG Reports performed a comparative analysis of public discussion and sentiment about climate change and reactions to the U.N. study.

Discussion Trends

Analysis compares views of climate change in general and reactions to the recent U.N. study. When discussing climate change overall, analysis shows:

• Sentiment: Americans are polarized, with a consensus of urgency around climate change curbed by significant skepticism.
• Consensus on Urgency: Those who view climate change as urgent warn of extreme temperatures and rising CO2 levels. They call for renewable energy investment, fossil fuel reduction, and recognition of environmental and economic benefits. There is also an emphasis on the impact of climate change on health and agriculture.
• Expert Input: Contributions from scientists, medical professionals, and environmental experts call for immediate action and policy measures (e.g., executive orders, clean energy endorsements).
• Skepticism: There are also recurring doubts about the ability of modern science to predict weather, framing climate change as a natural occurrence. This group cites historical climate cycles and claims there is manipulation and exaggeration in studies motivated by control and financial gain. These conversations reveal severe skepticism about accelerating global warming and highlight contradictory data.
• Engagement Level: Americans are very engaged with discussions about climate change related to personal lifestyle, economic implications, and political ideologies.
• Conclusion: Data suggests there is a deep divide among Americans on the topic of climate change. There is strong advocacy on one side and skepticism on the other, as some see climate change as a geopolitical or financial tool.

Analysis of discourse reacting to the recent U.N. study indicates shows:

• Sentiment: American attitudes toward the study are mixed, similarly to overall views of climate change.
• Awareness and Concern: Many express concerns about global warming, referencing environmental changes (e.g., floral blooms in Antarctica and deforestation) and public health impacts. Many strongly advocate for climate action, clean energy, and celebrating World Environment Day.
• Skepticism: However, skeptics attribute changes in the study to natural cycles, critical theory, or population control. There is some doubt around human-made CO2 as a major factor in global warming. This group accuses scientists of using climate change to gain status or money, claiming much of their conclusions are fearmongering.
• Engagement Level: There’s significant engagement about the U.N. study, which includes confrontations and personal attacks.
• Branching Topics: Conversations about the study also tend to include discussions about personal lifestyle choices, economic implications, and political ideologies related to climate change in general.
• Conclusion: Data suggests Americans are polarized, despite the scientific study, emphasizing the need for clear and reliable information.

Disparity Between Perspectives and Sentiments

Conversations about climate change broadly and the U.N. study also show some disparity:

Level of Consensus

Overall, there are mixed opinions about climate change. There are both significant concerns and strong skepticism, highlighting a polarized public view.

Public consensus on the recent study shows a sense of urgency toward climate change, but there is also substantial skepticism about its causes and severity.

Focus on Advocacy vs. Skepticism

The subject of climate change sees a balanced focus on advocacy for climate action and skepticism about the science and motives behind climate change claims.

Regarding the study, there is a stronger emphasis on urgency and a need for immediate action. There is some skepticism and mistrust of the scientific community and perceived motives.

Nature of Skepticism

Skepticism towards climate change in general includes doubts about human impact, claims of natural cycles, and accusations of fearmongering for control or monetary gain.

Skepticism toward the U.N. study focuses on scientists' predictive abilities, historical climate cycles, and manipulation for control or monetary gain, with added doubt about accelerating global warming.

Engagement and Confrontation

Both topics show high engagement levels, with significant confrontations and personal attacks, reflecting the deeply polarized nature of the discourse.

Branching Discussions

Both topics extend discussions beyond climate issues to personal lifestyle choices, economic implications, and political ideologies.

In summary, both general and more specific discussions about climate change reflect a highly engaged and polarized discourse online. There is a clear divide between advocacy for urgent action and skepticism about the causes, severity, and motivations behind climate change narratives. The need for reliable, understandable information is evident in both discussions.

The newest Star Wars franchise release called “The Acolyte” premiered to resounding love and admiration from those promoting the film. However, there was also dismissal and sharp disapproval from the viewing audience.

MIG Reports analysis of conversations about the show reveals negative sentiments, primarily about wokeness in contemporary culture. There is evident discontent and outrage among many American on this topic. They express disappointment with changes to traditional stories, claiming they have been altered to suit a woke agenda.

Most people associate wokeness with political correctness, social justice efforts, DEI, or liberal ideology. There are calls to boycott Disney and streaming platforms, or simply refusing to watch the series in objection to forced inclusiveness and diversity.

Several media outlets gave the series high scores, reviews, and other accolades. But most consumers and Star Wars fans imposed precipitously low ratings and reviews on the show.

