According to a May 2025 survey, roughly one-third of Americans believed President Trump was putting the interests of the United States first, compared to 47 percent who thought that his business interests came first.

According to a May 2025 survey, more than half of American respondents believed President Trump was using his office for personal gain.

According to a study conducted in 2025, over half of Americans expect business corporations, wealthy people, white people, the military, and men to gain influence from Donald Trump taking office. In contrast, only three percent thought that transgender people would gain influence under the Trump administration.

This study investigated the cognitive processing of true and false political information. Specifically, it examined the impact of source credibility on the assessment of veracity when information comes from a polarizing source (Experiment 1), and effectiveness of explanations when they come from one's own political party or an opposition party (Experiment 2). These experiments were conducted prior to the 2016 Presidential election. Participants rated their belief in factual and incorrect statements that President Trump made on the campaign trail; facts were subsequently affirmed and misinformation retracted. Participants then re-rated their belief immediately or after a delay. Experiment 1 found that (i) if information was attributed to Trump, Republican supporters of Trump believed it more than if it was presented without attribution, whereas the opposite was true for Democrats and (ii) although Trump supporters reduced their belief in misinformation items following a correction, they did not change their voting preferences. Experiment 2 revealed that the explanation's source had relatively little impact, and belief updating was more influenced by perceived credibility of the individual initially purporting the information. These findings suggest that people use political figures as a heuristic to guide evaluation of what is true or false, yet do not necessarily insist on veracity as a prerequisite for supporting political candidates.

According to a July 2025 survey, Donald Trump's favorability among Republicans was strong, with 60 percent viewing him very favorably and 29 percent somewhat favorably. This overwhelming support from his party base contrasts sharply with Democrats, of whom 90 percent viewed Trump very unfavorably. Independents were more divided, with 28 percent expressing some degree of favorability towards the former president. Electoral college victory Trump's popularity among Republicans translated into electoral success in the 2024 presidential election. He secured 312 electoral votes, surpassing the 270 needed to win the presidency. This victory came as Trump won all seven swing states, some by significant margins, despite pre-election polls showing only a slight lead in most battleground states. Increased republican support The 2024 election saw Republicans gain ground across the country. Every state reported an increase in Republican votes compared to 2020, with New York showing the largest gain of 6.43 percent. New Jersey and Florida also saw significant increases of nearly five percent. This surge in Republican support led to Trump flipping six states that he had lost in the previous election, contributing to his decisive victory.

United States The Economist YouGov Polls: 2024 Presidential Election: Donald Trump data was reported at 46.000 % in 29 Oct 2024. This stayed constant from the previous number of 46.000 % for 22 Oct 2024. United States The Economist YouGov Polls: 2024 Presidential Election: Donald Trump data is updated weekly, averaging 43.000 % from May 2023 (Median) to 29 Oct 2024, with 61 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 46.000 % in 29 Oct 2024 and a record low of 38.000 % in 31 Oct 2023. United States The Economist YouGov Polls: 2024 Presidential Election: Donald Trump data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by YouGov PLC. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.PR004: The Economist YouGov Polls: 2024 Presidential Election (Discontinued). If an election for president were going to be held now and the Democratic nominee was Joe Biden and the Republican nominee was Donald Trump, would you vote for...

This data package includes the underlying data to replicate the charts, tables, and calculations presented in The US Revenue Implications of President Trump’s 2025 Tariffs, PIIE Briefing 25-2.

If you use the data, please cite as:

McKibbin, Warwick, and Geoffrey Shuetrim. 2025. The US Revenue Implications of President Trump’s 2025 Tariffs. PIIE Briefing 25-2. Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

The election of Donald Trump not only placed a political outsider in the center of power in America’s federal government, it also put him in a dominant position within the Republican Party as a national organization. While political scientists have traditionally described the parties national committees as inconsequential but impartial service providers, scholars have also long argued that incumbent presidents have considerable control over their party’s national committee. In this paper, I explore the nature of presidential power over the party-in-organization, and whether Trump can take advantage of his control over the Republican National Committee. I show that presidential domination over the party-in-organization is based on the president’s ability to nominate and replace the national committee’s chair, and that presidents have used this power to push their committees to promote both their preferred policy positions and themselves. I argue this means Trump has the ability to use the RNC to promote the GOP as ‘his’ party – including during a potential primary challenge for his re-nomination in 2020.

