Trump More Unpopular Than in 2018, Silver Bulletin Confirms

A number that unsettles the White House

In early July 2026, the polling aggregator Silver Bulletin, run by statistician Nate Silver, updated its national averages on Donald Trump's approval. The verdict leaves no room for spin: the American president shows a net approval balance of roughly -18 points, a level markedly lower than what he posted at the same stage of his first term. This is not a stray statistical blip — it rests on dozens of aggregated surveys built on a transparent methodology that Nate Silver designed precisely to avoid the bias of relying on any single pollster.

On July 3, 2026, the Silver Bulletin average put approval at 39.4% against 57.5% disapproval, a net balance of -17.8, a slight improvement from -18.9 a week earlier. But the marginal uptick changes nothing at the core: Trump remains stuck in a zone of chronic unpopularity that clashes with the legend of a president perpetually in step with his base.

Why this number matters politically

A negative balance of this magnitude, sustained over several months, carries concrete consequences. It weakens Trump's capacity to sway the midterm elections, complicates internal calculations in Congress, and feeds doubts among the most electorally exposed Republican lawmakers. Recent American political history shows that presidents carrying this kind of opinion deficit at this stage of a term typically pay the bill in the following midterms.

2018 versus 2026, a distorted mirror

The heart of the Silver Bulletin analysis rests on a direct comparison between Trump's rating at this stage of his second term and the one he carried at the same point during his first term, around mid-2018. Contrary to the narrative the White House keeps trying to build, the comparison does not favor the president. His net approval in 2026 is weaker than in 2018, a year nonetheless marked by the Democratic wave that let the party retake the House of Representatives with a gain of 41 seats.

This parallel is not trivial. If history repeats, the coming midterms could prove even more painful for the Republican camp than those of 2018. Data from uspollingdata.com for July 2026 confirm the trend, with an average of 39.4% approval against 57.5% disapproval, a gap of 18.1 points that has barely budged in weeks.

The collapse among independents

The most alarming signal for the White House comes from independent voters. Their support for Trump has fallen to just 34%, down from 48% at the time of his inauguration. This shift matters because political analysts consider that independent support below the 36% threshold has historically preceded major unfavorable electoral waves, including the one in 2018. A president who loses centrist voters loses his room to maneuver politically, no matter how loyal his hardest core remains.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans affected

Part of this unpopularity stems from concrete decisions made by the Trump administration on public health. According to an investigation by The Guardian published on July 1, 2026, nearly 500,000 New York State residents are losing their health insurance coverage because of budget cuts imposed by the federal administration. That figure, concentrated in a single state, hints at the probable national scale of the measure once applied across the entire country.

These cuts hit middle-class families and the most vulnerable households directly — the very people who sometimes voted for Trump hoping their economic situation would improve. Political disappointment translates into measurable frustration in the polls, and that frustration spares no demographic slice, including certain traditionally Republican segments.

A poll that confirms the general mood

A poll relayed by USA Today on July 1, 2026 drives the point home: 60% of Americans believe Trump is not focused on the issues that actually matter to them. That figure reflects a deep misalignment between the president's stated priorities and the everyday concerns of the population, whether it's the cost of living, access to health care, or job stability.

Falling domestic popularity, a different posture abroad

It would be dishonest to paint an entirely bleak picture. On defense and NATO issues, the Trump administration has recently taken steps that even its critics acknowledge as consistent with a firmer Western posture, notably ahead of the NATO summit in Ankara planned for early July 2026. This duality captures the complexity of the political figure well: strong on the international stage against strategic rivals, contested on the home front.

This split between the two files partly explains why the overall approval rating remains so hard to lift. Voters who appreciate Trump's firmness abroad toward Russia, China, or Iran do not necessarily forgive decisions that directly hit their wallets or their access to health care.