A lot of viewers are also rekindling criticism of The Acolyte’s protagonist Amandla Stenberg, who made controversial remarks in 2018. At the time, she said, "The goal was the upset white people." This drew indignation, resentment, and accusations that Stenberg promotes racism. The voices resurrecting Stenberg’s comments voice opposition to what they call "liberal" or "leftist" narratives. Many in this group are parents or Star Wars fans with conservative viewpoints.

There is also spirited debate about individual freedom and the right to express one's opinions. People emphasize the importance of free speech and bemoan what they perceive as restrictions imposed by woke culture on individual expression.

Some Americans characterize themselves as victims of aggressive leftist agendas, expressing fear and concern about traditional values deteriorating and the erasure of history. They also draw parallels between current socio-political trends and historical societal collapses.

Additionally, there is robust criticism of Democrats, with comments equating the party's policies with communism and predicting a possible civil war due to ideological disparities. They also believe the left would refuse to allow a peaceful separation, if things come to that. Many in this group dismisses Joe Biden’s left leaning administration and a call to save America in upcoming elections.

Vice President Kamala Harris recently appeared on Jimmy Kimmel Live and made waves with her comments about former president Trump’s conviction. Among other things, the VP said, “The reality is, cheaters don’t like getting caught,” referring to Trump and implying he cheated in the 2016 election.

Many Americans took her comments as an admission that continued prosecutions against Trump are politically motivated and retributive. Much of the response displays contempt and dissatisfaction towards her and Joe Biden's administration with accusations of lying, weakening the country, and serving their own self-interests — a common sentiment when the Vice President speaks publicly.

While conservatives reacted negatively to Harris’s comments about Trump and liberals cheered, pro-Palestine protesters overshadowed the conversation. Video emerged on social media showing protesters interrupting the Jimmy Kimmel Live taping to shout at Harris saying, “Stop the genocide” and “15,000 children dead because of you.”

Kamala Harris gets heckled on Jimmy Kimmel.

The Left’s infighting is glorious to watch pic.twitter.com/IIXxSzZSZH

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 6, 2024

Most of the reactions to the video are from progressive Democrats who agree with the protesters or conservatives who enjoy the hilarity of Democrat infighting.

What People Are Saying About Harris on Kimmel

Conversations about the VP’s late night TV appearance predominantly disapprove. Conservatives and Trump supporters are critical of Harris's statements and liberals dislike her actions regarding Israel.

People argue over Trump’s conviction, Biden's potential corruption, the Biden-Harris Administration's current policies, and questions about their allegiance towards America. Anti-Trump conversation skews more positively towards Harris's remarks. This group says Trump was found guilty by a jury of his peers and the trial was a necessary measure ensuring justice is served.

Usually liberals, those agreeing with Harris frame the conviction as the consequence for breaking the law and claim nobody is above the law. They criticize suggestions of political persecution as attempts to destroy democracy and undermine the justice system.

More conservative and Republican-leaning voters view Harris's statement with outrage, denial, or frustration. Many have frequently accused her and other Democrats of being driven by bias against Trump. They believe accusations that Trump cheated in the election are false and believe his prosecutions are politically motivated witch hunts.

• Kamala Harris’s typically low approval saw a slight boost after her Kimmel appearance, suggesting anti-Trump viewers approved of her comments.
• However, Donald Trump’s national approval has held steady and even increased since his conviction, suggesting many believe in Democrats having political motivations.

Belief in a Weaponized Court

Many voters express continued strong support for Trump, endorsing his candidacy for the 2024 presidency. They also criticize the Biden Administration and the current state of the nation. These voters accuse Democrats and the deep state of corruption, interfering in elections, ignoring laws, and politicizing the court system.

There is a palpable belief that Trump was unfairly targeted and condemned to hamper his campaign rather than any actual misconduct. People say the conviction is an abuse of power by the Democrats to target their political opponents and a disastrous violation of norms. They compare ongoing lawfare to actions seen in authoritarian regimes.

MIG Reports analysis suggest most Americans believe the justice system has been weaponized for partisan reasons. Those on the left believe the courts are biased in Trump’s favor. Those on the right believe Democrats are using a corrupt judiciary to attack their political opponents.

• On the day of Trump’s conviction in New York, national sentiment towards “weaponization of government,” dropped dramatically.
• Sentiment went from the around 44% the week before to 37% on the day Trump was convicted, suggesting many people viewed the trial as an abuse of the court system.