When You Cherry-Pick Facts and Poll Numbers…
What 48 Polls Reveal That One Headline Doesn’t
It is being reported by Newsweek that Donald Trump is experiencing a popularity surge based on the results of a single poll (Quantas Insights). Making hay from those results may put you on less solid footing than you think.
Based on a total of 48 polls from 19 sources covering the period from the President’s inauguration through May 18, 2025, the numbers do not tell quite the same story. The following is based on aggregated averages rather than individual polling results.
First, set the stage with this fact: on average, Trump’s overall approval rating dipped 4.9 points between January 20 and May 2025, while his disapproval rating rose 5.2 points over the same time span.
At or shortly after Inauguration Day, his popularity stood at 48%. Aggregated data from then until March 20 (27 polls) showed a dip in approval to 46.1%. From March to today, the aggregate is now 43.2% (numbers vary slightly, as they are calculated over a shorter time period with fewer data points informing the average).
Bottom line: Trump’s average approval rating sits around 44.6%, with disapproval at 52.2%, based on the full set of 48 polls.
What else does the aggregated data show?
- No surge. The data indicates a slight to flat decline, with no significant upward momentum.
- Any increases are largely attributed to consolidation among his base supporters. Yet some reporting recently points that support from rural and latino voters may be eroding.
- Disapproval remains high at 52.2%, reinforcing the deeply polarizing effect of his executive orders and policies.
- Net approval remains negative in nearly all polls.
Breakdown by voting bloc:
- Republican base: Increasing enthusiasm
- Independents: Some decline or no change
- Democrats: Basically unchanged
- Young voters: In steep decline
- Nonwhite voters: Mixed, but no surge
Conclusion: The Bigger Picture Behind the Polling
Since taking office in January 2025, Donald Trump’s popularity has declined by approximately 5 percentage points, with his net approval dropping by more than 10 points. While his core support remains intact, he has clearly lost ground among swing voters—making this a significant and sustained decline, not just statistical noise.
This analysis illustrates the difference between making informed judgments based on data from 93,000 total poll respondents versus reacting to the results of a single poll with just 1,000 participants. In statistical terms, averages drawn from larger, consistent sampling pools are far more reliable indicators of real-world trends.
It’s also worth highlighting the disparate nature of media coverage, even from within the same outlet. While Newsweek published an article touting a Trump “surge,” it has also released several other headlines during the same period that reflect a much more nuanced—or even contradictory—picture of his public standing:
- Donald Trump's Approval Rating Goes Negative With Republican Pollster
- Donald Trump's Approval Rating Increasing with Democrats: Poll
- Donald Trump's Approval Rating Showing Mixed Signals
- Donald Trump's Approval Rating Underwater on Nearly All Key Issues
- Donald Trump's Approval Rating Surges in State GOP Has Not Won in 37 Years
- Trump's Approval Rating Soars Among Hispanics
These headlines, taken together with the data analysis, underscore the importance of avoiding selective interpretation of data or cherry-picked media narratives. A “surge” in one demographic or geographic area may not reflect a national trend. There is always a margin of error and outliers that can skew results occur in polling all of the time
Lastly, while this article focuses on Donald Trump’s approval ratings, it would be disingenuous not to acknowledge that Democrats face their own challenges—including consistently low approval ratings and poor messaging strategies that continue to hinder their ability to energize their base and appeal broadly to undecided voters. The data reflects not a one-sided collapse, but a deep and continuing polarization across the broader electorate.
Poll Sources Referenced
Polling data used in this analysis comes from 48 surveys conducted between January 20 and May 18, 2025, by the following organizations. The aggregated data was sourced from CNN (See below).
Included polls isolated to Donald Trump's approval Rating: ABC News/AP-NORC, CBS News/YouGov, CNN, CNBC, Fox News, Gallup, Marquette Law School, NBC, NBC News/SurveyMonkey, NPR/PBS News/Marist College, NYT/Siena College, Pew Research Center, Quinnipiac University, Reuters/Ipsos, Strength In Numbers/Verasight, UMass Amherst/YouGov, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post/Ipsos.
Source: CNN Poll Tracker – Trump Approval
Data aggregation conducted through AI sources.
About the Creator
Lanny Newville
Retired public sector professional with 30+ years in law enforcement and community corrections. Keenly interested contributor in areas of governance, public policy, and the intersection of technology and justice. Seeks truth. Exposes lies.
Keep reading
More stories from Lanny Newville and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Comparative Analysis: Which Party Caused Greater Harm?
✍️I have been working on this for some time because I keep hearing from Trump supporters how the Democrats have destroyed/ruined the country. In my recollection, all 6+ decades of it, I have not come up with anything to support the assertion, so I spent a few days chatting with three readily available AI engines, ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot. I was unsure how to define ruined, so I tossed in factors related to loss of life and economic impact.
