Trump's approval ticks up slightly, but stays underwater

Introduction: a ripple in the polls, not a tidal wave

A modest improvement measured by several aggregators

On July 1, 2026, the polling aggregator Silver Bulletin, run by statistician Nate Silver, recorded a net approval of -17.8 for President Donald Trump, a slight improvement compared to the -18.9 measured the previous week.

This movement, while statistically real, remains modest and is not enough to reverse the overall trend of an American public opinion that has been predominantly critical of the current administration for several consecutive months.

Why this report matters now

I'm devoting this report to these numbers because they offer a valuable snapshot of the real state of American opinion, far from the partisan interpretations that often dominate media coverage of this kind of data.

Understanding these movements, even minor ones, helps us better assess the administration's political trajectory as decisive electoral deadlines approach for the country's future.

The details behind the Silver Bulletin numbers

A recognized aggregation methodology

The Silver Bulletin, founded by Nate Silver, aggregates multiple individual polls to produce a weighted average considered more reliable than any single poll, a methodology widely recognized in the field of American electoral analysis.

This approach smooths out the momentary variations specific to each polling house, offering a more stable picture of how public opinion is actually evolving over time.

A revealing historical comparison

According to this data, former President Joe Biden posted a net approval of -16.5 at the same point in his term, while Trump himself stood at -11.3 at the equivalent stage of his first term.

This historical comparison therefore places Trump's current second term in a less favorable position than his two immediate predecessors at this exact same moment of their respective presidencies.

The significant gaps between polling houses

Sometimes wildly divergent results

One of the most striking aspects of this data concerns the considerable gap between different polling houses: J.L. Partners measures Trump at -6, while RMG Research puts him instead at -12.

Rasmussen, for its part, recorded a notable rebound to -7, up from -15 in an earlier measurement, illustrating just how much each institute's methodology can significantly influence the results obtained.

Why these gaps deserve an explanation

These methodological differences, between sampling, demographic weighting, and question wording, largely explain why some polls appear more favorable to Trump than others published during the same period.

This is precisely why aggregators like the Silver Bulletin remain more reliable than reading a single isolated poll, however spectacular it may appear on its own.

The Economist/YouGov poll and its revelations

A majority that doubts presidential priorities

A poll conducted by Economist/YouGov between June 26 and 29, among 1,606 American adults with a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points, reveals that 60% of respondents believe Trump is not focused on the country's priority issues.

This particularly high figure suggests a perceived gap between the stated presidential agenda and the real concerns felt by a significant majority of the American population surveyed.

A nation divided over the country's direction

The same poll indicates that only 28% of respondents believe the country is heading in the right direction, compared to 61% who instead believe the United States is on the wrong track under this administration.

This overwhelming proportion of national pessimism constitutes a warning sign the administration cannot afford to ignore as the next major electoral deadlines approach.

The issues where Trump remains most vulnerable

Health care and education, persistent blind spots

According to the same data, Trump remains underwater, meaning with more disapproval than approval, on crucial issues like health care and education, two areas where Americans traditionally expect concrete, measurable results.

This persistent weakness on issues so fundamental to citizens' daily lives could weigh heavily on the overall perception of the current administration's governing competence.

Abortion and the environment, two equally fragile fronts

The issues of abortion and the environment also rank among the weak points identified in this poll, confirming a trend already observed in several previous surveys on American societal priorities.

This accumulation of thematic weaknesses paints the picture of an administration in a delicate position on several fronts simultaneously, rather than a simple isolated dip tied to a single specific issue.

The New York Times and Silver Bulletin numbers compared

A relative convergence between several sources

The New York Times, for its part, reported an approval of 39% against 58% disapproval, figures relatively close to those of the Silver Bulletin, which indicated 39.4% approval against 57.5% disapproval as of July 1.

This convergence between different recognized sources reinforces the overall credibility of these figures, despite the gaps observed between certain individual polling houses mentioned earlier.

What this convergence means for the analysis

When several independent aggregators arrive at similar conclusions, it considerably reinforces the overall reliability of the picture painted, reducing the risk of an isolated methodological error specific to a single source.

This methodological convergence, in my view, constitutes one of the strongest arguments for taking these figures seriously rather than dismissing them as mere passing statistical anomalies.

The housing episode and the president's comment

A bipartisan bill dismissed as a "big yawn"

Amid growing pushback, President Trump recently described a bipartisan housing bill as a "big yawn," a remark that drew criticism from lawmakers of both parties.

This comment, seen by some as indifference toward an issue that remains central for many Americans, contrasts with the Save America Act, the legislative proposal the administration openly favors.

What this episode reveals about stated priorities

This episode concretely illustrates the gap identified by the Economist/YouGov poll between stated presidential priorities and the everyday concerns of American citizens, particularly on tangible economic issues like housing.

This kind of comment, however minor it may seem in isolation, cumulatively helps shape the public perception of an administration out of touch with real popular priorities.

The broader context of the Trump presidency in 2026

A presidency marked by several simultaneous fronts

This evolution in the polls fits into a broader context in which the Trump administration simultaneously manages several sensitive files, ranging from immigration policy to international tensions, to controversial judicial nominations.

This multiplication of open fronts could partly explain the administration's difficulty in maintaining a coherent, reassuring image with the American electorate as a whole.

The potential impact on the midterm elections

These approval numbers, however fluctuating in the short term, take on greater importance as the midterm elections approach, where the party in power historically tends to suffer from discontent accumulated during the first two presidential years.

The Republican Party will therefore need to closely monitor these trends to adjust its electoral strategy before these numbers translate concretely into significant seat losses.

The comparison with previous presidential terms

A classic pattern of post-election disillusionment

Recent American political history shows that most presidents experience some form of popularity erosion after the first months of post-election euphoria, a pattern that also seems to apply, with certain nuances, to Trump's second term.

