Coincidence? Gallup Ends Presidential Approval Poll After 88 Years

Gallup will no longer track presidential approval rating after nearly nine decades of doing so, stating that the move “reflects an evolution in how Gallup focuses its public research and thought leadership,” according to The Hill.

“This change is part of a broader, ongoing effort to align all of Gallup’s public work with its mission,” a spokesperson for Gallup said. “We look forward to continuing to offer independent research that adheres to the highest standards of social science.... This is a strategic shift solely based on Gallup’s research goals and priorities.”

This decision comes as President Trump has recently experienced some of the lowest approval ratings for a president in decades. While Trump has made no public threat to Gallup, he has threatened other pollsters multiple times in the recent past. In December 2024, he sued the Des Moines Register, its parent company Gannett, and pollster Anne Seltzer for her poll findings that Kamala Harris would win Iowa (she didn’t). And in January, he verbally attacked The New York Times after a poll that found independent voters have turned against Trump.

The president’s current approval rating sits at a meager 38 percent.

Attorney General Pam Bondi stomped and raged her way through her hearing before the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday, but her refusal to answer one particularly heated line of questioning inspired Bondi to accuse a Jewish lawmaker of antisemitism in an apparent attempt to undermine the mounting pressure.

Representative Becca Balint pressed Bondi on the seemingly unquestioned tenure of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who was caught lying about his connections to Jeffrey Epstein in the Justice Department’s latest document dump. Lutnick had previously claimed he cut off contact with the child sex trafficker in 2005, but emails released by the DOJ revealed that Lutnick continued messaging Epstein for years afterward, including at least one instance in which he brought his wife and children to Epstein’s island.

Nonetheless, Lutnick has remained in his position.

“By 2008, we knew that Epstein was a convicted sexual abuser,” pressed Balint. “And we now know that Lutnick went to Epstein’s island in 2012.

“How was that not a deal breaker for the president, and why aren’t you asking questions of the commerce secretary about what he saw on the island, which he lied about not ever going to?” Balint asked.

But Bondi refused to answer, claiming that Lutnick had done an appropriate job addressing the lie himself.

Balint then inquired if the DOJ had questioned other Trump officials who were revealed to be connected to Epstein in the unredacted version of the files, including U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Stephen Feinberg. But Bondi was apparently stumped by the question.

“I’m stunned you want to continue talking about Epstein,” Bondi eventually sputtered.

“What is clear is we have evidence that three senior officials within the Trump administration have ties to Jeffrey Epstein and I can conclude from what you are saying that you have not talked to them,” Balint said as Bondi yelled over her.

“Americans would be shocked to learn that you are not interested in talking with these officials,” Balint continued, raising her voice as she listed officials across the world who have lost their jobs or titles after they were exposed to be affiliated with Epstein. “That would be a good start.”

But as the Vermont Democrat continued speaking, Bondi got louder.

“Please stop talking,” Balint spat at Bondi’s attempts to deflect.

“The American people have a right to know the answers to this. These are senior officials in the Trump administration. This is not a game, Secretary,” Balint shouted.

“I’m attorney general,” Bondi sneered.

“My apologies, I couldn’t tell,” Balint said.

Balint then implored Bondi to finally meet with the survivors, which the DOJ has not yet done. But as Balint’s time expired, Bondi asked for 20 seconds to respond.

“I was curious if you, Congresswoman, asked Bill Clinton that. Didn’t see one tweet … when Joe Biden was in office about Bill Clinton. Didn’t ask Merrick Garland, not one thing.

“I want the record to reflect that—you know, with this antisemitic culture right now, she voted against a resolution condemning antisemitism,” Bondi said, seemingly referring to Balint’s 2023 “no” vote on the Antisemitism Awareness Act—which actually could be used to censor political criticism of Israel on college campuses.

But Balint would know best about antisemitism—considering that her family was among the victims of the Holocaust.

“Woah woah, do you want to go there, attorney general? Do you want to go there?” Balint yelled. “Are you serious? Talking about antisemitism to a woman who lost her grandfather in the Holocaust? Really? Really?”

Balint then turned off her microphone and walked away from the bench.

Attorney General Pam Bondi got called out Wednesday for using a cheat sheet of personal attacks against Democratic lawmakers in order to dodge tough questions and—ironically—offered a pathetic comeback.

During a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Florida Representative Jared Moskowitz tore into the Department of Justice for repeatedly lying about Donald Trump’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

For example, FBI Director Kash Patel had previously claimed Trump’s name appeared in the Epstein file fewer than 100 times, Moskowitz said.

“We now know that’s not true. Trump’s name appears more times in the Epstein files than God’s name appears in the book about God,” Moskowitz said, holding up a Bible. “OK, by the way, this is the Trump Bible—move over, King James.

“Trump’s name also appears more times in the Epstein file than Harry Potter’s name appears in the seven books about Harry Potter,” he added.

