President Donald Trump's popularity among millennial voters has seen a remarkable shift in recent months, marking a significant change in the demographic's political leanings.
According to the Washington Examiner, a recent YouGov/Economist survey reveals Trump's favorability among voters aged 30-44 has increased by 10 percentage points from April to May 2025, reaching 48% approval.
The surge in millennial support represents the most substantial monthly increase across all demographic groups in the poll. This dramatic shift comes at a crucial time when millennials constitute the largest voting bloc in the electorate, potentially reshaping the political landscape for future elections.
President Trump's "America First" agenda initially faced resistance from younger voters during the early months of 2025. His administration's sweeping global tariffs, controversial deportation policies, and extensive restructuring of federal agencies through the Department of Government Efficiency created significant upheaval. These bold moves initially resulted in declining approval ratings, particularly concerning immigration and economic policies.
Recent diplomatic victories have helped turn the tide in Trump's favor. Successfully negotiating new trade agreements with China and the United Kingdom has resolved long-standing tariff disputes. These achievements have contributed to the president's growing appeal among younger voters who previously expressed skepticism about his economic policies. The administration's ability to deliver tangible results has seemingly validated Trump's aggressive negotiating stance on international trade.
Recent years have witnessed a dramatic decline in millennial backing for Democratic policies and candidates. This shift represents a stark contrast to the Obama era when young voters consistently provided strong support for Democratic initiatives.
Pollster Jeremy Zogby's February surveys highlighted this significant transformation in millennial voting patterns. His research revealed that the same demographic cohort that strongly supported former President Barack Obama through two terms has now largely shifted their allegiance to Trump. The demographic's evolving priorities and values appear increasingly aligned with Trump's policy approaches.
Trump's rising popularity extends beyond just millennial voters. The 2024 election demonstrated his growing appeal among traditionally Democratic-leaning demographics, including significant gains within the Black community and working-class voters.
This broad-based support suggests Trump's message resonates across various demographic boundaries. His ability to attract voters from different backgrounds indicates a possible realignment of traditional political affiliations. The president's success in building these diverse coalitions challenges conventional political wisdom about demographic voting patterns.
The YouGov/Economist survey, conducted between Friday and Monday, gathered responses from 1,786 adults with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percentage points. These findings provide crucial insights into evolving voter preferences as the country navigates significant policy changes.
The 10-point jump in millennial approval ratings stands out as particularly significant given the traditionally left-leaning tendencies of younger voters. This dramatic shift suggests a possible long-term transformation in American political alignments. These polling results may indicate broader changes in how different age groups respond to various policy initiatives and leadership styles.
President Trump's recent surge in popularity among millennial voters represents a significant shift in American political dynamics. The 10-point increase in approval ratings among voters aged 30-44 demonstrates growing support for his policy initiatives and leadership approach.
This transformation in millennial voting patterns, combined with Trump's success in attracting support from traditionally Democratic-leaning demographics, suggests a potentially lasting change in American political alignments. The president's ability to resolve international trade disputes and implement domestic policy changes appears to resonate strongly with younger voters who previously supported Democratic candidates.
In a dramatic court appearance, Bryan Kohberger's defense team has revealed the existence of an alternate suspect in the brutal murders of four University of Idaho students, marking a significant development in the high-profile case.
According to Daily Mail, the revelation came during a hearing at Ada County courthouse, where Judge Steven Hippler is making final decisions that will shape Kohberger's upcoming capital murder trial.
The identity of this new suspect and supporting evidence remain sealed under court order, with Judge Hippler setting a May 23 deadline for Kohberger's attorneys to present concrete evidence backing their allegations. This latest development aligns with the defense team's previous strategy, suggesting Kohberger was framed and that two killers were responsible for the murders.
Kohberger's legal team must now prove the admissibility of this alternate suspect theory before the June hearing, where both sides will argue their positions. The prosecution will have until June 6 to respond to these claims, setting the stage for a crucial legal battle that could significantly impact the trial's direction.
