ICE Tactics Erode Trump's Base, Undermining Economy and Foreign Policy

The stark reality revealed by the latest NPR/PBS News/Marist poll is not just that a majority of Americans believe Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has "gone too far," but that this sentiment, particularly among crucial independent voters, signals a significant unraveling of President Trump's core electoral coalition. The non-obvious implication is that the administration's strategy of focusing on immigration enforcement as a bedrock issue is backfiring, creating a cascade of negative perceptions that extend to the economy and foreign policy. This analysis is essential for anyone seeking to understand the shifting sands of public opinion and the potential vulnerabilities within a seemingly solid base of support. It offers an advantage by highlighting where conventional political wisdom about Trump's appeal is failing to account for the downstream consequences of specific policy actions.

The Unraveling of the "Diamond Slice": How ICE Tactics Are Eroding Trump's Base

The conversation around the new NPR/PBS News/Marist poll reveals a critical disconnect between the Trump administration's perceived strengths and the public's lived reality, particularly concerning ICE tactics. While the administration has leaned heavily on immigration enforcement as a key pillar of its appeal, the poll indicates that these very tactics are alienating a significant portion of the electorate, including a substantial number of independent voters. This isn't just about a few bad headlines; it represents a systemic shift where an aggressive enforcement strategy, intended to solidify support, is instead creating a ripple effect of negative sentiment across multiple policy areas.

Initially, the focus on immigration enforcement was seen as a reliable strength for President Trump, described by Domenico Montanaro as a "diamond slice" of the electoral pie -- robust and unlikely to chip. However, the poll shows a significant movement, with 65% of Americans now believing ICE has "gone too far," an 11-point increase since the previous summer. This surge is largely driven by independents and Democrats, with 71% of independents expressing this view. Ashley Lopez observes that while independent voters generally approve of border security, the specific actions and visible consequences of ICE operations, such as the deaths of two American citizens, have shifted their perception. This suggests that the method of enforcement, not just the goal of enforcement, is becoming a significant political liability.

The administration’s frustration with this narrative shift is palpable. The conversation implies that Trump himself is irritated that the focus has moved from border security to ICE tactics, a point Montanaro notes is "of their own making" due to the visibility of these events. This creates a feedback loop: aggressive tactics lead to negative public perception, which in turn distracts from the administration's preferred messaging on border control.

"The 65% in this poll who say that ICE has gone too far is up 11 points since last summer. So a big reason has been everything that we've seen on TV, you know, the two American citizens who have been killed just in the past few weeks over this."

-- Domenico Montanaro

This dynamic is particularly damaging when considering the Latino vote, a group with which Trump had previously made inroads. The poll indicates a significant souring of sentiment, with 70% of Latino voters disagreeing with ICE's enforcement activities. Lopez highlights a compounding issue: the loss of Temporary Protected Status for many immigrants, which has frustrated Latino voters who feel they have followed the rules. This creates a perception that enforcement is not solely targeting "criminals" but is impacting communities more broadly, a sentiment echoed by some Latino Republicans who have stated Trump should "be going after the gangsters, not the gardeners." This indicates a failure to differentiate enforcement actions, leading to a broader alienation of a key demographic.

The polarization around ICE tactics is stark. While 77% of Republicans believe ICE is making Americans safer, a significant majority of Democrats and independents disagree. This isn't merely a partisan divide; it's a sign that the administration's core strategy is failing to resonate beyond its most committed supporters. Montanaro posits that this adherence isn't driven by economic anxiety or specific policy debates but by a cultural and tribal identity for Republicans. He notes that for these voters, defending Trump means defending themselves and their vote, making it incredibly difficult to break away, even when presented with evidence of negative consequences. This tribalism, coupled with the administration's messaging, creates an echo chamber where the negative impacts of ICE tactics are dismissed or ignored by the base.

The Economy: A Distraction or a Genuine Liability?

While ICE tactics are a major point of contention, the poll consistently points to the economy, specifically lowering prices, as the top priority for a majority of Americans. This presents another significant challenge for the Trump administration. Despite the administration's focus on immigration and foreign policy, 54% of respondents believe lowering prices should be the top priority, with controlling immigration a distant second at 22%. This disparity is even more pronounced among Democrats and independents, who overwhelmingly favor focusing on prices.

The disconnect is further exacerbated by the perception that the administration is distracted. Independent and swing voters, many of whom voted for Trump based on economic promises, are not seeing their material reality change. Ashley Lopez notes that voters feel the "chaos" generated by foreign policy issues and other crises is making them anxious about the economy, creating a sense that political upheaval could lead to economic instability. This suggests that the administration's high-profile, often tumultuous, foreign policy actions are not only failing to impress but are actively undermining confidence in its economic stewardship.

