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.

Recently, woman identified as Shiloh Hendrix went viral online for using a racial slur against an allegedly autistic black child in a public park. Within days, she received hundreds of thousands of dollars in sympathetic crowdfunding via a GiveSendGo campaign.

The viral and controversial interaction quickly blew up into a political and racial proxy war. Progressives decry the incident as proof of lingering racism, and conservatives are split between defending Hendrix’s speech rights and condemning her behavior.

Shiloh Hendrix, a young white mother, insults a black child in an argument at the playground. Left-wing TikTok activists film her, post the video online - and start a digital hate hunt.
What follows is another chapter in the ethnic conflict in the USA. But this time everything… pic.twitter.com/acdvajtLgS

— Martin Sellner (@Martin_Sellner) May 2, 2025

Hendrix’s name has since become emblematic of cultural backlash. She is framed by supporters as a victim of cancel culture and woke targeting, while critics cast her as a symbol of emboldened bigotry in the age of digital incentivization. The fundraising success in her name turned what could have been a fleeting controversy into a referendum on race, speech, and the political realignment of victimhood.

This incident occurred shortly after another racial firestorm initiated by the murder of Austin Metcalf, a white teenager killed at a Texas track meet. Metcalf’s death received minimal mainstream media attention, prompting conservatives to call out racial double standards. This effect is compounded by reactions from the left and the right to Metcalf’s murderer’s crowdfunding efforts, now juxtaposed with Shiloh Hendrix’s.

Division and Vitriol

Online reaction to Hendrix’s actions, both in using the slur and creating a GiveSendGo, sharply divides public opinion.

Around 40-45% of right-leaning discussions express frustration that Hendrix became a folk hero for the wrong reasons—arguing that monetizing crass or criminal behavior damages conservatives and distracts from legitimate concerns.

However, around 30% strongly defend her on free speech grounds, claiming she had been targeted by an ideological lynch mob. This group also points out the hypocrisy of liberal reactions to Austin Metcalf, Hendrix, and anti-white racism.

What you're witnessing isn't a fundraiser.

You're witnessing White Guilt begin to die. pic.twitter.com/RlegOAk3xQ

— Daniel Concannon (@TooWhiteToTweet) May 1, 2025

The remaining third of right leaning voices are ambivalent, choosing to redirect the conversation toward issues like crime, voter suppression, and economic priorities.

Among liberal users, sentiment skewed sharply negative. More than 70% condemn Hendrix’s language and the crowdfunding campaign as an endorsement of racism. Many point to systemic bias and accuse conservatives of promoting a culture of grievance under the guise of “anti-wokeness.”

Double Standards and Selective Outrage

The muted response to the death of Austin Metcalf intensifies right-wing anger. Many see the lack of national media coverage or official statements as confirmation that outrage in America is racially curated.

While some reports claim the motive behind Metcalf’s death remains under investigation, critics online cite the case as a glaring example of institutional and media neglect when the racial dynamics don’t fit the approved narrative.

This perceived double standard has given rise to a new refrain among conservatives that if racial justice is real, then it must apply evenly. Failing to recognize tragedies like Metcalf’s while obsessively covering cases like Hendrix’s signals to many Americans that the system is fundamentally tilted.

So let me get this straight. This lady, Shiloh Hendrix, witnesses this unaccompanied and unsupervised autistic 5 year old kid taking things from her diaper bag. She calls the kid out for it and a child predator from Somalia just so happened to be hanging out at the park, where… pic.twitter.com/cDoBRXU2VE

— Stephen Odell (@StM_1979) May 1, 2025

Cultural Weaponization and Symbolic Crowdfunding

The GiveSendGo campaign for Shiloh Hendrix has become a case study in digital tribalism. Both sides of the aisle now financially reward figures caught in culture war flashpoints. Supporters frame this as fighting back against elite narratives and critics see it as incentivizing extremism and monetizing bad actions. In conservative circles, Hendrix is now shorthand for the backlash against cancel culture, media, and speech policing.

Even among committed conservatives, Hendrix’s case sparks unease. Some Republicans caution that defending incendiary rhetoric—especially when aimed at children—erodes credibility with important voter groups who may support border security and free-market economics but recoil from perceived cruelty.

Race, Policy, and Identity

Race remains at the center of political discourse, but the vocabulary has shifted.

Progressives focus on systemic inequity and the enduring legacies of oppression. Conservatives increasingly speak of reverse discrimination, media bias, and what they see as the weaponization of race for political control.