The 30-year-old criminology PhD student faces death by firing squad if convicted of murdering Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin. These four students were killed in a horrific knife attack on November 13, 2022, at their off-campus residence in Moscow, Idaho.
Recent evidence has emerged showing Kohberger made three phone calls to his father, Michael, just hours after the murders. The calls, beginning at 6:17 AM, lasted up to 54 minutes each, raising new questions about the timeline of events.
Investigators have uncovered unsettling details about Kohberger's online activity, including searches related to serial killer Ted Bundy and disturbing pornographic content. His digital footprint revealed multiple viewings of shows about Bundy, particularly in the days following the murders.
Judge Hippler addressed the court regarding these findings, saying, "I am not a fan of surprises, as you may have figured out by now."
The investigation also revealed that Kohberger possessed images of female students from Washington State University and the University of Idaho, many appearing to be connected to the victims through social media.
The upcoming trial, scheduled to begin with jury selection on July 30, will implement extensive security measures and specific protocols for witness protection. Judge Hippler has ordered special considerations for surviving roommates Bethany Funke and Dylan Mortensen, allowing them to shield their faces during testimony.
The trial is expected to last approximately three months, with jury selection incorporating detailed questionnaires about potential jurors' knowledge of the case and views on capital punishment. The judge plans to have eight alternates, bringing the total jury panel to 20 members.
Sources close to the investigation suggest that Madison Mogen may have been the primary target, based on the killer's movement pattern through the house. This theory adds another layer of complexity to an already intricate case.
Bryan Kohberger's fate hangs in the balance as his defense team presents their alternate suspect theory in the murders of four University of Idaho students. The revelation came during a crucial pre-trial hearing where Judge Hippler established strict deadlines for evidence submission and legal arguments. The case will proceed to trial on August 11, following jury selection, where prosecutors will seek the death penalty for the brutal murders that shocked the college town of Moscow, Idaho.
A cryptic Instagram post featuring seashells arranged in numbers has ignited a fierce controversy between two prominent political figures, drawing attention from the White House and the Secret Service.
According to Fox News, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard called for ex-FBI Director James Comey's imprisonment after he posted a photo showing seashells arranged to display "86 47" on Instagram, which some interpret as a potential threat against President Trump.
The now-deleted post, which Comey captioned "Cool shell formation on my beach walk...," has sparked intense scrutiny due to the numbers' possible coded meaning. In certain contexts, "86" is understood as slang for eliminating someone or something, while "47" appears to reference Trump's position as the 47th president of the United States.
The White House has taken a strong stance against Comey's social media activity. White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Cabinet Secretary Taylor Budowich expressed serious concerns about the timing and nature of the post, particularly noting that it occurred while President Trump was conducting diplomatic business in the Middle East.
Secret Service agents have launched an investigation into the incident, with plans to interview Comey about the intent behind his post. The agency's swift response underscores the seriousness with which threats against the president are treated, regardless of their form or origin.
Following widespread backlash, Comey removed the post and attempted to explain his actions. He claimed ignorance of the numbers' violent connotations, stating he had simply assumed they carried political significance.
Speaking on "Jesse Watters Primetime," Gabbard delivered a forceful rebuke of Comey's actions. The national intelligence director expressed grave concerns about the president's safety, citing previous assassination attempts.
Gabbard emphasized Comey's influential position as former FBI director, suggesting his actions carry particular weight given his background and connections. She stressed that his explanation of ignorance does not excuse what she views as a serious threat.
Director Gabbard stated:
The rule of law says people like him who issue direct threats against the POTUS, essentially issuing a call to assassinate him, must be held accountable under the law. I'm very concerned for the president's life; we've already seen assassination attempts. I'm very concerned for his life and James Comey, in my view, should be held accountable and put behind bars for this.
The Secret Service's involvement marks a significant escalation in what began as a social media controversy. Their decision to investigate and interview Comey demonstrates the serious nature of potential threats against the president, even when conveyed through seemingly innocent imagery.