By Lanny Newville8 months ago in The Swamp
$6 Billion U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier ‘Sunk’ by $100 Million Diesel AIP Sub: A Lesson in Modern Naval Warfare
In a stunning reminder of how modern technology can upend traditional military assumptions, reports have emerged that a $100 million diesel-electric air-independent propulsion (AIP) submarine effectively neutralized a $6 billion U.S. Navy aircraft carrier in a recent simulated naval exercise. While no lives were lost and the carrier remained physically intact, the exercise served as a stark wake-up call for naval strategists and defense planners worldwide. The Exercise That Shocked the Navy The event occurred during a routine war-gaming exercise designed to test the vulnerabilities of aircraft carriers and their battle groups. These carriers, often described as floating cities and the backbone of American power projection, were assumed to be nearly invincible thanks to advanced radar, escort ships, and multi-layered defense systems. However, the diesel-electric AIP submarine, smaller, quieter, and far cheaper than its nuclear-powered counterparts, demonstrated that stealth and strategic maneuvering could overcome sheer size and firepower. Using its near-silent propulsion system, the sub reportedly penetrated the carrier group’s outer defenses and “struck” the vessel in a simulated attack scenario. The exercise’s outcome has been described as both “surprising” and “unsettling” by military analysts. Why the Cost Difference Matters One of the most striking aspects of this scenario is the enormous discrepancy in cost. A U.S. aircraft carrier can cost upward of $6 billion, with each accompanying ship in the carrier strike group adding billions more. In contrast, modern diesel-electric AIP submarines can be built for a fraction of that—around $100 million in this instance—yet they can threaten the most expensive naval assets in the world. This disparity has fueled debates within defense circles about cost-effectiveness and vulnerability. It highlights a broader lesson in military strategy: expensive and powerful assets are not automatically invulnerable, and smaller, well-deployed systems can deliver disproportionate impact if used strategically. The Rise of Diesel AIP Submarines Diesel-electric submarines equipped with air-independent propulsion have become increasingly attractive to nations seeking potent yet affordable deterrents. Unlike traditional diesel submarines, AIP-equipped vessels can operate underwater for extended periods without surfacing, making them harder to detect. Their quiet operation allows them to move undetected in littoral and coastal waters, where large carriers often operate. For many nations, these submarines represent a low-cost way to challenge superior naval forces, create area-denial capabilities, and protect strategic waters. The recent exercise illustrates that even the most advanced naval superpowers must consider these asymmetric threats in their planning. Lessons for Naval Strategy The simulated “sinking” of a $6 billion aircraft carrier carries broader implications for naval strategy. It underscores the importance of adapting to technological advancements and reevaluating assumptions about force protection. While aircraft carriers remain central to U.S. naval doctrine, exercises like this highlight the need for layered defenses, rapid anti-submarine warfare (ASW) tactics, and improved detection systems. Additionally, the exercise demonstrates that smaller navies with modern AIP submarines can challenge even the most formidable fleets. This shift may alter how naval powers approach fleet composition, deployment strategies, and international maritime deterrence. Global Reactions Analysts around the world have taken notice. Defense experts in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East have emphasized that this scenario is not hypothetical but a reflection of current capabilities. Countries investing in quiet, low-cost submarines may see them as key assets in modern naval conflicts. Meanwhile, traditional naval powers face the challenge of ensuring that their high-value platforms remain relevant and secure in an era of asymmetric warfare. Some observers suggest that the exercise’s outcome should serve as a catalyst for innovation. Future carriers may need enhanced anti-submarine systems, smarter escort strategies, and integration with unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) to counter the growing threat of diesel-electric AIP subs. Conclusion The dramatic juxtaposition—a $6 billion aircraft carrier neutralized by a $100 million diesel-electric AIP submarine—serves as a powerful lesson in modern military strategy. It reminds us that technological advancements can shift power balances, rendering previously “invincible” platforms vulnerable. While the U.S. Navy continues to dominate the seas in terms of global reach, the exercise underscores the fact that even the most expensive and powerful assets are not immune to innovation-driven threats. Small, stealthy, and strategically employed platforms can deliver outsized effects, compelling military planners to rethink traditional assumptions about cost, size, and survivability. In the evolving world of naval warfare, the balance of power is no longer dictated solely by money or firepower. Intelligence, stealth, and strategic deployment are now equally, if not more, decisive. The recent exercise serves as a stark reminder that no matter how advanced or costly a platform may be, it is only as strong as the strategies and systems protecting it.
By Fiazahmedbrohi 7 days ago in The Swamp
FPS: The Last Flame Challenge Winners
Welcome to our first Winners Announcement of the year and to the final challenge in the Fall Poetry Series. The Last Flame invited writers to sit with endings, using fire as a central image to consider what remains when something burns out: ash, warmth, memory, silence, or the faint promise of what comes next. The strongest pieces treated endings as gradual rather than sudden, allowing them to flicker, dim, and linger.
By Vocal Curation Team6 days ago in Resources
Comments (1)
The poll numbers seem to show Trump's popularity isn't really surging. His overall approval rating has dipped and disapproval risen. It's interesting that his base is more enthusiastic, but other blocs like independents and young voters are showing changes. Do you think these trends will continue, or could something happen to shift the numbers? It's also notable that rural and Latino support might be weakening. With disapproval so high, it makes you wonder how his policies are really playing out. What do you think is driving the differences in approval among different voting blocs?