Trump at 39% approval, one year after the Big Beautiful Bill

A claim circulating widely

The claim has been circulating widely since early July 2026: Donald Trump's approval rating has reportedly fallen to around 39%, almost exactly one year after he signed his flagship budget law, the Big Beautiful Bill. As a columnist who regularly documents this administration's domestic missteps, I must check this claim with the same rigor I would demand of any other source.

This fact-check aims to establish precisely what the available polling averages show as of July 1, 2026, without exaggeration or understatement, by cross-referencing several aggregators recognized for their rigorous methodology.

Why this figure deserves scrutiny

Polling averages are often cited loosely in public debate, with figures sometimes pulled out of their methodological context. I will therefore examine the available primary sources, notably those from the New York Times and the Silver Bulletin aggregator run by statistician Nate Silver, known for the reliability of his electoral models.

This verification is all the more necessary because the subject touches directly on the democratic evaluation of a presidency whose domestic missteps I regularly criticize, while also acknowledging certain successes on the military and diplomatic front.

What the polling aggregators show

Verdict: TRUE, with a methodological nuance. According to the New York Times average as of July 1, 2026, Donald Trump's approval stands at 39%, against 58% disapproval. Nate Silver's Silver Bulletin, on the same date, puts forward an almost identical figure: 39.4% approval against 57.5% disapproval.

This convergence between two aggregators using different methodologies strengthens the reliability of the 39% figure. This is not an isolated poll but a weighted average incorporating multiple opinion surveys conducted by different pollsters over the preceding weeks.

A negative trend for more than a year

The data show that Trump's approval has been in net negative territory for more than a year, with a trend that has further deteriorated in recent months. This downward trajectory contradicts occasional claims from the president's inner circle that his popularity remains stable or improving.

The verdict on this first point is therefore unambiguous: the 39% approval figure is confirmed by at least two independent, methodologically rigorous sources.

The USA Today-Economist/YouGov poll broken down

Verdict: TRUE. An Economist/YouGov poll, published on June 30, 2026, and conducted from June 26 to 29 among 1,606 American adults with a margin of error of ±3.2 points, found that 60% of respondents believe Donald Trump is not focused on the country's top priorities. This figure was widely reported by USA Today in its July 1, 2026 edition.

This share of six in ten Americans who see their president as disconnected from national priorities is a political signal hard to ignore, particularly since it comes from a polling institute recognized for the rigor of its sampling methodology.

A perception that crosses partisan lines

The same poll shows that 28% of respondents believe the country is on the right track, against 61% who believe the United States is headed in the wrong direction. This overwhelming share of pessimism extends well beyond Trump's traditional opponents, suggesting an erosion of trust that also touches part of his own electoral base.

The verdict is therefore confirmed: this 60% statistic comes from a verifiable and methodologically sound source, with no exaggeration on my part.

Sector-level numbers that confirm the trend

Verdict: TRUE. Still according to the same Economist/YouGov poll relayed by USA Today, more than half of respondents disapprove of Trump's handling of health care, education, abortion and the environment. These sector-level figures corroborate the general trend observed in the overall approval averages.

This sector-level disapproval is particularly significant on the health care front, a topic that has fueled several of my own criticisms concerning the budget cuts tied to the Big Beautiful Bill, the budget law the president signed a year earlier.

The context of the Big Beautiful Bill's first anniversary

The decline in popularity does indeed coincide with the first anniversary of this budget law, regularly criticized for its cuts to social and health programs. This temporal coincidence, while not proving a direct causal link on its own, fits within a narrative consistent with the available polling data.

The verdict is therefore confirmed on this point as well: the sector-level disapproval figures are real and documented by a recognized polling source.

A causal claim that needs serious qualification

Verdict: PARTIALLY TRUE, with a significant methodological caveat. While there is a striking temporal coincidence between the Big Beautiful Bill's first anniversary and this approval decline, none of the sources consulted, neither USA Today nor the Silver Bulletin, establishes a direct and exclusive statistical causal link between this budget law and Trump's eroding popularity.

Other factors likely contribute to this decline, notably the controversies surrounding the Epstein matter, tensions within the Department of Justice, and persistent divisions in the Senate over several of the administration's priority legislative texts.