Comey's history with Trump adds another layer of complexity to the situation. As FBI director during Trump's first term before being dismissed, their relationship has been marked by public tensions and mutual criticism.
The controversial Instagram post by former FBI Director James Comey featuring seashells arranged as "86 47" has triggered serious security concerns and drawn condemnation from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and White House officials.
Secret Service agents are actively investigating the incident while Gabbard calls for Comey's arrest, viewing the post as a potential threat to President Trump's life. The situation remains under scrutiny as authorities work to determine the true intent behind the cryptic beach photograph and its possible implications for presidential security.
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett sparked strong reactions this week after pressing the Trump administration’s representative over whether it consistently followed judicial rulings.
According to Newsweek, Barrett’s pointed questioning during a Supreme Court hearing on birthright citizenship drew a wave of criticism from MAGA supporters, highlighting ongoing tensions between the justice and former President Donald Trump’s base.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case debating whether lower courts had the authority to block an executive order initiated by former President Donald Trump to end birthright citizenship. The case could have significant implications for immigration law and the power of the federal judiciary. During the proceedings, Justice Barrett questioned the Trump administration’s position on circuit court precedents.
She focused her inquiry on Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who was representing the Trump administration. Barrett asked whether the administration was choosing not to follow existing judicial decisions, particularly from the Second Circuit in New York. Her questions probed whether this approach was unique to Trump’s administration or reflected a broader federal stance.
Sauer responded by stating that the Justice Department had a “general practice” of respecting circuit court rulings, though he conceded that this was not without exception. He explained that there are instances in which the government might seek to have a precedent overturned. When Barrett pressed further about whether this was federal policy or just Trump-era practice, Sauer clarified that the approach reflects long-established DOJ policy.
Barrett appeared skeptical throughout the exchange. Responding to Sauer’s insistence that it was standard federal policy, she asked pointedly, “Really?” Her repeated calls for specificity indicated disbelief and concern about the administration’s view of judicial authority. The interaction quickly became a flashpoint for political groups invested in the makeup and loyalties of the Supreme Court.
Barrett’s line of questioning was seen by some observers as challenging the executive branch’s respect for the judiciary. Born out of a broader debate on the separation of powers, her comments added to evolving discussions about the role of justices nominated during the Trump era and their judicial independence. Her conduct also reflected heightened sensitivity within the Court following recent tension about the limits of presidential authority.
Republican-appointed justices like Barrett have come under increased scrutiny as their decisions do not always align strictly with conservative expectations. Although Barrett maintains a largely conservative voting record, she has diverged from her right-leaning colleagues in specific cases. This includes a recent ruling in which she opposed deportations under a centuries-old statute, joining the Court’s liberal justices in dissent.
Following Thursday’s hearing, numerous conservative voices criticized Barrett’s questioning. Some accused her of undermining Trump and betraying the values of those who supported her confirmation. One user on the social media platform X commented, “Justice Barrett was a huge mistake,” suggesting her tone reflected “contempt” for the Trump administration.
The backlash underscored the deepening disconnect between Trump loyalists and the judges the former president appointed. MAGA-aligned influencer Cash Loren called Barrett “perhaps the worst SCOTUS pick ever by a Republican” and expressed disappointment that she seemed to challenge the administration that placed her on the Court. Others expressed regret, with The Undercurrent posting, “We had such high hopes.”
Political analysts weighed in to offer context for Barrett’s remarks. Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek that while Barrett was a Trump appointee, her questions reflected concern about constitutional principles. Specifically, Rahmani stated she appeared to defend the judiciary’s role as an equal branch of government by challenging the administration’s approach.
The case involving Trump’s attempt to revoke birthright citizenship has far-reaching legal implications and is being closely monitored. It raises not only constitutional questions about the Fourteenth Amendment but also deepens the discussion about executive reach and judicial oversight.
Justice Barrett’s remarks during the hearing may influence how the Court ultimately decides the current challenge. Her demand for transparent legal reasoning from the Solicitor General reflects a consistent judicial approach rooted in textual analysis and procedural fairness.