Democratic lawmakers who reviewed the unredacted files this week have claimed that Trump’s name appeared “more than a million times.”

It seems that Moskowitz couldn’t be bothered to actually ask Bondi any substantive questions—and rightly so. The attorney general had repeatedly demonstrated she wasn’t interested in providing any answers. Instead, she continually referred to her own burn book on Democrats, firing back accusations that were unrelated to the hearing.

At the end of his speaking time, Moskowitz actually challenged Bondi to take her best shot at him.

“So, because I’m curious, and I’d like to see, flip to the ‘Jared Moskowitz’ section of the binder. I’m interested to see what staff provided on the ‘oppo’ on me,” Moskowitz said. “And because we’re in the Olympics, I’m gonna give it a grade.”

He held up a blank score card as another lawmaker laughed into the microphone.

“So, first of all, nothing is funny about mocking the Bible and holding up a Trump Bible—that’s what you did,” Bondi replied. “You made a joke, and I find offense to that, that’s all I have to say to you. Shame.”

“I want it from the burn book. Which is the best one? What you got?” Moskowitz pressed. The committee chairman quickly moved on.

Bondi gave a truly humiliating performance before the panel Wednesday, losing her cool at questions about Epstein and even seemingly lying under oath to defend Trump.

The FAA briefly closed the airspace over El Paso, Texas, after the military used a high-powered laser to shoot down what appeared to be a drone but was actually just a party balloon. 

CBS reports that the Pentagon wanted to use the technology to practice shooting down drones near Fort Bliss, which is next to El Paso International Airport. Despite meetings scheduled to discuss safety issues, DOD officials wanted to test the laser quickly, claiming that legal requirements over the protection of facilities from unmanned aircraft had been satisfied.

The anti-drone laser was launched earlier this week near America’s southern border to target what was thought to be foreign drones. Instead, a party balloon was shot down.

FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford then decided to close El Paso’s airspace Tuesday night without telling the White House, the DOD, or the Department of Homeland Security, according to unnamed sources. Bedford reportedly told officials that the airspace would be closed until the Pentagon resolved its issues with the FAA. 

Initially, the restriction on planes flying below 18,000 was set for 10 days, something that hasn’t been in place since the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Any aircraft that violated the restriction could have been shot down. 

Wednesday morning’s airspace closure caused a brief panic among government agencies, as even emergency medical evacuations were halted. When the discussion reached the White House, the FAA lifted the restriction within minutes. 

“The FAA and [Department of War] acted swiftly to address a cartel drone incursion. The threat has been neutralized, and there is no danger to commercial travel in the region. The restrictions have been lifted and normal flights are resuming,” Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy said in a statement. 

The DOD failed to communicate with the FAA in this instance, which has happened before during Trump’s second term. Just over a year ago, a military helicopter collided with a passenger plane near Ronald Reagan National Airport and killed 67 people. This time, a brief airspace closure and a downed party balloon seem to be the only repercussions (that we know about). Hopefully, this is an isolated incident and not evidence of a more serious issue.  

Donald Trump is considering blowing up the USMCA free trade agreement between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

Bloomberg reports that the president is asking staff why he shouldn’t withdraw from the agreement, which he signed during his first term as president, according to unnamed sources.

Interestingly, the U.S. trade representative, Jamieson Greer, told Fox Business on Tuesday that renewing the 2019 agreement was not in the country’s best interests, and that the Trump administration wanted to negotiate separately with Canada and Mexico.

“Generally speaking, these negotiations are going to proceed bilaterally and separately. The Mexicans are being quite pragmatic right now; we’ve had a lot of discussions with them. With the Canadians, it’s more challenging,” Greer said. 

Mexican Prime Minister Claudia Sheinbaum dismissed the idea of the U.S. withdrawing from the USMCA when asked about it during a press conference Wednesday.

“We don’t believe it, and it has never been said in the calls, because it is very important to them,” Sheinbaum said. 

Trump’s tariff uncertainty in 2025 has already made the USMCA shaky and undermined the deal in Mexico and Canada, and his antagonization of Canada by calling it the “fifty-first state” hasn’t helped either. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has embarked on an economic policy independent of the U.S., beginning talks with China, but he said Tuesday that he had a “positive” conversation with Trump that touched on the USMCA. He didn’t offer any details, though.  

Under the terms of the agreement, there has to be a mandatory review before it can be extended on July 1. Trump wants more concessions from Canada and Mexico for that to happen. If the U.S. decides to pull out of the deal, it would have to give six months’ notice. The decision would also put $2 trillion in goods and services in jeopardy.

American businesses wouldn’t take the news well, as much of the U.S. depends on trade with Canada and Mexico. But Trump has paid little attention to what actually hurts the economy, causing havoc in the markets with his whimsical tariffs and tanking job growth. It seems that he doesn’t care that messing up a deal he made seven years ago could have even worse consequences.