What sets the current situation apart, however, is the scale of this erosion compared to the previous terms of Biden and Trump's own first term at equivalent periods.

Why this historical comparison must be nuanced

This comparison should nonetheless be nuanced, since economic, geopolitical, and social contexts differ significantly between each presidential period, making any direct comparison potentially misleading if not properly contextualized.

I therefore prefer to present these figures as useful indicators, but not as definitive predictions of this administration's future electoral outcome.

What these numbers mean for American international credibility

A divided public opinion watched by allies and adversaries

These approval numbers don't stay confined within American borders: they are closely watched by Washington's Western allies, but also by strategic adversaries like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.

Such divided American public opinion can be interpreted by these authoritarian regimes as a sign of domestic political fragility, one that could be exploited in their own international strategic messaging.

Why domestic stability remains a matter of power

I firmly believe that the stability of American domestic public opinion constitutes a genuine geopolitical power factor, directly influencing the credibility of the international commitments made by Washington to its Western partners.

An administration weakened in domestic polls risks projecting an image of vulnerability that could complicate its ability to mobilize firm international support on crucial issues like Ukraine.

The methodological limits to keep in mind

What polls cannot measure precisely

Despite their undeniable usefulness, opinion polls remain imperfect instruments, unable to fully capture the complexity of individual motivations behind every response given by those surveyed.

The statistical margins of error, such as the 3.2 points mentioned for the Economist/YouGov poll, remind us that these figures should be interpreted with a certain methodological caution rather than with absolute precision.

Why I still choose to give them weight

Despite these acknowledged limits, I choose to give serious attention to this data, since it remains one of the few systematic tools available for measuring, even imperfectly, the evolution of the American political climate over time.

It is this combination of methodological caution and serious attention that I try to apply consistently in my work as a columnist covering these questions.

What the coming weeks could reveal

Events likely to influence these trends

Several upcoming events, notably the confirmation hearings scheduled for Todd Blanche on July 15 and 16, could significantly influence these approval numbers in the weeks following their publication.

Likewise, developments in international matters, particularly those touching Ukraine and the Middle East, could weigh on the overall perception of presidential management by American public opinion.

The importance of continued tracking of this data

I am committed to continuing to track these approval indicators with the same methodological rigor, avoiding hasty interpretations based on momentary fluctuations that could prove statistically insignificant.

It is this constant rigor that will, over time, help distinguish genuine underlying trends from mere temporary statistical noise within this complex data.

The voices challenging the reliability of these polls

Recurring criticism of polling institutes

Some supporters of the Trump administration continue to challenge the overall reliability of traditional polling institutes, accusing them of a systemic bias against the president, a recurring criticism across several consecutive election cycles.

This mistrust, while understandable given certain past prediction errors in the history of American polling, should not justify a total and systematic rejection of all available statistical data.

Why aggregation remains the best response to this skepticism

It is precisely to address this kind of legitimate skepticism that aggregation tools like the Silver Bulletin remain particularly valuable, smoothing out the potential biases of each individual institute in favor of a more representative average.

I therefore continue to favor these statistical aggregates over isolated polls, whether they are favorable or unfavorable to the current administration.

What this data teaches us about American polarization

A country divided well beyond the raw numbers

These approval numbers, however revealing, tell only part of the story: they often mask a deep polarization in which Republican and Democratic partisans experience nearly opposite perceptual realities regarding the same administration.

This partisan divide makes interpreting a single aggregated figure particularly tricky, since it conceals considerable gaps between different segments of the American electorate.

Why this polarization complicates any simple analysis

I believe this structural polarization should prompt observers to be wary of overly simplistic analyses that reduce American public opinion to a single overall approval number, however useful it may be as a general indicator.

It is this underlying complexity that makes the journalistic work of analyzing polls both necessary and perilous, requiring constant caution when dealing with data that is easily misread.

Conclusion: a signal to watch, not yet a definitive verdict

The takeaway from this slight rebound

In the end, this slight improvement in presidential approval, moving from -18.9 to -17.8 in one week according to the Silver Bulletin, remains a modest statistical signal that does not fundamentally change the overall picture of an administration struggling persistently in public opinion.

The weaknesses identified on issues like health care, education, abortion, and the environment continue to weigh heavily on the general perception of the current presidential management by a significant majority of Americans.

What I will keep watching

I will continue to closely follow the evolution of these numbers in the weeks ahead, particularly as major political events approach that could significantly influence public perception of this administration.

It is this constant vigilance, combined with rigorous methodological discipline, that will help distinguish genuine political turning points from mere passing statistical fluctuations in this ever-evolving story.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

My sources and my methodological limits

This report draws on data published by Nate Silver's Silver Bulletin, as well as an Economist/YouGov poll and data reported by the New York Times, all publicly accessible at the time of writing.

I do not have the complete raw data from each individual polling institute, and I therefore rely on the aggregated and reported figures as published by these recognized sources.

My acknowledged bias regarding these numbers

I hold a critical view of the Trump administration throughout my columns, a bias I openly acknowledge without it altering the accuracy of the statistical figures reported in this text.

I have made an effort to present this data with the same rigor, whether favorable or unfavorable to the administration, while avoiding any biased selection of the available figures.

Sources

Primary sources

Trump approval ratings — Silver Bulletin, July 2, 2026

New Trump poll: 60% say president not focused on top issues — USA Today, July 1, 2026

Secondary sources

Trump scores major victory before midterms — Resist the Mainstream, June 28, 2026

Trump polling approval rating — Newsmax, June 29, 2026

Tillis has 'positive predisposition' toward Blanche's confirmation — The Hill, June 28, 2026

Pam Bondi topic page — WSLS, June 28, 2026