A contentious political saga unfolds as South Carolina Representative Nancy Mace speaks out following months of alleged death threats from a transgender activist.
According to Fox News, Samuel Theodore Cain, a 19-year-old who identifies as "Roxie Wolfe" online, was arrested and denied bond by a Greenville County judge who deemed the activist a "credible threat" to the Republican congresswoman.
The arrest marks a significant milestone as Cain becomes the first known transgender activist to face charges for threatening a member of Congress. Law enforcement officials took action after documenting months of violent messages directed at Mace and her family.
Representative Mace revealed that the threats began approximately six months ago when she introduced legislation aimed at protecting women's spaces. The messages, posted publicly on social media platforms, contained explicit descriptions of violence targeting both the congresswoman and her children.
Cain allegedly posted direct threats of assassination, with one message stating an explicit intent to kill Mace with a firearm. Following FBI intervention, the activist reportedly admitted to making the threats but attempted to downplay them as meaningless.
Investigation by journalist Andy Ngo uncovered a pattern of far-left political activism in Cain's social media history, alongside numerous posts focused on transgender issues and support for Democratic causes.
Mace delivered these powerful words during Friday's bond hearing:
Men who crossdress as women are mentally ill. They are violent toward women. And in a state that doesn't do nearly enough to protect women, now is the time to show women the state of South Carolina will follow its laws and will protect you.
The congresswoman expressed frustration over what she perceives as partisan double standards in responding to political violence. She emphasized that despite sharing evidence of threats through voicemails and text messages, no Democratic colleagues have publicly condemned the behavior.
Mace advocates for reform of Section 230, the law protecting tech platforms from liability for user-generated content. She argues that current regulations enable unchecked threats and misinformation by shielding platforms from legal consequences.
The Department of Justice explains that Section 230 provides immunity to online platforms regarding civil liability for third-party content and content removal under specific circumstances. This protection, Mace contends, creates an environment where dangerous threats can proliferate without accountability.
Law enforcement's involvement came after persistent demands from both Mace and Capitol Police. The congresswoman praised their eventual action while emphasizing the need for broader systemic changes.
When confronted with accusations of "punching down" by addressing her would-be attacker, Mace responded forcefully, highlighting what she sees as a pattern of Democratic indifference to women's safety concerns. She drew parallels between this situation and broader debates about women's spaces in sports facilities and locker rooms.
Mace maintains that protecting women requires concrete action rather than silence. Her response to critics demonstrates her commitment to addressing threats of violence regardless of potential political backlash.
The congresswoman's characteristic sharp wit emerged in her initial response to the arrest, as she remarked about hoping for makeup wipes in prison, highlighting the personal nature of this ongoing conflict.
Samuel Theodore Cain remains in custody following the judge's decision to deny bond. The ruling reflects the serious nature of the charges and the perceived ongoing threat to Representative Mace's safety. The case highlights growing concerns about political violence and the safety of public servants. Law enforcement's response demonstrates an increasing recognition of online threats as legitimate security concerns requiring decisive action.
President Donald Trump voiced frustration over the age of his official aircraft while returning from a diplomatic tour, stating that newer models are on the horizon, as he faced bipartisan backlash for considering a lavish private jet offered by Qatar.
During a high-profile trip across the Middle East, Trump promoted U.S. aerospace exports, lamented the aging presidential plane, and sparked controversy by weighing whether to accept a $400 million aircraft from a foreign government, the New York Post reported.
Trump concluded a three-nation tour of the Middle East by flying home aboard one of the current Air Force One Boeing jets, both of which have served the U.S. presidency for over four decades. Speaking at a business event in Abu Dhabi before his return, the 47th president expressed his dissatisfaction with the plane’s age and emphasized that newer replacements were expected in the coming years.
“I leave now and get onto a 42-year-old Boeing. But new ones are coming. New ones are coming,” Trump told attendees at the event, referencing aircraft that are not anticipated to be operational until at least 2027. Earlier in the week, he described himself as “disappointed” that the Air Force One upgrade would take several more years.