Affirmative action, DEI mandates, and woke corporate governance continue to serve as stand-ins for wider frustrations. To many voters, these policies feel like instruments of division. And yet, on the right, there’s a debate over whether opposing these programs means tolerating bigotry.

Hendrix’s defenders often place her in this exact frame—arguing that outrage against her is less about morality and more about liberal control over acceptable language and social norms. In this way, she functions less as an individual than as a placeholder for the broader reactionary impulse on the right.

President Trump’s tariff-driven economic strategy is becoming more polarizing as time goes on. Voters online discuss whether national strength should come at the cost of consumer stability. Designed to rebalance trade and reindustrialize the U.S. economy, the aggressive imposition of duties—particularly on China—causes debate between long-term nationalist vision and short-term economic pain.

A Fractured Voter Consensus

The prevailing sentiment is turning to pessimism. Roughly 65% of public commentary across partisan lines expresses concern or opposition to the tariff regime. This has dropped since MIG Reports previous analysis showing 44% negativity in online discussions.

Critics cite inflation, job losses, GDP contraction, and a lack of transparency as counts against Trump’s tariff policy. Around 25% of posts offer strong or conditional support, praising tariffs as a form of economic retribution against exploitative trade practices. A remaining 10% hold mixed views, acknowledging that while globalism has failed American workers, the current strategy may prove unsustainable if not recalibrated.

Among conservatives, even traditionally supportive voters are showing signs of anxiety. Many MAGA-aligned voices still defend the tariffs as a strategic sacrifice. Others—particularly independents and establishment Republicans—are raising questions about effectiveness, implementation, and optics.

Economic Sovereignty and Strategic Pressure

Supporters frame tariffs as a corrective to decades of asymmetric trade, saying:

• Trump’s “America First” platform is a long-overdue response to foreign protectionism.
• Imposing a 145% duty on Chinese imports is a powerful tool to pressure Beijing on IP theft and labor standards.
• Tariffs can eventually replace income tax burdens for middle-income Americans.
• There's an opportunity for supply chains to be repatriated, labor protected, and globalist dependencies severed.

In this view, short-term cost is justified by long-term reindustrialization and national sovereignty. The emotional tone often draws on themes of betrayal—America “ripped off” by cheap foreign goods—and defiance: “We don’t need cheap goods from China.”

Hidden Taxes and Economic Instability

Opposition is both economic and philosophical with top discussions including:

• Tariffs as a “hidden tax” on American consumers, raising prices on food, electronics, auto parts, and clothing.
• Reports of 20,000 layoffs at UPS, surging import volumes from stockpiling, and port disruptions disrupting the economy.
• Questioning the erratic nature of tariff rollouts, calling the policy “chaotic,” “suicidal,” and “uninformed.”
• Beliefs that this trade strategy is executive overreach, citing unilateral decisions with no congressional debate.

Detractors accuse Trump of blaming Biden, the media, or foreign governments while ignoring the domestic consequences of his own actions. People say things like, “Nobody else is responsible for Americans suffering under his stupid tariffs. Not Biden. Not China. Not DEI. It’s Trump’s fault, period.”

Transparency Wars and Showing Receipts

A major flashpoint in the public conversation is a perception that the administration is not being fully transparent:

• Some criticize Trump for discouraging companies like Amazon from itemizing tariff charges on receipts, calling it an intentional cover-up.
• Others say a lack of visibility makes it impossible for consumers to grasp the true economic cost, likening tariffs to an “invisible surcharge.”
• There are conversations about a gag order on corporate communication as a betrayal of the free-market ethos, causing concern even among some on the right.

This battle over disclosure has become symbolic. Calls for tariff cost itemization parallel broader demands for honest governance, data transparency, and fiscal accountability.

Media and Expert Commentary Doesn’t Help

Commentary on media coverage about tariffs and the economy reiterates distrust:

• Pro-Trump voices see mainstream economic analysis as rigged, accusing outlets of fearmongering to discredit nationalist policy.
• They dismiss economists’ warnings, such as a 70% chance of recession or falling consumer sentiment, as partisan spin.
• On the other hand, Trump critics use those same indicators—GDP shrinkage, layoffs, market contraction—to argue he is economically illiterate.

