Public sentiment around the job market is increasingly defined by distrust and narrative complexity. Despite low official unemployment, many Americans feel left behind in an economy marked by gig work, automation fears, and policy fatigue.

The economic conversation is shaped by four overlapping storylines:

• Trump’s renewed tariff and layoff policies
• The acceleration of AI-driven disruption
• Concerns about manipulated job data
• Rising frustration over partisan gridlock in Congress.

Together, these forces drive a narrative of distrust, fatigue, and unmet expectations.

Voter Sentiment

MIG Reports data on job market sentiment shows:

• Negative Sentiment: 42% — Emphasizing economic insecurity, job losses, and policy failure
• Positive Sentiment: 33% — Highlighting job growth stats and perceived recovery
• Neutral Sentiment: 25% — Focused on data sharing and historical comparisons without ideological tone

Key Findings and Themes

Low Trust in Official Job Market Narratives

Many Americans believe unemployment figures are massaged to fit political narratives. Voters emphasize that real-life experiences with layoffs, contract work, and stagnant wages often contradict official reports. There are common refrains like, "everyone I know is struggling," dismissing unemployment rates as politically convenient fiction.

Tariffs Polarize Public

Trump’s reintroduction of aggressive trade measures is also dividing voter sentiments. While many support the concept of economic nationalism, others voice concern that poor enforcement, legal reversals, and retaliatory costs are undermining results. A recurring grievance is the clash between executive ambition and legislative inertia.

Government Spending and Layoffs

Defunding Job Corps and mass firings within agencies like the Department of Energy are causing backlash among many voter groups. While many in Trump’s base celebrate dismantling bureaucratic excess, others argue these cuts harm working-class Americans. Voters almost universally express frustration with Congress for contining to fund elite perks while undercutting programs that once provided upward mobility.

AI and Automation as Growing Threats

Anxiety over job loss due to AI and automation is growing. Workers across industries report being displaced or sidelined. Public frustration is mounting over what many call a lack of serious planning for the future of work. Voters see Trump as more attuned to the problem than Biden, but most are still losing patience with rhetoric lacking results.

Sentiment Now Versus Last Year

Previous MIG Reports analysis showed, in late 2024, voter sentiment focused on only 12,000 new jobs created in a month—most of which were government jobs. Last year, there was strong outrage toward the Biden administration and its inaccurate data.

Now in June 2025, sentiment is more diffuse. While jobs have returned on paper, many voters describe them as unfulfilling, short-term, or economically insufficient. A sense of betrayal has expanded beyond Democrats to include both parties and the institutions managing economic policy.

Sentiment Impact of Biden vs. Trump

Under Biden, employment sentiment was driven by accusations of data manipulation and short-term government hires. Voters were quick to call out "fake growth" and low-quality jobs, especially as inflation rose alongside job reports.

Under Trump, expectations have shifted. His base wants results, not slogans. While many appreciate his aggressive stance on trade and bureaucracy, they also note failures like court blocks on mass firings, inconsistent tariff policies, and a lack of clarity on how his policies will handle automation.

Still, Trump enjoys relatively stronger trust. The phrase "at least he fights for us" is common among conservatives, Independents, and the working class. But symbolic trust is conditional—and eroding.

Voter Commentary Highlights

In discussions about both presidents, there are recurring sentiments or phrases. Some of these include:

On Biden

• “Government jobs aren’t real jobs.”
• “The numbers lie. Everyone I know is struggling.”

On Trump

• “At least Trump’s trying to bring jobs back.”
• “I want the tariffs to work, but not like this.”
• “He talks about jobs, but I want to see factories reopening.”

Ukraine’s recent drone strikes against Russian targets have reignited American political discourse about tactics, escalation, and continued U.S. involvement. Public sentiment remains stable, with a majority opposing Russia and a split regarding Ukraine.

Americans still broadly oppose Russian aggression but their sympathy for Ukraine is softening, and the tone of the conversation is skeptical, transactional, and more focused on U.S. national self-interest.