The president’s comments come amid rising concern in Washington over a separate aircraft issue—Trump’s openness to accepting an ultra-luxurious jet from Qatar’s government. The plane in question is estimated to be worth $400 million and has been described in some circles as a “palace on wings.”
Though the administration has not confirmed whether the gift will be accepted, Trump previously made waves by stating that “only a fool” would turn down such a high-end aircraft. The remark drew ire from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, who have raised ethical and diplomatic concerns about accepting valuable offers from foreign governments.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Republican Senator Rand Paul were among those who questioned the wisdom and legality of accepting such a substantial gift. Prominent conservative voices, including talk-show host Mark Levin and former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, added to the chorus of criticism.
Observers have noted that the jet controversy threatens to undercut Trump’s business-focused diplomatic efforts during the trip. Nonetheless, the president maintained a focus on American industry throughout his Middle East tour.
While in the region, Trump secured significant commercial victories for American manufacturers. Qatar Airways and UAE-based Etihad Airways announced orders for a combined total of 238 Boeing passenger jets. The deals’ combined value exceeds $110 billion, offering a notable win for U.S. aerospace exports.
At a business forum marking the final day of the trip, Trump praised Boeing’s work and acknowledged the challenges the company has faced in recent years. “Boeing makes the best plane, and they’ve had some headaches over the past years,” he remarked to a crowd of international business leaders.
During the same event in Qatar, Trump appeared alongside Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg and used the occasion to highlight his administration’s focus on defense manufacturing. He drew attention to the development of the F-47, a new fighter aircraft partially named to honor his place in presidential history.
In addition to the F-47, Trump expressed interest in awarding Boeing a contract to produce an as-yet undisclosed military aircraft, the F-55 fighter jet. While no specific details about the proposed contract were disclosed publicly, the intent signals a continued partnership between the administration and the aerospace giant.
The announcement came just days before Trump’s critical remarks about his current presidential aircraft reignited debate over the modernization timeline. The Air Force One replacements are slated to enter service in roughly two years after delays and cost concerns have slowed development.
Some analysts suggest the timing of Trump’s comments on the Air Force One jets could be perceived as attempting to justify acceptance of the Qatar plane. However, White House officials have downplayed any connection, stating that the two issues are being handled separately by appropriate legal and ethics teams.
The development of the next generation of Air Force One aircraft will continue under previously announced contracts, with Boeing maintaining its role as the primary contractor. The target delivery date remains 2027, though further updates are expected in the coming months. Until then, Trump will continue traveling aboard the retrofitted Boeing VC-25s that have served presidents since the early 1990s. Despite their age, the aircraft remain among the most secure and technologically advanced flying offices in the world.
Speculation grows among Saturday Night Live viewers as they spot potential signs of Colin Jost's exit from the long-running comedy show after two decades of service.
According to Daily Mail, fans believe Jost might announce his departure during the season 50 finale, which will be hosted by his wife, Scarlett Johansson, with musical guest Bad Bunny.
The upcoming episode marks Jost's 200th appearance on the show, where he has been a prominent figure since joining as a writer in 2005. Throughout his tenure, he climbed the ranks to become a writing supervisor and later co-head writer alongside Seth Meyers in 2012. Currently, he serves as the co-anchor of Weekend Update with Michael Che.
Social media platforms have been buzzing with viewers sharing their observations about potential clues regarding Jost's departure. Many point to his increased appearances in sketches beyond his usual Weekend Update segment as an indicator of his final run.
The return of former cast member Cecily Strong, who left the show in 2022 for a recent episode, has further fueled speculation. Strong's appearance alongside Jost in a sketch where they played Jeanine Pirro and Pete Hegseth, respectively, has been interpreted by fans as a farewell gesture.
Reddit users have also noted that the timing aligns with expected cast changes following SNL's milestone 50th season. The combination of these factors, along with Johansson hosting the finale, has led many to believe this could be Jost's last episode.