Dataset

This dataset was created by MC

Contents

It contains the following files:

The title of this research is "Lexical Cohesion Used in Donald Trump's Campaign Speeches". Lexical cohesion is one of the most important tools for bringing text together. Lexical cohesion is grouped into five types. Due to the large number of types, research on lexical cohesion needs to be carried out and the problems to be studied are: the types and uses of the most common types found in Donald Trump's campaign speeches. The theory used is the theory of lexical cohesion types taken from Cohesion in English by Halliday and Hassan (1976). This study uses four of Donald Trump's speeches as data sources. Data collection is carried out in the form of library research, which searches for and downloads data sources and then reads the relevant data included in it. All data is grouped into the appropriate type group. The data that has been collected is analyzed descriptively and frequency. The results of the study show that five types of lexical cohesion are found in Donald Trump's campaign speeches. The five types of lexical cohesion found are repetition, synonym, superordinate, general words, and collocation. The mostly type of lexical cohesion found is repetition.

The Politbarometer has been conducted since 1977 on an almost monthly basis by the Research Group for Elections (Forschungsgruppe Wahlen) for the Second German Television (ZDF). Since 1990, this database has also been available for the new German states. The survey focuses on the opinions and attitudes of the voting population in the Federal Republic on current political topics, parties, politicians, and voting behavior. From 1990 to 1995 and from 1999 onward, the Politbarometer surveys were conducted separately in the eastern and western federal states (Politbarometer East and Politbarometer West). The separate monthly surveys of a year are integrated into a cumulative data set that includes all surveys of a year and all variables of the respective year. The Politbarometer short surveys, collected with varying frequency throughout the year, are integrated into the annual cumulation starting from 2003.

Does President Trump face domestic costs for foreign policy inconsistency? Will co- partisans and opposition-partisans equally punish Donald Trump for issuing flippant international threats and backing down? While the President said he could “stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” without losing voters, the literature consistently shows that individuals, regardless of partisanship, disapprove of leaders who jeopardize the country’s reputation for credibility and resolve. Given the atypical nature of the Trump presidency, and the severe partisan polarization surrounding it, we investigate whether the logic of audience costs still applies in the Trump era. Using a unique experiment fielded during the 2016 presidential transition, we show that Republicans and Democrats impose equal audience costs on President Trump. And by varying the leader’s identity, between Donald Trump, Barack Obama, and “The President,” we demonstrate that the public adheres to a non-partisan logic in punishing leaders who renege on threats. Yet, we also find Presidents Trump and Obama can reduce the magnitude of audience costs by justifying backing down as being “in America’s interest.” Even Democrats, despite their doubts of Donald Trump’s credibility, accept such justifications. Our findings encourage further exploration of partisan cues, leader-level attributes, and leader-level reputations.

The above is a data set that compares Trump's and Obama's presidency in USA

Do Democrats and Republicans appeal to different sets of moral foundations in their national convention speeches? Do they make efforts to frame their messages so that it is attractive to their base and moderate voters? This study examines the moral appeals that political elites use to communicate to their supporters. I analyze speeches starting from the 2008 to the 2020 Republican and Democrat National Conventions to see if there are differences in appeals to Harm, Fairness, Ingroup, Authority and Purity, which are tenets of the Moral Foundations Theory. I find that Republicans are more likely to appeal to Authority, and in 2020, Purity, while Democrats appeal mostly to Harm. Using qualitative content analyses, we see that both parties apply the moral language favored by the other side in their convention speeches on top of making appeals to moral foundations that are favored by their own base.

The above data set is about the tenure of trump as president of USA and how netizens make classification.

In 24 countries surveyed in early 2025, respondents were almost twice as likely to have no confidence in Donald Trump to do the right thing regarding world affairs as to have confidence. Results varied by country, with over ********** of respondents in Nigeria and Israel having confidence in Trump, compared to confidence rates of just ** percent or less in nine countries.

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of Trump Foundation

Financial overview and grant giving statistics of Tops At Trump Iii Inc Co Norc Trumps United

During the beginning of the launch, they had some pretty fast growth. Here are the key Truth Social statistics you need to know.

Donald Trump’s first year in office received unprecedented media coverage, with many wondering whether congressional Republicans were “adversaries” or “allies” of the president’s legislative positions. Our paper explores this issue from two vantage points. First, we place Trump’s presidency in historical context by forecasting his Republican support with data from 1969 to 2016. We find that Republicans supported Trump’s legislative positions in 2017 at levels consistent with expectations, contrary to the views of some. Second, we explore the factors that explain why Republican lawmakers supported or opposed their party’s president. We find that conservative and establishment Republicans were more likely to support Trump, contrary to some claims, while female Republicans and those representing affluent, non-white districts were more likely to oppose Trump. Our paper concludes by discussing the broader implications of these results, including the role of identity in contemporary American politics and the possible realignment of the GOP.