A web of causes rather than a single one

Political analysts cited in the American press instead point to a web of converging causes: public fatigue after months of judicial controversies, disappointment over unmet promises to lower the cost of living, and persistent concerns about health care access for lower-income households.

A nuanced verdict is therefore warranted here: the Big Beautiful Bill is probably one factor among several, but attributing it as the single, exclusive cause of the observed decline would be an oversimplification the data do not support with certainty.

The Epstein context and tensions at the DOJ

Verdict: LIKELY, but not precisely quantifiable. Several news reports, including CNBC's piece dated July 2, 2026, on tensions between former special counsel Jack Smith and the DOJ, along with Democracy Docket's revelations about retaliatory actions against law firms, paint a picture of persistent judicial controversy surrounding the Trump administration.

This climate of judicial controversy, including the Epstein matter and its ongoing developments, likely adds to the list of factors eroding public trust, though no source allows for a precise quantification of exactly how much of that erosion is attributable specifically to these judicial controversies rather than to economic and social concerns.

Necessary methodological caution

As a rigorous columnist, I must acknowledge the limits of what current data can support. Establishing a precise causal link between each specific judicial controversy and the evolution of the approval rating goes beyond the scope of a simple analysis of aggregated polls, however rigorous they may be.

This methodological caution takes nothing away from the seriousness of the documented controversies, but it prevents me from asserting with certainty a precise cause-and-effect link that the available data cannot scientifically demonstrate.

Methodological limits to respect

It would nonetheless be excessive to claim that this decline in popularity is irreversible or that it predicts a precise electoral outcome for upcoming contests. Opinion polls, even aggregated with rigor, capture a snapshot at a given moment and can shift quickly depending on the news cycle, notably on the military and diplomatic fronts where Trump retains firmer support.

I must restate this essential methodological nuance: a 39% approval rating does not mean total unpopularity, and it should not be interpreted as a mechanical indicator of future electoral defeat.

A necessary nuance on the military front

This fact-check focuses specifically on the domestic issues where Trump's approval is declining. On the military front and his stance toward Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, other data suggest more mixed but distinctly different support from the collapse observed on domestic policy issues like health care or education.

This distinction between the two arenas, domestic and international, remains essential to avoid any excessive generalization from the figures presented in this text alone.

A set of claims broadly confirmed

At the end of this verification, the full set of figures put forward regarding Trump's approval at 39%, the 60% share who see the president as disconnected from national priorities, and majority disapproval on several sector-level issues, holds up under rigorous examination of the available primary sources. These figures come from polls and aggregators recognized for their methodological reliability.

This fact-check therefore confirms the general validity of the original claim, while adding the methodological nuances necessary to avoid any excessive interpretation of these figures.

An invitation to continued vigilance

I invite you, as always, to verify these figures yourselves against the primary sources cited, rather than relying solely on my own summary. Methodological transparency remains the best safeguard against disinformation, whether it comes from supporters or opponents of the current administration.

This citizen vigilance, applied systematically to political figures circulating in public debate, is in my view one of the most effective defenses against manipulation of public opinion, regardless of which political camp would benefit from it.

What to take away from this verification

This fact-check confirms that Donald Trump's approval indeed sits around 39% in early July 2026, a figure corroborated by at least two independent aggregators recognized for their methodological rigor. The 60% share of Americans who see the president as disconnected from national priorities is also confirmed by an Economist/YouGov poll conducted under a transparent methodology.

Taken together, these figures paint the portrait of a presidency under strain on the domestic front, one year after signing a controversial budget law whose effects visibly continue to weigh on American public opinion.

A two-speed presidency

This fact-check also confirms the need to distinguish the judgment on Trump's domestic policy, widely criticized, from that on his international posture, where assessments remain more nuanced. This duality, backed by figures, will likely continue to shape American public debate in the months ahead of upcoming electoral contests.

I will continue checking these figures in the coming months, with the same methodological rigor applied in this text, convinced that only this standard can sustain an honest public debate about the current presidency.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. I claim analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under Sources, never here.

Primary source families used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

Secondary source families: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under Sources.

Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a critical, contextual synthesis based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.