The drop in sentiment about the economy along with rising distrust of media suggests many average Americans are not fully convinced about the economy. A complex topic, which many voters do not have expertise in, partially feel uncertain because they don’t know who to believe. Supporters want to trust Trump’s strategy but fear there could be unforeseen consequences. Critics want to trust critical media but may ignore biased rhetoric.

International Backlash and Isolation Anxiety

Beyond domestic concerns, many express alarm at the global consequences:

• Trump’s tariffs are said to be alienating traditional allies like Canada and the EU, exposing the U.S. to retaliation and diplomatic drift.

• Some warn this economic brinkmanship is turning the U.S. into a lone aggressor lobbing tax bombs at friends and foes alike.

• There’s concern that America's global leadership is eroding, with adversaries like China using retaliatory measures to curry favor with other developing nations.

Though Trump’s base defends this posture as strongman negotiation, critics see it as shortsighted and destabilizing.

Mood: Bitter, Distrustful, and Strained

The prevailing mood across discussions is one of volatility, pessimism, and deep distrust. People are exhausted with promises that don’t translate into tangible relief. Many now view tariffs as a political performance that hurts more than it helps.

While support for Trump’s broader ideological goals remains strong within the base, concerns are seeping into conversation. The rhetoric of economic war is being tested against the reality of strained household budgets and employment anxiety.

The tide of opinion has been surging against the legacy media for some time. Now, self-serious media outlets congratulating themselves on their coverage of Joe Biden’s mental decline is drawing ridicule.

Americans say the mainstream media whitewashed and covered up President Biden’s cognitive decline but are now claiming credit for exposing it. Voters say events like the White House Correspondents Dinner show the press for what they are—courtiers protecting the palace.

The Dinner Party Problem

A subset of discussion about legacy media in general directly references the White House Correspondents Dinner. These comments present the dinner as an increasingly out of touch and self-congratulatory ritual.

Posts describe the dinner as “stagecraft,” “a media circus,” and “optics for the elite.” For many voters, it reinforces their belief that the press is too invested in political relationships to function as an adversarial force.

Americans view the media’s actions as evidence that media figures view themselves as elites, among the same class they are tasked with scrutinizing. The image of reporters in tuxedos joking with presidents and politicians while ignoring voter concerns plays poorly outside the Beltway. Among those under 35, the event is dismissed as a “ceremony for people who don’t have to worry about gas prices.”

The sentiment is widespread among voter groups. In all conversations across multiple topics, approximately 60% express overt disdain for legacy media institutions. Only 15% discuss them neutrally or positively.

The Silent Collapse of a President

The coverage—or more accurately, the glaring non-coverage—of President Biden’s mental decline in the waning years of his presidency is a flagship grievance for many people who are critical of a politically captures media. Posts mocking his cognitive performance often come with a caveat: the media enabled the problem by refusing to acknowledge it.

The contrast is frequently drawn with Trump. Commenters note that Trump’s every misspoken word are front-page news, while Biden’s slurred sentences, visible confusion, and dazed appearances were waved away as “normal aging.” When Biden stumbled through a speech or forgot where he was, outlets used euphemisms like elder statesman,” “slower delivery,” “candid moments.”

That reluctance to apply equal scrutiny to partisan powers has damaged institutional credibility. A prominent refrain across discussions is: “If Trump had done this, it would be nonstop coverage.” Voters believe the media shields Democrats out of political loyalty, not journalistic rigor.

MIG Reports data shows:

• 60% of discussion is negative about how the media covers Democrats, particularly mentioning Biden’s cognitive decline.
• 25% are frustrated at selective framing, especially independents and younger demographics who resent legacy power.
• 15% defend Biden, relying on either moral relativism—“Trump is worse” —or casual dismissal of the media’s failure to cover his decline.

Generational and Partisan Drift

The divide in media trust is widening in both ideological and age groups. Americans under 35 are moving decisively away from legacy outlets. They say they consume content through decentralized platforms like Truth Social, Bluesky, YouTube, and X. Their tone is cynical but informed. They don’t just reject legacy narratives—they deconstruct them in real time.

Older conservatives remain critical of the media but are more likely to recall a time when institutions operated under some assumption of balance. That nostalgia has been replaced by the grim realization that the press now performs its credibility, rather than earns it.

This generational shift is cultural and logistical. Young voters don’t wait for evening segments or Sunday roundtables. They dissect gaffes in chats and post replies, repost contradictory headlines on TikTok, and spread independent analyses with more reach than a primetime CNN spot.

