Americans largely at odds with Trump administration on immigration, ICE tactics: Polls
A newly obtained cellphone video shows the moments before Renee Good was fatally shot in her car in Minneapolis on Jan. 7, 2026. (Obtained by ABC News)
(NEW YORK) — In the days after federal officers shot and killed Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, there has been little polling on how Americans are reacting to the issue. But surveys fielded after Minneapolis woman Renee Good was shot and killed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Jan. 7 found most Americans saying the event was an inappropriate use of force and most voters saying her killing was unjustified.
Polling through the first half of January has found Americans largely at odds with the Trump administration on immigration, with just over half saying ICE enforcement actions were making cities less safe and nearly half saying they do not trust the government at all to carry out a fair and thorough investigation of Good’s shooting.
That is in addition to majorities disapproving of how ICE is enforcing immigration laws, how President Donald Trump is handling immigration and how Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has handled her job.
More polling underscores those findings.
A New York Times/Siena poll released Friday found 61% of voters saying the tactics used by ICE had “gone too far.” That included over 9 in 10 Democrats, about 7 in 10 independents and roughly 2 in 10 Republicans. Just 26% of voters overall said ICE’s tactics were “about right” and 11% said they had not gone far enough.
The poll also found roughly half of voters in support of Trump’s deportations and his handling of the border with Mexico.
Just 36% of voters approved of how ICE was handling its job; 63% disapproved.
A Wall Street Journal poll published last week found 54% saying deploying ICE to U.S. cities has “gone too far” and 52% of voters disapproving of how Trump is handling immigration.
Both polls were conducted after Good, a mother of three, was killed by an ICE agent on Jan. 7, but before Pretti, an ICU nurse, was killed by federal agents over the weekend.
The New York Times/Siena poll was conducted Jan. 12-17 among 1,625 registered voters nationwide and has a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percentage points.
The Wall Street Journal poll was conducted Jan. 8-13 among 1,500 registered voters nationwide and has a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points.
U.S. President Donald Trump delivers the State of the Union address during a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the Capitol on February 24, 2026, in Washington, DC. Trump delivered his address days after the Supreme Court struck down the administration’s tariff strategy, and amid a U.S. military buildup in the Persian Gulf threatening Iran. (Photo by Kenny Holston-Pool/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Monday claimed the U.S. was “very nearly under threat” from Iran, contradicting U.S. intelligence assessments as he sought to justify his administration’s ongoing attack.
“An Iranian regime armed with long-range missiles and nuclear weapons would be an intolerable threat to the Middle East, but also to the American people,” Trump said at a medal of honor ceremony at the White House, marking his first public remarks on the military operation.
“Our country itself would be under threat, and it was very nearly under threat,” Trump continued.
American intelligence agencies, however, believe Iran would not have had missiles capable of reaching the U.S. for another nine years, until 2035.
And sources confirmed to ABC News that Trump administration officials told congressional staff that U.S. intelligence did not suggest Iran was preparing to launch a preemptive strike against the United States interests.
The officials said there was more of a general threat in the region from Iran’s missiles and proxy forces, sources told ABC News.
Still, Trump argued Iran would have “soon” had the capability to reach the American homeland and that “this was our last best chance to strike.”
“The regime already had missiles capable of hitting Europe and our bases, both local and overseas, and would soon have had missiles capable of reaching our beautiful America,” Trump said.
Trump, in Monday’s remarks, laid out U.S. objectives for the military campaign.
“Our objectives are clear,” Trump said. “First, we’re destroying Iran’s missile capabilities, and you see that happening on an hourly basis, and their capacity to produce brand new ones and pretty good ones they make. Second, we’re annihilating their navy. We’ve knocked out already 10 ships. They’re at the bottom of the sea. Third, we’re ensuring that the world’s number one sponsor of terror can never obtain a nuclear weapon … And finally, we’re ensuring that the Iranian regime cannot continue to arm, fund and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders.”
Trump notably did not address the issue of regime change after speaking extensively on leadership change over the weekend, as he called for Iranians to rise up and take over the government.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also shifted focus away from regime change in a press conference at the Pentagon earlier Monday, telling reporters the operation was not a “so-called regime-change war.”
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, was killed in an attack launched by Israel and the United States.
“The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates,” Trump told ABC’s Karl. “It’s not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead.”
As for what’s next, Trump again promised not to drag the U.S. into prolonged foreign conflicts but said the operation will go on for as long as needed.
“We’re already substantially ahead of our time projections, but whatever the time is, it’s okay. Whatever it takes. We will always, and we have right from the beginning, we projected four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that. We’ll do it.”
“Somebody said today, they said, ‘Oh, well, the president wants to do it really quickly, after that, he’ll get bored.’ I don’t get bored,” Trump added. “There’s nothing boring about this.”