Furthermore, the administration's primary economic lever--tariffs--is deeply unpopular. A significant majority (56%) believe tariffs hurt the economy, and 59% disapprove of Trump's job performance on the economy overall. This is a stark reversal from his first term, where the economy and immigration were seen as advantages. The administration appears to be caught in a bind: its preferred economic policies are unpopular, and the perceived chaos surrounding its other initiatives is creating economic anxiety, even as voters prioritize affordability.

"The chaos has also been kind of the Teflon for the president, which is so much going on means a lot of stuff doesn't stick to him. But it is a problem when you're trying to message and message things like the economy when people are being shot in an American city. It is harder to talk about kitchen table issues."

-- Ashley Lopez

The administration's response, including a commitment to weekly economic addresses and presidential travel, has been criticized for lacking focus. Montanaro observes that even when addressing the economy, Trump tends to deviate from teleprompters, leading to a diffusion of the message and a failure to connect with voters on their most pressing concerns. This lack of sustained, focused messaging on the economy, combined with the negative spillover from other policy areas, creates a significant liability that the administration struggles to overcome.

Foreign Policy: A Liability in Disguise

The poll also reveals significant disapproval of President Trump's foreign policy performance, with 56% of respondents disapproving. This is particularly concerning given the administration's high engagement in international affairs, from discussions about Greenland and Venezuela to pronouncements regarding Iran. The perception among some independent voters who supported Trump in 2024 was that he would pursue a less interventionist foreign policy than the alternatives. However, the current trajectory suggests the opposite is occurring, leading to a sense of whiplash and disillusionment.

The administration's actions, such as the pursuit of taking control of Greenland, have been met with widespread opposition, with two-thirds of people opposing the idea. Similarly, the majority of respondents believe the U.S. should consult Congress before taking military action, a sentiment that Republicans largely reject, aligning instead with the president. This creates a clear partisan divide, but more importantly, it highlights a foreign policy approach that is alienating independent voters who may have sought a less hawkish stance.

"I thought we would be less involved in sort of foreign affairs in Trump 2.0, and it seems right now like the opposite is happening. And I've, you know, I can see a lot of independent voters having a whiplash now and being like, I thought we were getting something totally different when I voted for Trump."

-- (Paraphrased sentiment from independent voters discussed by Ashley Lopez)

The data suggests that Trump's foreign policy, characterized by assertive actions and a willingness to challenge established alliances like NATO (which two-thirds of respondents believe benefits the U.S.), is not translating into broad public approval, even among those who might have been drawn to his "America First" rhetoric. The consistent disapproval among independents (63%) on foreign policy indicates that this area, like the economy, is becoming a significant vulnerability, undermining the image of competence and stability that some voters may have been seeking. The administration's focus on these high-profile, often controversial, foreign policy maneuvers appears to be a strategic misstep, failing to build broad support and instead reinforcing negative perceptions among key demographic groups.

Key Action Items

• Immediate Action (Next Quarter): Re-evaluate and publicly articulate the specific, tangible benefits of ICE enforcement tactics, focusing on outcomes that directly address public safety concerns rather than broad enforcement. This requires a shift in messaging to acknowledge public sentiment.
• Immediate Action (Next Quarter): Launch a focused, consistent communication campaign prioritizing economic relief and price stabilization. This should involve concrete policy proposals and clear, digestible messaging.
• Immediate Action (Next Quarter): Conduct internal reviews of foreign policy communications to ensure alignment with voter expectations, particularly among independent and swing voters who may not favor aggressive interventionism.
• Longer-Term Investment (6-12 Months): Develop and implement programs that demonstrably improve economic conditions for middle- and lower-income households, moving beyond broad economic indicators to address tangible cost-of-living concerns.
• Longer-Term Investment (12-18 Months): Foster dialogue and engagement with diverse communities, including Latino voters, to rebuild trust and address specific concerns regarding immigration policies and their impact on families.
• Strategic Shift (Ongoing): Actively seek out and integrate feedback from independent and swing voters on economic and foreign policy issues, moving beyond echo chambers of partisan media.
• Discomfort for Advantage (Ongoing): Acknowledge and address the negative perceptions surrounding ICE tactics, even if it means temporarily de-emphasizing enforcement in favor of broader public safety and community relations messaging. This discomfort now can foster broader acceptance later.