Narrative Management as Policy

Critics no longer view media behavior as lazy or unprofessional. They view it as calculated. Events like the Correspondents Dinner, therefore, is confirmation that the press sees itself as part of the ruling class. Americans say Biden’s gaffes were not ignored accidentally—they were actively managed.

Overall, voters believe that media institutions are actually succeeding at their real goal, which is to serve as narrative enforcers for the political elite.

Even among moderate Democrats and left-leaning voters, fatigue is growing. Defending the media is no longer an act of civic pride, but one of desperation, more performative than backed by conviction.

Donald Trump’s aggressive border enforcement policies still divide American politics, but the things that make it divisive are also what help him retain support. Legacy media plays up emotionally charged stories, but public sentiment is largely supportive.

MIG Reports data shows 62% of online discussion supports Trump’s deportation policies, and 38% oppose them. Despite legal battles, media hysteria, and vitriol from Democrats, Americans remain adamant about closing the border.

Sentiment Overview

Among those expressing support, Trump’s policies fulfill long-standing voter mandates. Many view deporting illegal aliens as an existential necessity, not a political controversy. They reject the idea that noncitizens who enter illegally are entitled to expansive due process protections. They demand national sovereignty and the rule of law.

Critics focus on constitutional boundaries. They argue removing “undocumented immigrants,” and their U.S. citizen children, or those with medical needs, risks violating foundational legal norms. Their arguments revolve around due process, family separation, and institutional overreach.

The discourse seeps into a broader cultural battle over the meaning of American citizenship, the reach of executive power, and the nature of constitutional protections.

Top Events Driving Discussion

The Deportation of a Two-Year-Old U.S. Citizen

A widely circulated story involving children born in the U.S. being deported with their illegal mothers has become a lightning rod. Critics cite this as evidence of authoritarianism and barbarism by the Trump administration. Supporters frame it as a mischaracterized instance of voluntary family unity. A Trump-appointed judge’s concern over the lack of “meaningful process” adds legal weight to the public debate.

The headline about three U.S. citizens ages 7, 4, and 2 being deported was very misleading.

It was their mothers, who were in this country illegally, who were deported. The decision on whether or not their children go with them is the choice of the parents. pic.twitter.com/iHIhcLO4sX

— Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) April 28, 2025

The Abrego Garcia Case

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom the media refers to as a “Maryland man,” has been weaponized symbolically by both camps. Trump supporters his removal as a known MS-13 member as completely justified. Critics say his case reveals systemic overreach. They demand a hearing and “due process,” questioning the legality of expedited deportations.

We have to stop LYING to the American public.

No matter how many times the lie is repeated, Albrego Garcia is not a “Maryland man.” He’s not a “mind-mannered father.”

He’s an illegal immigrant from El Salvador with a history of violence & evidence of gang activity. pic.twitter.com/mhTYwas1he

— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) April 26, 2025

Arrest and Criticism of Judges

Judge Hannah Dugan’s alleged obstruction of ICE is drawing considerable media attention. Supporters say her arrest is proof that “no one is above the law,” criticizing Democrats who have used this line referring to Trump but are angered about Judge Dugan’s arrest. Her case highlights the political tension between federal enforcement and local judicial resistance—a fault line that has become central to conservative messaging.

DEAR DEMOCRATS, who are furious with the FBI arresting 2 judges in the past 24H.

Why don't you listen to your media?

"No person is above the law."

"No man is above the law."

"No one is above the law."

"Nobody is above the law."pic.twitter.com/3J499aLbWf

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) April 25, 2025

Mugshots on the White House Lawn

Visuals of deported individuals displayed on the North Lawn of the White House are used as a potent symbol on both sides. Supporters say this is an assertive way to project strength and show the seriousness of Trump’s border policies. Critics call it political theater and outrageous propaganda. Either way, the imagery has amplified the narrative of decisive action.

Good Morning from The White House! pic.twitter.com/1fhjzMU2gR

— Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) April 28, 2025

Voter Group Reactions

Among conservatives, there is near-universal support for mass deportation as a constitutional necessity. They say Trump’s actions are a course correction from years of open borders under Biden. Many call for criminal penalties against judges and officials who resist federal immigration enforcement.

Progressives and left-leaning voters vehemently oppose the drastic and bombastic way in which Trump 2.0 is handling the border crisis. They argue Trump’s policies undermine American values and legal precedent. Their concern lies both with the act of deportation and its implementation, particularly focusing on sympathetic stories to move emotions.