Pollsters don't all agree

Gaps between pollsters remain notable. The J.L. Partners poll puts the deficit at just -6 points, while RMG Research estimates it at -12 points. At the other extreme, several national polls place the balance between -17 and -30 points. This spread illustrates the methodological challenges inherent to measuring American public opinion today, marked by heightened polarization and growing distrust of the pollsters themselves.

Midterms in the crosshairs

With such a persistent negative balance, Republican strategists are already worrying about the fallout for the coming midterm elections. Recent history teaches that a president whose net approval exceeds -15 points at this stage of a term generally exposes his party to significant losses in Congress. The 2018 precedent, when Republicans lost the House majority, looms as a serious warning.

Some Republican lawmakers, particularly those in contested districts, are beginning to publicly distance themselves on certain sensitive domestic files, while continuing to back the administration's hard line on national security and Western defense against authoritarian regimes.

The media narrative's share of responsibility

The White House continues to dispute the reliability of these polls, calling them biased. But the methodological consistency of the Silver Bulletin, which aggregates rather than relying on a single pollster, makes that pushback less and less credible against a growing pile of convergent data from sources independent of one another.

Markets are judging the presidency too

Beyond classic political polling, several economic analysts note that investor confidence in the Trump administration remains volatile, particularly when tariff announcements or budget decisions catch markets off guard without clear warning. This perceived instability adds to the list of factors weighing on the president's overall image, even among voters who don't follow partisan politics closely.

The business leaders surveyed in several industry polls express cautious support, conditional on the predictability of trade policy. That caution contrasts with the enthusiasm some of Trump's allies in the business world display publicly, revealing a gap between the official rhetoric and the private sector's actual sentiment.

The generational gap in the polls

Detailed demographic data also show a marked generational divide. Voters under 35 post a disapproval rate well above the national average, a worrying signal for the long-term electoral survival of Trump's political movement beyond his own term. This generational shift could redraw the American electoral map well past 2026.

Dissenting voices grow louder

Several moderate Republican lawmakers are beginning to voice reservations publicly about certain domestic decisions by the administration, particularly on health program cuts. This still-muted fracture could widen as the midterms approach and Republican candidates seek to distance themselves from the most unpopular files without abandoning their loyalty to the international hard line.

This internal dynamic complicates the task for the White House, which must now manage a hostile national public opinion and an increasingly unified parliamentary coalition on domestic budget priorities.

The weight of legal controversies

The legal matters touching the administration's inner circle, notably at the Department of Justice, continue to feed distrust. Without slipping into speculation, it is established that these repeated controversies feed the perception of an executive branch tangled in conflicts of interest rather than focused on Americans' everyday economic priorities.

The wallet comes first

Despite strong moves on the military front, American voters continue to rank the cost of living and inflation among their absolute top priorities. Yet on this exact terrain, the Trump administration struggles to convince a majority of the population that its economic policy produces tangible, lasting results for average households. This mismatch between popular priorities and the White House's stated priorities explains a good part of the disapproval measured by the Silver Bulletin.

Prices for groceries, housing, and energy remain constant sources of frustration, regardless of diplomatic successes recorded abroad. This reality recalls an old political truth: voters often judge their president first on their own financial situation before considering his foreign policy.

Industrial regions remain skeptical

In the traditionally decisive Midwest states, regional polls show a gradual erosion of support, notably among manufacturing workers who had hoped for concrete gains from Trump's trade policies. This erosion, if confirmed through the midterms, could redraw the political balance in districts once considered locked in for the Republican camp.

A president strong abroad, fragile at home

The picture emerging from this data is that of a president capable of projecting real strength on the international stage, notably against Russia and within the framework of strengthening NATO, but unable to convince his own population on the most sensitive domestic issues, starting with health care. This dichotomy will likely continue to define the second half of his term.

What to watch in the coming months

The next Silver Bulletin updates will be decisive in judging whether this unpopularity is taking root or reflects a temporary dip tied to recent controversies over health care and internal tensions within the administration. One thing remains certain: the numbers don't lie.

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.