Marco Rubio, US secretary of state, during a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Thursday, March 26, 2026. (Photographer: Will Oliver/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Top Trump administration officials have touted diplomatic efforts to end the war in Iran as the president signals it could end without pursuing the challenging military operation of opening the Strait of Hormuz with naval escorts.
In an interview with “Good Morning America” host George Stephanopoulos on Monday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not cite the reopening of the strait, the vital chokepoint of which 20% of the world’s oil flows through, which has been largely closed to shipping traffic, as a U.S. objective. President Donald Trump in the early days of the war said the U.S. Navy would take measures to ensure ships could sail there.
Rubio listed the “destruction” of Iran’s air force, navy, missile-launch capacity and military industry as the four objectives of what he termed a U.S. “operation.”
“All of this so that they can never hide behind it to acquire a nuclear weapon,” Rubio said. “That was our objective from the beginning; that remains our objective now.”
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on Tuesday also omitted freedom of movement in the Strait of Hormuz as one of the Pentagon’s priorities, instead calling on other nations with energy interests there to be involved in reopening it.
The president shifted responsibility over the strait — whose access has been largely blocked by Iran as a response to the U.S. and Israel attacks on the country — to those allies and partners.
“They can police it themselves,” Trump told ABC’s Jonathan Karl on Tuesday. “Why should I do it for them?”
The apparent recalibration — just days after Trump threatened intensified military action if Iran did not move to open the strait — signals the US could be plotting an exit in which it declares it’s accomplished the outlined military objectives without seeking to repair the war’s most devastating economic consequence, a former senior U.S. diplomat said.
“I think Rubio may have signaled one option the president has,” said the former diplomat who engaged in negotiations with Iran. “It’s not a very good one, but … of the bad and worse options, it’s probably the better bad option.”
The former U.S. official said a hasty exit from the conflict without addressing two of its thorniest issues — the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s nuclear stockpile — suggests there is a diplomatic deal to be achieved that would end the fighting.
“I think Rubio, at least, sounds like he just wants to bring this [conflict] to closure along the parameters that he outlined, and then hope that world pressure opens the Strait of Hormuz,” the former official said.
Objectives articulated by the administration earlier in the conflict — like regime change and denuclearization — would remain unmet by such a deal, the former diplomat said.
Tehran’s diplomatic view Whether or not the U.S. is pursuing a diplomatic exit, it will be complicated for a battered Iran to deal with a country that initiated a war with it a month ago, analysts of Tehran’s government told ABC News.
Iran may be open to diplomacy, the analysts said, but it would seek durable assurances that it will not be attacked by the U.S. — or Israel — in the future.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tuesday that his country was not negotiating with the U.S. but that messages were being passed.
Pakistan, who along with Turkey and Egypt has positioned itself as an intermediary between the U.S. and Iran, have been delivering those messages between the warring nations, establishing an important “venue” for talks, said Syed Mohammad Ali, a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University and analyst of Pakistani politics.
“I think the most important thing here is to have created a channel of mediation,” Ali said. “And in conflict situations that is of vital importance.”
Ali, who is familiar with the early negotiations, said early diplomatic exchanges have been “maximalist” as the two sides remain far apart.
He cautioned that Pakistan, which has offered to host direct talks, would by itself “not be in a position to really help hammer this out … they can continue playing this role, but the terms are going to be set elsewhere.”
The introduction of China to diplomatic discussions, he said, could bring the kind of “big power pressure” and “strategic leverage” that the US and Iran, whose economies are intertwined with Beijing’s, might respond to.
The Chinese and Pakistani governments released a five-point plan, which called for an immediate ceasefire and “normal passage” through the Strait of Hormuz, after a meeting of their foreign ministers in Beijing on Tuesday. Trump is set to visit China in May.
Esfandyar Batmanghelidj, an expert on Iranian politics and economics and an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins, said any durable diplomatic breakthrough would likely follow a set of “high-level principles” that enables a ceasefire.
Leaders of the Iranian regime won’t readily come to the negotiating table, Batmanghelidj said, unless the conflict is perceived as a “stalemate” with the U.S. and talks are not framed as capitulation to Trump. Hardliners in Tehran, including leadership of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps which would be allergic to negotiating with Washington, are still believed to wield considerable influence.
But “the elements” for a deal “are there,” Batmanghelidj said.
“Ultimately, this war has gone well enough for the Iranians that they can also point to a victory, but it has also been painful enough that even those that are very hardline in the Iranian system will understand that they don’t want to run a country that has been turned into some sort of basket case.”
Bill Clinton speaks onstage during the Clinton Global Initiative 2025 Annual Meeting at New York Hilton Midtown on September 25, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by JP Yim/Getty Images for New York Hilton Midtown)
(WASHINGTON) — Former President Bill Clinton, in his opening statement at his historic closed-door deposition before the Republican-led House Oversight Committee on Friday, denied any knowledge of the crimes committed by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, going on to say making his wife Hillary Clinton testify “was simply not right.”