Independents are split. Some support Trump’s enforcement as a means of restoring order. Others express concern about the tone, rhetoric, and legality of certain removals. This group favors reform but is wary of ideological excess.

Historical and Legal Framing

Supporters consistently point to past precedent—FDR, Eisenhower, Clinton, Obama—as justification for mass removals. The argument is that Trump is not breaking new ground but enforcing laws his predecessors used to uphold. Opponents say Trump’s actions, unlike those of past presidents, are publicly amplified, legally aggressive, and morally indiscriminate.

Several critics invoke comparisons to past abuses—from the Alien Enemies Act to wartime expulsions—suggesting the slippery slope argument is playing out in real-time. Trump supporters reject these claims as bad-faith comparisons designed to shift focus from illegal entry to legal fearmongering.

Media and Institutional Trust

One of the clearest throughlines in the data is distrust of mainstream media. Across aggregated data sets, 60-65% of commenters express skepticism or outright hostility toward news coverage of deportations. Many claim negative media narratives are politically motivated, selectively edited, and historically dishonest. Only 15-20% defend the media’s watchdog role or provide neutral commentary.

Many also now view the judiciary as failing in its job as an impartial referee, now acting as a political player. Trump’s base views judges who block deportations as partisan activists undermining the rule of law. The left, in contrast, sees these judges as the last bulwark against authoritarian executive overreach.

High expectations ushered President Trump into his second term as supporters claimed a mandate handed down by the people in November. In his first month, Trump enjoyed soaring enthusiasm in the base and escalating concern from his opposition.

Now, hardening polarization on both sides seems to lock sentiment in a narrow channel, preventing President Trump’s support from dipping too low—but also guaranteeing criticism remains vehement.

Voter Views of Trump 2.0

The national mood around President Trump's second term is emotional and tribal. His base—around 30-35% of discussions—remains intensely loyal. They interpret ongoing criticism and decreasing sentiment as confirmation that Trump remains a threat to the establishment. Democrats and “Never Trumpers” have hardened into firm opposition, framing Trump as an existential threat to democratic norms.

A segment of independents and moderates, many of whom have been willing to give Trump chance, may drifting away. Their concerns center on:

• Foreign policy missteps regarding Ukraine, Russia, and China
• Fear of rising prices from tariff policies
• Perceived constitutional overreach

Border security discussion continues to show strong positivity (55-60%), but trade and foreign policy discussions waver around 35-40% positivity.

Trump’s overall sentiment dropped slightly at the beginning of March as wall-to-wall media coverage of tariffs and Russia questioned the administration’s tactics. However, daily online engagement regarding Trump remains high, ranging between 15,000–25,000 posts per day, and sentiment remains steady.

• In the last 30 days, discussions have focused on trade, China, Russia, and the border.
• Over the last 24 hours, President trump has gained support on trade, China, and military topics.

Trump as an Anti-Establishment Figurehead

Large rural counties continue to anchor Trump’s political base. These voters see President Trump as a political leader who is acting as the last real bulwark against cultural, economic, and political collapse driven by urban elites. Their loyalty is intensely personal, and policy outcomes matter less than the fight itself.

This dynamic reinforces cultural and political realignments away from traditional transactional politics toward ideological adherence. Trump's battles against legacy media, bureaucrats, and globalists are the core proof points of authenticity in the eyes of his base. Supporters view every indictment, headline, or poll showing declining national support as a badge of honor.

Media and Moderate Sentiment Erosion

Foreign policy optics around Ukraine and Russia have become an axis of disenchantment. Trump's behavior at the Pope’s Vatican funeral and his unclear stance on Ukraine reinforce critical perceptions that he is unserious, self-interested, and diplomatically dangerous.

Economic pain is another reason for cooling enthusiasm among moderates and swing voters. Tariff-driven price increases on food, housing, and imported goods cause concern for all who are uncertain of Trump's economic strategy and its consequences. However, economic sentiment remains relatively strong compared to Russia-Ukraine sentiment.

Constitutional concerns among critics also surge. Aggressive executive orders, deportations billed as “without due process,” and talk of arresting judges and politicians like Adam Schiff turn some swing voters from skepticism to active opposition. Broken grand promises, like ending the Ukraine war in 24 hours, now serve as symbolic proof that the administration's rhetoric has outpaced its competence.