American Sentiment

MIG Reports data shows:

Ukraine

• 54% express support
• 46% voice criticism or opposition

Russia

• 67% oppose Russia
• 33% show any level of approval

Key Implications

• While Ukraine retains a slight majority in support, that margin is tightening.
• Enthusiasm for Ukraine is fading, and support now feels conditional rather than emphatic.
• Voters still oppose Russia by a wide margin, but the emotional intensity behind that opposition has weakened over time.
• Americans increasingly question whether ongoing Ukraine support serves U.S. interests—or merely prolongs a war disconnected from national priorities.

Tactical Success, Strategic Doubt

Ukraine’s drone campaign is widely seen as tactically impressive and symbolically potent. The strikes demonstrate Kyiv’s resilience and ingenuity, pushing the boundaries of Russia’s air defense systems and bringing the war closer to Moscow’s doorstep. But reactions to the strategy are mixed. Many Americans worry the offensive risks provoking more conflict which could entangle the U.S. directly or trigger dangerous retaliation.

Where strikes initially drew admiration, newer reactions reflect growing concern. Voters worry whether Ukraine striking back compromises the American taxpayer or military posture. The drone strikes are creating narrative shift—from “defensive survival” to “offensive escalation”—and with it comes greater scrutiny.

Rising Fatigue and Fiscal Pushback

Public fatigue over U.S. aid to Ukraine now outweighs moral appeals. Commenters frequently invoke the disparity between billions sent abroad and neglected problems at home like securing the border, fighting inflation, and managing the fentanyl crisis. These discussions dominate high-volume threads where voters promote Trump’s America First agenda over foreign involvement.

Support for Ukraine is more conditional and less bipartisan than ever. The once-unifying outrage over Russia’s invasion is fracturing into distinct camps—those who still see Ukraine as a bulwark against tyranny, and those who view it as a distraction from America’s own unraveling.

Corruption Allegations and Institutional Distrust

A major narrative cluster focuses on corruption, both in Kyiv and Washington. Many Americans discuss their suspicion that the Ukraine war is being exploited by political elites and defense contractors for personal gain. Common accusations include money laundering, no-bid contracts, and aid kickbacks.

Figures like Joe Biden and Lindsey Graham are singled out in this discourse, not just for policy decisions but for perceived self-dealing. These narratives blend populist suspicion with anti-globalist sentiment, positioning Ukraine aid as a symptom of institutional rot.

This framing doesn’t necessarily benefit Russia—it simply deepens the public’s distrust in the leadership class. Ukraine becomes another vector for disillusionment with the American establishment.

The Decline of Moral Framing

The narrative around Ukraine is no longer driven by moral clarity. Fewer users invoke democracy, liberty, or sovereignty. Instead, the conversation increasingly references NATO expansion, the 2014 Maidan uprising, and regime-change history. These arguments complicate the binary framing of Ukraine as hero and Russia as villain.

Such skepticism doesn't translate to Russian approval, but it does erode the moral high ground. In its place is a more clinical evaluation of whether this war is worth Americans’ money, risk, and strategic bandwidth.

Strategic Realignment on the Right

Underlying all of this is a shift in foreign policy posture. The dominant energy on the right is moving from hawkish interventionism to guarded nationalism. The idea of “peace through strength” is giving way to “peace through disengagement.” Many voters now view endless foreign commitments as a threat to national stability rather than a defense of it.

Ukraine, once a consensus cause, now serves as a litmus test for how Americans—particularly conservatives and independents—want their country to project power.

For the last decade, DEI has enjoyed broad institutional acceptance and increasing social obligation. From elite universities to federal agencies to Fortune 500 boardrooms, diversity, equity, and inclusion policies were treated as necessary, even morally unquestionable. That era is over.

Across social platforms, MIG Reports analysis shows DEI now sparks overwhelming hostility, with 80% of public commentary expressing opposition to DEI. The backlash has gone from a silent minority to a nationwide cultural realignment.

Americans do not view DEI as a tool for inclusion but as a mechanism of exclusion which privileges identity over merit, ideology over competence, and bureaucracy over performance. Once sold as equity, voters now perceive DEI as ideological enforcement by elite institutions which should no longer be immune to democratic accountability.