In his statement as released, he stated that he will often say, “I do not recall” throughout his questioning because the events were “all a long time ago.”
“I saw nothing, and I did nothing wrong,” Clinton said, according to the statement.
The former president is being grilled by the committee as part of its investigation into Epstein in Chappaqua, New York — marking a historic moment for a former president. Friday’s deposition is the first time a former president has been compelled to testify before a congressional panel.
He is facing questions under oath about his relationship with Epstein and photos that show the former president with both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s co-conspirator who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for sex trafficking and other crimes.
The former president’s testimony comes a day after the committee questioned former Secretary of State and first lady Hillary Clinton over the couple’s dealings with the convicted sex offender.
On Friday, Bill Clinton said he had to “get personal” and blasted the committee for forcing his wife to answer their questions.
“You made Hillary come in. She had nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. Nothing. She has no memory of even meeting him. She neither traveled with him nor visited any of his properties,” he said in his statements as released. “Whether you subpoenaed 10 people or 10,000, including her was simply not right.”
In her deposition Thursday, Hillary Clinton said she did not know Epstein, could not recall ever encountering him and never visited him on his island or at his home or office.
Hillary Clinton, on Thursday, also gave a preview of how her husband, former President Bill Clinton, will handle his own deposition.
“I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of people who had contact with him before his criminal pleas in ’08 were like most people — they did not know what he was doing. And I think that that is exactly what my husband will testify to tomorrow,” she said.
Neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing and both deny having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.
No Epstein survivor or associate has ever made a public allegation of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior by the former president or his wife in connection with his prior relationship with Epstein.
Bill Clinton said in his opening statement that he had “no idea of the crimes Epstein was committing.”
“No matter how many photos you show me, I have two things that at the end of the day matter more than your interpretation of those 20-year-old photos. I know what I saw, and more importantly, what I didn’t see. I know what I did, and more importantly, what I didn’t do,” he said in his statement as released.
Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer reiterated Friday morning that the Clintons have been called to testify to try to answer questions about Epstein.
“No one’s accusing anyone of any wrongdoing, but I think the American people have a lot of questions, and our House Oversight Committee is committed to getting answers,” Comer said Friday morning.
Bill Clinton’s association with Epstein was first noted publicly in 2002 after reporters learned of the former president’s flight that year on Epstein’s jet for a humanitarian mission to multiple African nations.
Bill Clinton told New York Magazine through a spokesperson at the time that “Jeffrey is both a highly successful financier and a committed philanthropist with a keen sense of global markets and an in-depth knowledge of 21st century science.”
Maxwell said in a recorded interview last year with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, that it was she, not Epstein, who had a friendship with Bill Clinton, and that she was the one who suggested and organized his trips on Epstein’s aircraft.
The Clintons were subpoenaed to appear under oath in front of the committee for a deposition in January, but failed to comply, arguing the subpoenas were without legal merit. Rather, they proposed a four-hour transcribed interview instead.
David Kendall, the Clintons’ lawyer, argued that the couple has no information relevant to the committee’s investigation of the federal government’s handling of investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, and should not be required to appear for in-person testimony.
Kendall contended the Clintons should be permitted to provide the limited information they have to the committee in writing.
Comer had long threatened to hold the Clintons in contempt if they failed to appear before the committee, so when they didn’t, a contempt resolution was drafted and put to a vote.
The Oversight Committee passed the contempt resolution with nine Democrats voting in favor of it, teeing it up for a full House vote.
At the last minute, just before the resolution was to be voted on in the House, the Clintons agreed to sit for a deposition, postponing further consideration of a contempt vote.
Democrats on the committee said they hope this week’s testimony from the Clintons spark Republican committee members to investigate more of Epstein’s ties to President Donald Trump.
Trump has repeatedly denied any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes and has said that he cut off contact with his former friend more than 20 years ago.
“We have said from day one that we want to talk to former President Bill Clinton, and the other person we want to talk to is current President Donald Trump,” Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the committee, said Friday. “And so we should be very clear that now that we’re going to hear from former President Clinton, I hope that Chairman Comer and the Republicans will join us in demanding that the person who actually appears more times in the files than the former president who we want to speak with is President Donald Trump.”
While the Clintons have agreed to speak with the committee behind closed doors, they have still pushed for public hearings as part of the committee’s investigation.
“I will not sit idly as they use me as a prop in a closed-door kangaroo court by a Republican Party running scared,” Bill Clinton wrote in a lengthy post on X. “If they want answers, let’s stop the games & do this the right way: in a public hearing, where the American people can see for themselves what this is really about.”