The Role of Media in Shaping Polarization

Media narratives accelerate negativity, showcasing concerns and fears for daily news consumers and penetrating less political voters over time. Within Trump’s base, negative media coverage is a validation that he is fighting hostile interests. For many independents and critics, sustained negative media coverage intensifies distrust.

This dynamic is captured in the media trust levels among key voter groups:

Trump loyalists treat negative press as a feature, not a bug. Critics and independents, however, increasingly trust the media narrative that Trump's leadership threatens constitutional norms and American credibility abroad.

Opportunities for Shoring Up the Middle

With rapid and major changes sweeping across the first 100 days of Trump 2.0, it’s still possible to stabilize support outside of Trump’s core base. An imminent resolution to the Ukraine-Russia conflict and staying away from perceptions of capitulation to Russia could help quell fears.

Delivering visible economic relief—particularly through stable consumer prices and middle-class tax relief—would also restore credibility among swing voters. Public reaffirmation of constitutional norms, even symbolic, could blunt accusations of authoritarianism.

Bringing forward newer, disciplined administrative figures could help project stability without requiring Trump to alter his personal style. However, the cultural emotional drift away from Trump among independents may also be tied to political disengagement.

Strategic Outlook

Maximizing loyalty among rural and populist voters while urgently stemming defections among suburban and independent moderates will continue to normalize the new political paradigm. Despite continuous negative coverage, strong support from the American people on critical issues like the border and the cultural war forces the media and democrats to moderate.

Rather than changing policy positions or rhetorically pursuing outlier support, positive results will continue to move the needle for Trump 2.0. The media environment, shaped by identity-driven narratives, will continue to magnify both Trump's successes and failures. Relying on media mistrust alone is insufficient to build credibility outside of the MAGA base.

Following the Democratic Party’s major defeat in 2024, the left finds itself scrambling for a winning strategy as their bench wears thin and Americans turn on “woke” ideology. With trust in institutional leadership at historic lows and the party fractured between its moderate and progressive factions, the question of "what’s next" has become existential.

In recent weeks, buzz has grown around a potential Bernie Sanders–Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) 2028 ticket. While the two are drawing large crowds at rallies, their partnership is billed as a defiant challenge to the party’s failed status quo.

Progressive Democrats want ideological and policy escalation. Sanders and AOC are staging a rhetorical return to anti-oligarchy populism, reviving the grassroots messaging which brought Bernie popularity in 2016. But public sentiment suggests the base is far more conflicted than the performative confidence of these rallies implies.

A Coalition of Contradictions

Sanders and AOC bring name recognition, fervent followings, and ideological force. They also embody severe contradictions regarding personal wealth, elitism, and a pattern of policy hypocrisy that undercuts their working-class message. Voters have noticed.

• 55% of Democratic voters express support for AOC, citing her media fluency and youth appeal.
• Support drops to 30% when the conversation shifts to her viability on a national ticket, especially with Sanders as her partner.

The Sanders-AOC brand is strongest among urban, younger progressives. These voters are less concerned with personal contradictions and more invested in the symbolism of generational power transfer. They argue that inconsistencies—like traveling in a private jet to Coachella while advocating for climate austerity—are the price of modern political warfare, not disqualifiers.

Progressive Theatre vs. Electoral Reality

Among Democratic voters overall, 35-45% express sustained criticism or outright rejection of a Bernie-AOC partnership. They view both Sanders and AOC as emblematic of a populist elite—figures who campaign against power while privately enjoying its perks. Sanders, a millionaire with multiple homes, and AOC, whose Earth Day jet ride sparked widespread derision, struggle to retain credibility outside their core supporters.

Social media sentiment reflects this erosion. Accusations of hypocrisy, elitism, and political performance consistently top the discourse. “Champagne socialist” and “oligarch in disguise” are frequent characterizations. Among working-class Democrats, especially union voters, skepticism centers on results, asking what the pair have delivered.

Even the excitement around rallies is checked by realism in the party. Many online describe the rallies as energizing or transformative. But an equal number call them theatrical, elitist, or performative, citing luxury travel as undermining the working-class message. The remaining few are cautiously optimistic but wary, unconvinced that turnout equals traction in a general election.

Demands for Accountability

The AOC-Sanders ticket is also tethered to unresolved questions about corruption, misuse of funds, and ethical inconsistencies. A recurring thread in Democratic conversations is the sense that progressive leaders talk about dismantling oligarchy while quietly participating in the spoils of institutional privilege.