Voters Want Meritocracy

The prevailing critique of DEI rests on its dismissal of meritocracy. Americans say it is reverse discrimination wrapped in corporate jargon. “DEI hire” has become a slur, serving as shorthand for someone assumed to be unqualified but selected to meet an identity quota. For critics, this causes standards to be lowered in pursuit of political optics.

Opposition narratives emphasize fairness, unity, and shared standards. They frame DEI mandates as corrosive to institutional excellence and social cohesion. Americans increasingly agree that DEI is designed to divide rather than unify.

Instead of elevating individuals based on ability, DEI re-ranks opportunity based on race, gender, or ideology. Critics say this punishes ambition and excellence. Resentment is especially acute in education and government, where hiring and admissions decisions affect public trust.

The DEI Symbol Shift

As backlash intensifies, DEI has become a cultural signifier—grouped alongside critical race theory, pronoun mandates, and ESG investing as part of a broader elite orthodoxy. In this environment, rejecting DEI signals alignment with the populist priorities of fairness, constitutionalism, and national cohesion.

BREAKING: MIT shuts down DEI office, per NYP. pic.twitter.com/Hyn0myUaxt

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) May 28, 2025

This symbolic shift place DEI front and center in ongoing culture wars. Conservatives treat it as an existential threat to American values. Moderates and independents don’t go that far, but they question its purpose, cost, and outcomes.

Voters often link DEI to institutional failures. They describe elite universities like Harvard as racially obsessed and detached from merit. They view federal DEI programs as bloated and ineffective. Many also credit President Trump with initiating the downfall of such woke mandates.

The Media Trust Gap

Discussions also increasingly criticize how DEI is covered by legacy media. Axios reports that companies keeping DEI commitments are seeing gains in public reputation. The Axios Harris Poll measured slight increases (1.5 to 2.3 points) in brand perception for these firms, crediting continued DEI efforts.

This framing falls flat with a public growing hostile to progressive ideology and mainstream media. Right-leaning voices see reports like these as elite self-congratulation and attempts to reestablish woke narratives which have lost cultural power.

To DEI critics, the idea that “reputation” gains among media-aligned pollsters indicate broad approval is proof of how disconnected the press is from public mood. Reputation, in this view, is a bubble shaped more by ideological bias than real-world performance.

Online discourse accuses outlets like Axios of filtering reality through an ideological lens. Rather than acknowledging growing skepticism toward DEI, these reports focus on corporate virtue metrics and executive sentiment. That choice reinforces the perception that legacy media acts as a shield for elite narratives rather than an objective observer.

Trump’s Anti-DEI Offensive

Political implications are already visible as Trump and MAGA Republicans reframe DEI as a threat to national competence and integrity. Trump’s critiques—particularly around military readiness and federal hiring—present DEI as a national security liability. His messaging is strong and resonates strongly with voters who want DEI policies reversed.

Governors and lawmakers in red states are capitalizing on the momentum created by Trump’s populist platform. DEI programs are being cut, suspended, or scrutinized. New legislation aims to bar race- or identity-based criteria from admissions, hiring, and procurement. Supportive voters see these proposals as a return to neutrality.

DEI experts can't find jobs. Thousands laid off.

DEI experts lament lack of hiring and DEI "retreat" in major corporations.

- 2,600 laid off
-13% of positions closed
- More than 9 months an no new job openings for one DEI expert.

The woke mind virus is in decline and they are… pic.twitter.com/Mn16Evoa9e

— Grummz (@Grummz) May 28, 2025

Strategic Outlook

For policymakers, there is political upside in proposing race-neutral hiring and budget transparency. For campaigns, DEI rollback offers a populist rallying point with swing voters disillusioned by institutional excess. Framing is simple, emphasizing fairness without favoritism.

For institutions, the reputational calculus is shifting. Public-facing DEI initiatives now carry risk rather than insulation. There is rising pressure to justify outcomes over diversity optics. The days of declaring progress by publishing demographic ratios are ending. Stakeholders want competence, performance, and apolitical governance.