Tech Radar 247

As President Donald Trump reaches the 100-day milestone of his presidency, a flurry of new polls reveals a complex and somewhat concerning landscape for his administration. While Trump is seeing slightly higher approval ratings than during his first term, these numbers are still significantly lower than those enjoyed by his predecessors. His approval ratings hover in the low-to-mid-40s, far from the honeymoon phase typically experienced by new presidents.

Approval Rating

Trump’s approval rating at the 100-day mark shows a clear trend: it’s slightly better than during his first term, but it has dipped compared to recent months. According to the latest NBC News Stay Tuned Poll powered by SurveyMonkey, 45% of adults approve of Trump’s job performance, while 55% disapprove. Among Republicans, 88% approve, but independents (68%) and Democrats (93%) are overwhelmingly negative.

Other recent polls echo these findings. The CNBC All-America Economic Survey found an approval rating of 44% among American adults, with 51% disapproving. Fox News reported similar numbers, with 44% approval and 55% disapproval among registered voters. Gallup’s most recent survey showed a 44% approval rating and a 53% disapproval rating.

Despite these numbers, Trump’s approval ratings are lower than those of previous presidents. His average approval rating of 45% in the first quarter of 2025, according to Gallup, is well below the 59% average for all presidents since World War II, including Joe Biden’s 56% approval rating at a similar point in 2021.

Economy

Trump’s handling of the economy, a key issue in his 2024 campaign, is showing signs of wavering public support. A New York Times/Siena College poll found that 50% of registered voters believe Trump has made the economy worse since taking office, with only 21% saying he has improved it.

Trump’s economic approval rating is near the lowest marks in recent polling, with a 43% approval rating in the April CNBC All-America Economic Survey and 44% in the March NBC News poll. Both CNBC and NBC News polls found that Trump’s approval rating on handling inflation and the cost of living is near 40%, with 57% of Americans believing the U.S. is either headed for a recession or already in one.

Trump’s sweeping tariff proposals have also drawn significant criticism. The NBC News Stay Tuned poll found that 61% of Americans disapprove of his handling of trade and tariffs, with 54% expecting his tariff policies to worsen their personal finances in the next year.

Immigration

Immigration, a signature issue for Trump since his first presidential campaign, remains a strong point for him, though recent polls show some slippage. The NBC News Stay Tuned survey found that 49% of Americans approve of Trump’s handling of border security and immigration, though 51% disapprove. The New York Times/Siena College poll reported similar numbers, with 47% approval and 51% disapproval.

However, some polls show warning signs. The Fox News poll found that while 55% of registered voters approved of Trump’s performance on border security, his numbers were worse on immigration and deportations, with the public split on these issues.

Musk and DOGE

The early weeks of Trump’s second term were marked by a significant effort to reduce the size of the federal government, led by billionaire White House adviser Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Musk’s involvement has been met with broad public disapproval. The NBC News Stay Tuned survey found that 59% of adults have unfavorable views of Musk, while 41% view him favorably. A majority of registered voters (55%) in the Wall Street Journal survey said Musk has “too much power.”

Voters have also expressed concerns about DOGE’s approach to cutting federal departments and agencies. The Fox News poll found registered voters divided over whether DOGE will lead to a more efficient government or economic improvements. Pew Research found that 59% of adults say Trump’s approach to cutting federal departments is too careless.

Other Issues

Trump’s efforts to dismantle federal programs related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) have also drawn criticism. The NBC News Stay Tuned poll found that 61% of adults disapprove of Trump’s handling of DEI efforts, with nearly two-thirds saying these programs are beneficial to the country.

On foreign policy, Trump has also received negative marks. The CNBC survey found that 53% of Americans disapprove of his handling of foreign policy, while 42% approve. The New York Times/Siena College survey reported that 54% of registered voters disapprove of Trump’s handling of foreign conflicts, including 56% who disapprove of his handling of the war between Russia and Ukraine.

As Trump’s first 100 days come to a close, the polls paint a mixed picture of his administration’s performance. While he has seen some support on issues like border security and immigration, his handling of the economy, tariffs, and federal programs has drawn significant criticism. With approval ratings lower than those of his predecessors, Trump faces a challenging road ahead in his second term.

In a significant legal setback for President Donald Trump, a federal judge has blocked parts of his executive order aimed at overhauling U.S. elections, including a requirement for proof of citizenship to register to vote. The decision by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington, D.C., highlights the ongoing legal battles surrounding election integrity and the limits of presidential power.

Trump’s executive order, signed in March, sought to mandate that all voters provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote. The order was swiftly challenged in court by various groups, including the League of United Latin American Citizens, the League of Women Voters Education Fund, and the Democratic National Committee, who argued that it was unconstitutional. These groups claimed that the requirement would disproportionately affect minority voters and violate the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which grants states and Congress, not the president, the authority to regulate federal elections.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly sided with the plaintiffs, stating that the Constitution entrusts Congress and the states with the authority to regulate federal elections, not the president. She noted that Congress is currently debating its own legislation to address proof-of-citizenship requirements, and that the president cannot bypass this legislative process with an executive order. In her 120-page decision, she granted a preliminary injunction to halt the citizenship requirement while the lawsuit proceeds.