Commenters across the ideological spectrum—especially those from lower-income backgrounds—express feelings of betrayal. For many, Bernie and AOC are only repackaging tired political ideas in revolutionary branding. Accusations against both are cultural shorthand for the Democratic Party’s broader legitimacy crisis.

The Leadership Gap Widens

Three years out from the next presidential election, Democrats are not yet coalescing around a potential Sanders-AOC ticket. Right now, the idea serves more as a litmus test: Do voters want ideological purity, or effective leadership? The answer, based on current sentiment, is likely not good news for Bernie and AOC.

The challenge is not that Sanders and AOC are too radical. It’s that they appear to many voters as ideologues without discipline. Many feel they are more effective in protest than in governance. Their base wants moral clarity, but more practical swing voters and moderates see unresolved hypocrisy.

Among Democrats still searching for leadership post-2024, the enthusiasm gap is unmistakable. Only 35% of Democratic comments express confidence that AOC could carry a presidential ticket. The rest are either uncertain or opposed, often citing electability, lack of results, and the optics of lifestyle hypocrisy.

Recently, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reported more than 9,000 antisemitic incidents in 2024—a record-setting figure amplified in publications like Axios. From defaced synagogues to aggressive campus protests, the raw data confirms a surge that policymakers, pundits, and advocacy groups are concerned about.

But beyond vague gestures toward the Trump administration and MAGA voters, news reports are not clear about why these incidents are rising. MIG Reports data on public sentiment, however, sheds light on who Americans blame for increased antisemitism.

How Voters Are Assigning Blame

Based on public discussion covering the Israel-Palestine conflict and domestic political discourse, MIG Reports data shows:

• 51% of voters blame the political left, citing AIPAC, Democratic elites, and institutional media as enablers of narrative suppression.
• 35% blame the political right, associating the rise with MAGA populism, far-right rhetoric, or conspiratorial undertones.
• 14% attribute the trend to systemic or fringe sources, including political polarization, globalist influence, or cultural rot.

While both sides generally agree that antisemitism is rising, most voters are debating why this is happening and who is to blame .

Axios Addresses the Fire, Not the Fuel

Media outlets like Axios note that 58% of antisemitic incidents were Israel-related—not restricted to Jewish Americans. The left also admits the most significant spikes of antisemitic incidents occurred on college campuses, which is up 84% year-over-year. That finding matches MIG Reports data, where voter discussions focus on universities as a hotbed for speech suppression and ideological purity tests masquerading as activism.

Mainstream media reports often suggest that conservative responses—particularly Trump’s attempt to defund universities—could “backfire,” making Jewish people more vulnerable. The implication is that crackdown efforts, like defunding liberal institutions or deporting foreign student protesters, may escalate resentment rather than resolve it.

On the surface, legacy reporting acknowledges the problem’s geography (campuses) and ideological triggers (anti-Israel rhetoric) but stops short of placing the political blame where MIG data shows voters already have—on a progressive cultural regime that created the conditions for this explosion.

Campus Chaos and Israel-Centricity

There is real common ground on both sides, however.

• Campus radicalism is central. Both sides recognize universities as a primary breeding ground for the shift from protest to hate.
• Israel is the flashpoint. Over half of all antisemitic incidents now occur in the context of Israel discourse—whether in defense of or in opposition to it.

But even here, the interpretations split. Some take a defensive posture, worried that harsh policies targeting pro-Palestinian protestors might feed the problem. Others say Trump administration policies are long overdue.

The 35% of voters in MIG Reports data who blame the right for rising antisemitism also focus on the Israel discussion. Irael supporters point out that antisemitism can come from both the pro-Palestine left and the anti-Israel right.

Strategic Messaging vs. Public Perception

The Axios report framing is institutionally cautious, focusing on incident spikes while subtly insulating the structures that voters say cultivate ideological extremism. Mainstream outlets warn about government overreach but gloss over the concerns of those who say the institutions themselves crossed boundaries by protecting terrorist sympathizers.

Many online say countermeasures to combat strains of progressive leftism which infect institutions have not gone far enough. This group fears normalizing antisemitism in the name of tolerance is exactly the kind of ideological contradiction the left is known for.

Israel specific MIG Reports data sets:

• 40% blame AIPAC and its lobbying influence
• 30% blame Democratic political and media figures
• 20% blame Trump’s Israel-first approach
• 10% point to global Zionist influence or conspiratorial control

Voters across ideological lines are alarmed by how criticism of Israel often is equated with antisemitism, effectively shutting down debate. The underlying fear is that antisemitism has become a political weapon for some on both sides.