The possibility of Jost's departure has sparked emotional responses from longtime SNL fans. Some have expressed deep disappointment at the prospect of losing one of their favorite performers.
One notable interaction that gained attention involved a screenshot from Che's Instagram, showing Jost reaching out to him about auditioning for the show. This throwback moment added a layer of nostalgia to the ongoing speculation.
Several viewers have theorized about potential replacements, with some suggesting Michael Longfellow might take over Jost's spot on Weekend Update.
During his time on SNL, Jost has become known for his chemistry with co-anchor Michael Che, particularly during their annual Joke Swap segment. Their partnership has produced memorable moments, including jokes about Jost's marriage to Johansson.
The couple, who married in 2020, have often incorporated their relationship into SNL's comedy. One notable instance involved Che writing a controversial joke about Costco's roast beef that Jost had to deliver while his wife watched from backstage.
Their professional and personal dynamics have become a recurring theme on the show, with Johansson even commenting on Che's apparent "vendetta" against them during a Today show appearance.
Colin Jost's potential departure from Saturday Night Live after season 50 has generated significant discussion among viewers and fans. The writer-performer's journey from a behind-the-scenes contributor to a beloved on-screen presence spans nearly two decades at NBC's iconic comedy show. As speculation continues, audiences await the season finale to see if Jost will indeed bid farewell to Studio 8H with his wife, Scarlett Johansson, serving as host.
A House Republican from Missouri takes the lead in a bipartisan push to restrict stock market activities among members of Congress and their spouses.
According to Fox News, Rep. Mark Alford plans to introduce legislation mirroring Sen. Josh Hawley's "PELOSI Act" that would prohibit lawmakers and their spouses from trading individual stocks while serving in Congress.
The proposed legislation allows a 180-day grace period for current and newly elected lawmakers to comply with the restrictions. While individual stock trading would be banned, the bill permits investments in diversified mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, and U.S. Treasury bonds.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has endorsed the trading ban initiative, emphasizing the need to restore public trust in Congress. The Republican leader acknowledged that "a few bad actors" have damaged Americans' confidence in their elected officials regarding stock trading activities.
President Donald Trump has also thrown his support behind the proposed legislation. During a recent interview with Time magazine, Trump expressed his willingness to sign such a ban if it reaches his desk, specifically referencing Nancy Pelosi's trading activities.
Democratic leadership has joined the chorus of supporters, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries backing the proposal last week. This cross-party consensus signals growing momentum for reform in congressional trading practices.
Under Alford's bill, lawmakers who violate the trading restrictions would face significant penalties. Any profits from prohibited transactions must be surrendered to the U.S. Treasury Department.
The House and Senate ethics committees would have the authority to impose additional fines on violators. These penalties could amount to 10% of each wrongful transaction's value.
Rep. Alford explained the rationale behind the strict measures in a statement:
As public servants, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard and avoid the mere appearance of corruption. Unfortunately, too many members of Congress are engaging in suspicious stock trades based on non-public information to enrich themselves. These gross violations of the public trust make clear: we must finally take action to ban members and their spouses from owning or selling individual stocks.
The legislation maintains several investment avenues for lawmakers to manage their portfolios while serving in Congress. These options are designed to minimize potential conflicts of interest.
Representatives can still invest in diversified financial instruments that reduce the risk of insider trading. The allowed investments include mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, and government securities.
This approach aims to balance the need for ethical governance with lawmakers' ability to participate in financial markets through broader, less controversial investment vehicles.
Rep. Mark Alford's House bill represents a significant step toward implementing comprehensive stock trading restrictions for members of Congress. The Missouri Republican's legislation builds upon Senator Hawley's Senate version while garnering support from major political parties. The proposed reforms would fundamentally change how elected officials manage their investments during their tenure in Congress. With backing from House leadership, the president, and opposition party figures, the bill stands as a notable attempt to address public concerns about potential conflicts of interest in congressional stock trading.