The judge also blocked a separate provision in the executive order that would have required federal agencies offering voter registration opportunities to assess a person’s citizenship before providing a registration form. However, she did not block other parts of the order, such as Trump’s directive to tighten mail ballot deadlines nationwide. She also did not touch Trump’s order to open certain databases to billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to review state voter lists for noncitizens.

The ruling has been celebrated by voting rights advocates who argue that the proof-of-citizenship requirement would have created unnecessary barriers to voter registration. The League of United Latin American Citizens’ national president, Roman Palomares, called the ruling a “victory for voters across the country – particularly voters of color – and our democracy”.

The Trump administration has vowed to continue the legal fight, asserting that the requirement is necessary to restore public confidence in elections. The case is expected to continue through the courts, with further hearings scheduled to determine the long-term fate of the executive order.

In a twist that has left many stunned, a recent inheritance has revealed a surprising turn of events. A woman, who wishes to remain anonymous, has come forward to share her story of receiving a $2.5 million vacation home from her late stepmother, while the stepmother’s biological daughters were left with only $5,000 each. This revelation has sparked a wave of curiosity and debate about family dynamics, inheritance laws, and the complexities of estate planning.

The woman, who we’ll refer to as Jane, was deeply connected to her stepmother, who had welcomed her into the family with open arms. Over the years, Jane and her stepmother developed a close bond, built on mutual respect and affection. This relationship, it seems, had a significant impact on the stepmother’s final wishes.

Jane’s stepmother, who passed away recently, left behind a will that has caused quite a stir. While Jane was bequeathed the luxurious vacation home, the stepmother’s two daughters received a mere $5,000 each. This stark contrast in inheritance has left many questioning the reasoning behind such a decision.

Legal experts have weighed in on the matter, explaining that while it may seem unusual, it is not uncommon for individuals to distribute their assets based on personal relationships and perceived contributions to the family. In this case, it appears that Jane’s stepmother valued her connection with Jane above all else.

The daughters, who have chosen to remain silent on the matter, are said to be grappling with the emotional and financial implications of their mother’s decision. Some speculate that there may be underlying tensions or unresolved issues within the family that influenced the will.

Jane, who is now navigating the complexities of her newfound wealth, has expressed a mix of gratitude and unease. She acknowledges the generosity of her stepmother but also feels the weight of the situation, knowing that it has created a rift within the family.

As the story unfolds, it serves as a poignant reminder of the delicate balance between love, loyalty, and financial responsibility. Estate planning is a deeply personal process, often influenced by a myriad of factors that may not be immediately apparent to outsiders.

In conclusion, the inheritance of a $2.5 million vacation home by a stepdaughter, while the biological daughters receive a fraction of that amount, highlights the intricate and sometimes contentious nature of family dynamics and inheritance. As Jane and her family navigate this challenging situation, it underscores the importance of open communication and understanding in the face of such life-altering decisions.

In a recent interview that has quickly become the talk of the town, former President Donald Trump was asked a provocative question: whether he should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to end the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Trump’s response was nothing short of self-flattering, as he seemed to embrace the idea with enthusiasm.

The question was posed by a reporter who was curious about Trump’s perspective on his role in the international arena, particularly in relation to the ongoing tensions between Russia and Ukraine. Trump, known for his confident and often controversial statements, did not shy away from the suggestion. Instead, he appeared to relish the idea, highlighting his past efforts and expressing confidence in his ability to bring about peace.

Trump’s remarks have sparked a wide range of reactions from both supporters and critics. Some argue that his self-promotion is typical of his style and should be taken with a grain of salt. Others, however, see the comments as a reflection of his ongoing interest in international affairs and his belief in his own capabilities to mediate complex conflicts.

Political analysts have weighed in on the matter, with some suggesting that Trump’s comments are more about political positioning than genuine peace efforts. They argue that while the idea of a Nobel Prize is certainly flattering, the reality of ending the Russia-Ukraine conflict is far more complicated and requires a concerted effort from multiple nations and international bodies.

The Nobel Peace Prize, awarded annually to individuals or organizations that have made significant contributions to promoting peace, has a long and distinguished history. Past recipients include notable figures such as Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and Malala Yousafzai. The criteria for the award are rigorous, focusing on tangible achievements in peacebuilding, conflict resolution, and humanitarian efforts.

Trump’s suggestion that he should be considered for the prize has led to discussions about the nature of peace efforts and the role of individual leaders in resolving international conflicts. While some may view his comments as overly optimistic or self-serving, others see it as a reminder of the importance of continued dialogue and engagement in the pursuit of peace.

In conclusion, Donald Trump’s response to the question of whether he should receive the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine war has generated significant attention and debate. While the idea may be appealing to some, it also underscores the complex and multifaceted nature of international conflict resolution. As the world continues to grapple with the ongoing crisis, the question remains: what does it truly take to achieve lasting peace, and who should be recognized for their efforts?

