At a time when US President Donald Trump is engaged in an obstacle race in order to reach a formula for an ideal and long-awaited agreement in his negotiations with Iran, points continue to bleed in opinion polls regarding the internal support rates for his policies, in light of the faltering economy, the high cost of living, and his judicial disputes over jurisdiction and powers.
After winning his second term, Trump succeeded in winning new territory among voters with the slogan “America First,” through his strict protectionist policies, distancing the United States from allied issues in the fields of security and defense, getting rid of costly climate agreements, and drying up foreign funding.
But as he recalled the era of the United States’ impulsive wars in Venezuela, Iran, and perhaps later Cuba, the circle of reservations about the Donald Trump administration began to expand.
Support remains steady at the bottom
The latest poll conducted by Reuters/Ipsos – yesterday, Monday – showed that the US President’s approval rating remained – during the past few days – near the lowest levels in his political career, with most Americans expecting gasoline prices to continue to rise in light of the war with Iran.
Trump’s performance was supported by about 35% of the survey participants, without change from the result of a previous poll in mid-May, while the result was slightly higher than the lowest rating during his current presidential term, which reached 34% last April, and also close to the lowest level in his first presidential term at 33% in December 2017.
The Republican leader has been facing widespread discontent for months due to his decision to go to war with Iran, and his failure to reach an agreement to stop the war on the terms he wanted, and to free the Strait of Hormuz, which is vital for the world’s energy shipments, which led to a rise in gasoline prices.
With fuel prices falling slightly in the past few weeks amid expectations of an end to the conflict with Iran, about 59% of participants in the survey – which lasted 6 days – said they expect fuel prices to rise in the United States next year, compared to 17% who believe they will decrease. The rest of the participants said that they had not decided their opinions yet or that the prices would remain the same.
Israel’s dilemma
Trump ordered attacks on Iran on February 28, in cooperation with Israel, an ally of the United States. Iran responded with counterattacks that halted most shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of global oil trade once passed.
Although the pace of attacks and counterattacks has declined since April, peace talks have yet to result in a permanent agreement, and recent strikes between Tehran and Tel Aviv cast doubt on the speed of reaching an agreement.
Eric Meyerson of SEB Research said: “For markets, the best scenario – in the near term – remains a limited agreement that resolves the Strait crisis and stops the strong strikes… to buy time.”
But President Trump now faces a double challenge, not only related to finding a basis of understanding with Tehran to include his terms in the final agreement, but also taming his Israeli ally to accept the path of negotiations that the White House is managing in isolation from Tel Aviv’s influential role.
Trump publicly urged the Israeli Prime Minister to refrain from any measures that would thwart the talks, including violating the ceasefire in Lebanon, which Israel invaded – last March – to pursue Hezbollah.
Danny Auerbach, a military historian at the Hebrew University in Israel, says that by launching attacks on Iran, Tel Aviv wants to convey a message to Washington that reaching a final agreement with Tehran is not possible if it ignores Israel’s interests, adding that “Israel can turn the tables if its interests are infringed to a large extent.”
The cost of living is falling
But this is not the only thing that arouses discontent among respondents in the Reuters/Ipsos poll. Only 22% of respondents supported Trump’s management of the cost of living issue for American families, while 70% disapproved.
Americans are now more dissatisfied with Trump’s performance compared to his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, whose approval rate for his performance in this issue – at the end of his presidential term – reached 29%, compared to 63% disapproval.
Biden faced – over several years – high inflation, which ultimately affected his party in the 2024 presidential elections, and helped Trump win over Democrat Kamala Harris.
Trump campaigned on promises to fix inflation, while persistently high fuel prices dented his party’s hopes of maintaining control of Congress in November’s midterm elections.
About 36% of the survey participants said that they support the US attacks on Iran, while 25% said that the military campaign was worth the costs.
The poll showed that registered voters said they would choose Democrats instead of Republicans by 41% compared to 37%, if congressional elections were held today.
Twisting an arm and conflicting jurisdiction
This gap between the general electorate and Trump is justified. Over recent months, the US President has encountered legal pitfalls and conflicts with Congress over expanding his powers in some cases, which has brought him into a conflict of jurisdiction. As a result, this has led to him losing lawsuits, including the issue of customs duties, the latest of which is the fees associated with visas for highly skilled workers.
A federal judge on Monday invalidated a $100,000 fee imposed by Trump on new H-1B visas for highly skilled foreign workers, concluding that it constituted an illegal tax that Congress had never authorized.
Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston issued this ruling in a lawsuit filed by 20 Democratic state attorneys general challenging those fees, which greatly raised the cost of obtaining H-1B visas.
- For the administration, the fees constitute a legal fine that the president has the right to impose under federal immigration law, which gives him the power to restrict the entry of certain foreign nationals when he deems it “harmful to the interests of the United States.”
- On the other hand, Sorokin concluded that the fee is not a fine, but rather a tax that Congress did not authorize the Republican president to issue, and neither the US State Department nor USCIS has the right to impose it.
The judge cited a February US Supreme Court decision that invalidated sweeping tariffs imposed by Trump under a national emergency law.
White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers argues that President Trump “has clear legal authority to restrict the entry of any category of foreigners that he deems not in America’s interest, and that is exactly what he did.”
Most likely, this case will now go to the appeal stage to decide on jurisdiction.
Double damage
The H1-B visa program allows for the issuance of 65,000 visas annually, in addition to another 20,000 for workers with advanced degrees. This visa is granted for between three and six years.
Technology companies particularly rely on workers with H-1B visas.
Before Trump announced his fees, employers seeking to obtain a visa for a foreign worker usually paid between $2,000 and $5,000 in fees, depending on several factors.
These fees will not apply to visas granted to foreign nationals already in the United States on student visas, who typically constitute a large percentage of new H-1B visa recipients.
Court documents indicated that the high fees limited applications for this visa. The USCIS said – in a statement in March – that it had received – as of February 15 – only 85 amounts of the $100,000 fee.