The Trump administration’s decision to freeze federal funding to Harvard has become a cultural flashpoint. Intended as a rebuke for Harvard's refusal to dismantle DEI and affirmative action programs, Americans are upset. For supporters, anger is directed at elite ideological institutions who accept massive amounts of federal dollars. For opponents, pulling funding is an overreach of constitutional guardrails and academic independence.

There is another way:

Refuse taxpayer money. https://t.co/qAtohdDE5C

— Hillsdale College (@Hillsdale) April 14, 2025

Public Reaction

MIG Reports data shows:

• 60% of discussions oppose the defunding initiative
• 40% support it as overdue

However, the conversation is not monolithic—volume and engagement vary significantly depending on platform and discussion sample. In overall discussions, only 6.7% of total comments directly address the defunding decision, and support among those is 2% of total comments. This suggests there may be stronger support that is not captured in all discussions.

The Case for Defunding

Supporters argue federal money should not subsidize ideological indoctrination. They cite DEI programs as corrosive, race-obsessed frameworks that erode merit and fuel political tribalism. Harvard, with its multibillion-dollar endowment, is portrayed as the epitome of liberal academic arrogance—a “stinking rich” institution thumbing its nose at taxpayers while demanding more of their money.

Those who want to see Harvard defunded say it would force elite institutions to decide between ideology and federal tax dollars. They say, if universities want independence, they should afford it on their own.

Okay right but you're taking $9 billion from that government. If you want to a private university, be private, and stop taking our money. https://t.co/XHwAeQpSiV pic.twitter.com/wGJG6FnN0v

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) April 14, 2025

Many online also link academic culture to broader national decline. They say university educated liberals, particularly at Ivy League institutions, are largely responsible for the ideological and cultural rot infecting the corporate world, politics, media, and entertainment.

The Case Against Defunding

Opponents frame defunding universities as executive overreach dressed up as populism. In multiple data samples, 60% of comments oppose the defunding decision, citing academic freedom and the Constitution.

Critics say federal dollars, while conditional, should not be weaponized to impose ideological conformity. They say Harvard’s refusal to submit to DEI rollbacks is institutional resistance to political interference, not defiance of civic norms.

Many consider defunding Harvard as a negative precedent. If a president can yank funding over curriculum and hiring disagreements, what stops future administrations from doing the same for ideological reasons of their own? This view casts Trump as a soft-authoritarian operating under the guise of fiscal prudence.

Around 30-35% of the discussion is among Ivy League graduates. They express both fear and frustration, defending their institutions’ independence. However, they struggle to explain the growing public resentment toward them.

Divisions Across Political, Class, and Racial Lines

Political Affiliation

Conservatives are split. Nationalists and populists support defunding as a strike against woke orthodoxy. Traditional conservatives warn that executive overreach may backfire in the long term.

Liberals overwhelmingly oppose the measure, viewing it as fascist-adjacent. Independents range from intrigued to wary—some sympathetic to anti-elitism, others nervous about long-term consequences.

Education Level

Highly educated voters—particularly Ivy alumni—are the most defensive of institutional autonomy. Working-class voters express greater approval for defunding, seeing Harvard as aloof and hostile to traditional values.

Race

Black and Latino commenters disproportionately argue that DEI programs are crucial to inclusion and mobility. White working-class commenters frame DEI as divisive and harmful, particularly when linked to anti-meritocratic outcomes.

Constitutional Rhetoric on Both Sides

The Constitution dominates the rhetorical terrain. Pro-defunding voices say institutions receiving public money must uphold the civic compact. They argue DEI subverts equal treatment and Americanism. Anti-defunding voices counter that the executive cannot dictate academic policy without violating separation of powers and First Amendment protections.

Strategic Implications for the Right

The defunding fight energizes the populist base and elevates a broader anti-elite narrative. However, it could be a risk. Interfering with universities in unprecedented ways alienates educated moderates and may trigger constitutional challenges that shift public sympathy toward the universities.

Strategically, the right can capitalize on the moment by expanding the conversation. Reframe it from “defund Harvard,” to “rebuild the educational system.” Propose reinvestment in trade schools, rural colleges, and veteran-friendly programs. Starve the ideological centers while feeding the periphery.