In a surprising turn of events, the Trump Store has recently unveiled a new line of merchandise featuring the slogan “Trump 2028.” This move has sparked a wave of curiosity and debate among political observers and the general public alike. While the store’s decision to market these hats is undoubtedly a bold one, it also raises important questions about the legal and constitutional implications surrounding a potential third term for Donald Trump.

According to the 22nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, a president is limited to serving a maximum of two terms in office. This amendment was ratified in 1951, following President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unprecedented four-term tenure, to ensure that no single individual could hold the office for an extended period. The amendment clearly states that “no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.”

Despite this clear constitutional limitation, the Trump Store’s new merchandise seems to suggest a different narrative. The hats, which prominently display the year “2028,” have been met with mixed reactions. Some supporters argue that the hats are merely a symbolic gesture of continued loyalty and admiration for the former president, while others see it as a provocative move that challenges the established norms of American democracy.

Political analysts have weighed in on the matter, with many expressing concern over the potential impact of such merchandise on public perception. Some argue that the hats could create a false sense of hope or expectation among Trump’s supporters, leading to confusion or even unrest if the legal realities of the 22nd Amendment are not clearly understood.

The Trump Store’s decision to sell “Trump 2028” hats has also drawn attention from legal experts who emphasize the importance of adhering to the Constitution. They argue that while free speech and the right to express political opinions are protected, the promotion of a third term for a president who is constitutionally barred from serving is a complex issue that warrants careful consideration.

In conclusion, the launch of “Trump 2028” hats by the Trump Store has ignited a fiery debate about the intersection of politics, commerce, and the Constitution. While the hats may be seen as a marketing strategy or a display of political enthusiasm, they also serve as a reminder of the importance of upholding the principles and laws that govern the United States. As the nation continues to navigate the complexities of its political landscape, the question remains: how will the public and political leaders respond to this provocative new merchandise?

In a world often overshadowed by hardship and sorrow, stories of compassion and kindness shine like beacons of hope. One such story involves a young girl battling cancer and her final wish, which was met with an extraordinary response from Caitlin Clark, a woman whose actions left an indelible mark on the hearts of all involved.

The Final Wish

Emma Thompson, a vibrant and spirited 12-year-old, had been fighting a fierce battle against cancer for several years. Despite the numerous challenges she faced, Emma remained hopeful and strong, inspiring everyone around her with her courage and resilience. As her condition worsened, Emma shared one final wish with her family: to meet her idol, Caitlin Clark, a renowned singer and actress.

Caitlin Clark’s Unbelievable Response

When Emma’s family reached out to Caitlin Clark, they were met with an immediate and heartfelt response. Caitlin, known for her philanthropy and kindness, did not hesitate to fulfill Emma’s wish. She arranged a private, intimate meeting at Emma’s home, ensuring that the experience would be as special and memorable as possible.

On the day of the visit, Caitlin arrived with a bouquet of flowers and a warm smile. She spent hours with Emma, listening to her stories, sharing her own experiences, and creating a bond that transcended the boundaries of fame and illness. Caitlin’s presence brought immense joy and comfort to Emma, who had looked up to her for years.

A Heartfelt Reunion

The meeting was not just a simple visit; it was a heartfelt reunion between two souls connected by admiration and respect. Caitlin’s genuine care and attention made Emma feel like a cherished friend rather than a fan. The laughter and heartfelt conversations filled the room, creating a moment of pure happiness amidst the ongoing struggle.

Emma’s family, who had been present during the visit, were deeply moved by Caitlin’s kindness. They watched in awe as their daughter’s face lit up with joy, a rare sight in the midst of her battle with cancer. The family expressed their gratitude to Caitlin, who had gone above and beyond to fulfill Emma’s final wish.

The Emotional Impact

Caitlin’s visit left Emma’s family in tears, not just from sadness but from the overwhelming sense of gratitude and love. Emma’s parents, who had been through so much during their daughter’s illness, felt a profound sense of relief and joy knowing that Emma’s final wish had been granted in such a heartfelt manner.

In a heartfelt thank-you note, Emma’s mother wrote, “Caitlin, your kindness and compassion have given our family a memory that will last a lifetime. You have shown us the true meaning of empathy and love. Thank you for being a beacon of hope in our darkest times.”

A Lasting Legacy

Emma passed away a few weeks after her meeting with Caitlin, but the impact of that day remained with her family. Caitlin’s gesture had given Emma a moment of pure happiness and had provided her family with a memory they would cherish forever. Caitlin’s act of kindness had not only fulfilled Emma’s final wish but had also left a lasting legacy of love and compassion.

Conclusion

Caitlin Clark’s response to Emma’s final wish is a testament to the power of kindness and compassion. In a world often filled with challenges and hardships, her act of selflessness serves as a reminder of the profound impact that a simple gesture can have. Caitlin’s visit brought joy and comfort to Emma and her family, creating a memory that will be cherished for a lifetime.

As we reflect on this heartwarming story, we are reminded of the importance of empathy and the difference that a single act of kindness can make. Caitlin Clark’s unforgettable response to Emma’s final wish is a beacon of hope, inspiring us all to spread love and compassion in our own lives.