The poll also tests voter sentiment about the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, whose agents are on the front lines of the administration’s deportation program. Thirty-nine percent of registered voters view ICE positively and 50% view it negatively. White voters are split in their view of ICE, while two-thirds of Black and Hispanic voters view the agency negatively.

READ MORE  Melania Trump Reveals Months-Long Private Talks With Vladimir Putin Over Reuniting Ukrainian Children

The share that feels positively about ICE is roughly in line with previous NBC News polls from 2020 and 2018. But the share with negative views has spiked, with those who view the agency “very” negatively nearly doubling since 2020, from 22% then to 40% now.

Constitutional rights and democracy

The issues of protecting constitutional rights and democracy also show up in the poll as top concerns among voters.

The survey asked respondents to rank their most important issues, offering other choices including overall cost of living, electricity and health care costs, political violence, immigration and border security and abortion.

About a quarter of voters said that protecting democracy or constitutional rights was the single most important issue in deciding their congressional vote next year. But costs also loomed large, with 16% choosing cost of living, 10% choosing the cost of health care premiums and 4% choosing the cost of electricity.

Another 10% said immigration and border security are their top issue, while 9% said dealing with political violence and 7% said abortion.

When it comes to deciding your vote for Congress next year, what is your most important issue?

“The fundamentals of our country and democracy, the Constitution, normally these are theoretical things that people don’t think about and take for granted. And it’s pretty clear that Americans are not taking them for granted these days, and that’s true for whether they’re Republicans, Democrats or independents,” said Horwitt, the Democratic pollster.

Fifty-two percent of voters said Trump has done more than previous presidents to undermine the U.S. Constitution than to protect it, while 31% say he’s done more to protect the Constitution.

Dim views of both parties

There are clear opportunities for Democrats in Trump’s polling struggles. But even as they hold leads over Republicans on the congressional ballot and on some key issues, the party’s overall standing hasn’t improved fromrecord lows.

Just 28% of registered voters say they have a positive view of the party, compared to 27% in March, while 53% view the party negatively. The Republican Party has higher marks: 37% view it positively and 46% view it negatively.

As in March, one big difference between the two parties — and one reason why the Democrats have lower marks overall — comes from how voters view their own parties.

Seventy-eight percent of Republicans say they view their party positively and just 8% say they view it negatively. But for Democrats, 59% view their party positively and 22% view it negatively.

Independents, meanwhile, have dim views of both parties, with less than a quarter of those voters holding positive views of either the Democratic or Republican parties.

Gaza peace efforts

The poll also tested views on one of Trump’s major foreign policy efforts: his attempts to broker peace in Gaza, where Israel and Hamas have spent two years at war.

Voters are split on Trump’s handling of the war in general: 47% approve, 48% disapprove. That’s a dramatic improvement from how voters judged then-President Joe Biden’s handling of the war, which was at 34% approval in November 2023 and 27% in April 2024.

But U.S. voters are deeply skeptical that Palestinians and Israelis will be able to form a lasting peace agreement.A previous ceasefire negotiated at the end of the Biden administration fell apart earlier this year, and Israel conducted strikes in Gaza soon after the poll concluded, with Israel and Hamas trading accusations of breaking the current ceasefire.

Just 21% say they think Palestinians and Israelis will form a lasting peace, while 69% say they won’t — as high as that number has been in five instances of this poll question stretching back to 1993. Another 10% are unsure.

When asked about whether U.S. troops should participate in any peacekeeping force in Gaza, 41% say they favor the use of those American boots on the ground while 54% disapprove.

 

Businesses press Supreme Court to strike down Donald Trump’s emergency tariff power

About 40 briefs have been filed challenging signature policy ahead of showpiece hearing

Businesses, lawmakers and former US officials are pressing the US Supreme Court to rule against Donald Trump’s use of emergency tariff powers ahead of a showpiece hearing this week.

About 40 legal briefs have been filed by groups ranging from the US Chamber of Commerce to former national security officials in opposition to the signature policy the US president has relied on to wage his trade wars.

Trump said on Sunday that he will not attend Wednesday’s hearing, but described it as “one of the most important cases in the history of our country”.

“If a President was not able to quickly and nimbly use the power of Tariffs, we would be defenseless, leading perhaps even to the ruination of our Nation,” he wrote on Truth Social.

His lawyers argue that depriving the president of the authority to impose the tariffs would “thrust America back to the brink of economic catastrophe”.

The Chamber of Commerce, the US’s largest business association, counters that “the irreparable harms already suffered by American businesses large and small underscore the vast economic consequences of the President’s tariffs”.

It says the uncertainty triggered by Trump’s approach is prompting businesses to delay capital investments and consumers to hold off purchasing.

“The ruling is going to be fundamental and foundational for the president’s agenda going forward,” said Everett Eissenstat, a lawyer at Squire Patton Boggs and former Trump economic official.

“I guarantee you that law students are going to be reading about this court case for a long time.”

The case could also determine the future of more than $50bn in extra tariff revenue that the US government has collected in 2025, a windfall that has soothed investors nervous about US borrowing levels.

Although the hearing will be held this week, the justices will take at least several weeks to deliberate before issuing a ruling.

Think-tanks lodging legal briefs against the measure include the pro-market Cato and Goldwater institutes. Law professors and former judges have also lined up against Trump’s use of emergency tariff powers, as have serving lawmakers and former officials from both Democrat and Republican administrations.

Only a handful of briefs — fewer than 10 as of late last week — backed the president. Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, said lawmakers hoped to send a “clear statement” to the court.

“These tariffs are not only increasing costs for American families, but they’re also not doing anything to bring back manufacturing jobs we’ve lost,” she told the Financial Times. While the US constitution gives powers over tariffs and revenue-raising to Congress, it allows the US president to have broad sway over foreign policy decisions.

“Trade agreements are the perfect amalgamation of those two authorities coming together,” said Eissenstat. “It’s a fundamental constitutional question that the country’s been struggling with for 100 or 200 years and more.”

Trump declared the US’s persistent trade deficit a national emergency this year, invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to apply sweeping tariffs on almost all US trading partners.

Two separate lower courts have already ruled that the president does not have the authority to apply tariffs using that statute. The filing by Trump’s lawyers cites a forecast from the independent Congressional Budget Office that the tariffs imposed using emergency powers will reduce the US deficit by $4tn over the next decade.

“To the president, these cases present a stark choice: with tariffs we are a rich nation, without tariffs we are a poorer nation,” they write.

Although the case could undermine the specific legal basis for Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs”, and the levies imposed to retaliate for fentanyl, it would not affect duties applied to sectors including autos and steel.

Foreign officials and diplomats maintain that the Trump administration will seek to use alternative legal measures to impose tariffs if the use of emergency powers is curtailed by the court.

“We know that the president will maintain tariffs regardless of what the court says,” said Kathleen Claussen, a law professor at Georgetown and former US trade official.

“That’s not to say he would ignore the court . . . It’s just to say that he has many other ways to apply tariffs.”