polling

WASHINGTON — Most Americans still think their taxes are too high, according to recent polls, even after last year’s tax law fulfilled several of President Trump’s tax-related campaign promises.

In fact, a new Fox News poll indicates people are more upset about taxes than they were last year. The findings from the survey, which was conducted in late March, are another sign that Americans are on edge about their personal finances as the U.S. experiences a spike in inflation and sluggish economic growth. Other polling finds that frustration goes beyond personal tax obligations, with many believing that wealthy people and corporations are not paying their fair share, while others worry about government waste.

The surveys come after Trump and Republicans passed a massive tax and spending cut bill last year. The legislation enacted a range of tax breaks, including a boosted child tax credit and new tax deductions for tips and overtime. Tax refunds are up this season, and many households are expected to see more income from the Republicans’ tax legislation, but the Congressional Budget Office estimated it will ultimately give the largest benefits to the richest Americans.

Republicans have touted the law as evidence that they are making life more affordable for working families. But polling shows that many Americans may not be feeling the benefits, especially as their tax refunds get eaten up by higher prices.

Most say taxes are too high

About 7 in 10 registered voters say the taxes they pay are “too high,” according to the Fox News poll. That’s up from about 6 in 10 last year. The poll shows heightened concern among very liberal voters and Democratic men, but there has also been a sizable increase among groups that Republicans want to court ahead of the midterm elections, such as moderates, rural voters and white voters without a college degree.

Discontent about taxes has been rising for the past few years. Recent polling from Gallup, conducted in March, found about 6 in 10 U.S. adults say the amount of federal income tax they have to pay is “too high,” a finding that’s been largely consistent in the annual poll since 2023. That’s approaching the level of unhappiness found in Gallup’s polling from the 1980s through the 1990s, before President George W. Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

Now, about half of Democrats and about 6 in 10 Republicans say their federal income taxes are too high. Republicans tend to view their tax bill more negatively than Democrats, but Gallup’s polling shows that this gap often shrinks when a Republican is president.

Many believe the rich aren’t paying enough in taxes

Most Americans are troubled by the belief that some wealthy people and corporations don’t pay their fair share of taxes, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted in January. About 6 in 10 Americans said each of those notions bothers them “a lot,” a measure that is largely unchanged in recent years.

By contrast, only about 4 in 10 U.S. adults in that poll said the amount they personally pay in taxes bothers them a lot.

About 8 in 10 Democrats are bothered “a lot” by the feeling that some corporations and rich people aren’t paying their fair share, the Pew survey found, compared to about 4 in 10 Republicans. Government spending is a bigger issue for Republicans, according to the Fox News poll, which found that 75% of registered voters — and a similar share of Republican voters — say “almost all” or “a great deal” of government funding is wasteful and inefficient.

That points to a perception problem for many Americans. Even if their own tax bill is manageable, the idea that the wealthy are underpaying — or that the government is wasting their dollars — bothers many. About half of Americans, 49%, in the Gallup poll say the income tax they will pay this year is “not fair,” which is in line with the record high from 2023.

Broad unhappiness with Trump’s tax approach

Americans’ tax frustration was rising before Trump re-entered the White House, but it’s still a problem for the president’s party — especially if Americans are not feeling the relief that he promised.

The Fox News poll found that about 6 in 10 registered voters, 64%, say they disapprove of how Trump is handling taxes, up from 53% last April. Disapproval has risen most sharply among independents, but also among Democrats and Republicans.

This aligns with a broader feeling that Trump isn’t doing enough to address inflation. Most Americans said Trump had hurt the cost of living “a lot” or “a little” in his second term, according to an AP-NORC poll conducted in January. Roughly 9 in 10 Democrats and about 6 in 10 independents said Trump has had a negative impact on the cost of living.

Less than half of Republicans, 43%, said Trump had helped the cost of living, while 33% said he hadn’t made a difference and only 23% said he’d helped.

Sanders writes for the Associated Press. The Fox News poll was conducted among 1,001 registered voters from March 20-23. The Gallup poll was conducted among 1,000 U.S. adults from March 2-18. The Pew Research Center poll was conducted among 8,512 U.S. adults from Jan. 20-26. The AP-NORC Poll was conducted among 1,203 U.S. adults from Jan 8-11.

When I read all the hype being heaped on Kamala Harris’ lead in early polls for the 2028 Democratic nomination, I have to chuckle to myself.

The release of a Rasmussen Reports poll in February was titled, “Kamala Harris Still Leads 2028 Field for Democrats.” One headline in the Hill predicted, “Kamala Harris may yet be the Democratic nominee in 2028.” A Washington Examiner piece about polling warned, “Democrats won’t get rid of Kamala Harris that easily for 2028.”

I chuckle not because I don’t believe the numbers, but because I don’t believe any poll this far out in an open contest is meaningful, let alone determinative. I’ve seen this movie before, and it didn’t end well.

In 2003, after managing the successful 2002 reelection campaign of California Gov. Gray Davis, I signed on as an advisor to the presidential campaign of Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman — who, I needn’t remind anyone, had been the Democratic nominee for vice president in the 2000 election, which he and Al Gore lost in a nail-biter to George W. Bush.

Based simply on his high name identification from that hellzapoppin’ race, and the fact his name had been on the ballot in all 50 states just two years before, Lieberman initially led the Democratic field quite handily in almost every national poll.

An ABC News/Washington Post survey in January 2003 found Lieberman leading the Democratic field with 27%. A Gallup poll from that same month also placed him first, ahead of both John Kerry and Richard Gephardt.

A Pew poll in the summer of 2003 also found Lieberman atop the field, as the best-known candidate at 85% name recognition, and 58% support, ahead of Kerry, Gephardt and Howard Dean.

Boy, did we brag about Lieberman’s lead at every stop and in every press release. But in the end, the promising early numbers meant nothing. When actual votes were cast, Lieberman totally flamed out, receiving a measly 8.9% of the vote in the critical first primary in New Hampshire, finishing dead last, and dropping out of the race in February 2004, having lost every primary and caucus up to that point.

Why? A lot of reasons, including mistakes made by the candidate and campaign. But fundamentally because, when Democrats started to take a close look at and assess the full field, they relegated Lieberman to the status of a loser, and they wanted to move on. We heard a lot of, “He had his chance and lost.” Does Harris come to mind?

The fact is, we Democrats tend to put defeated presidential nominees in the rear-view mirror pretty quickly. Think of Michael Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. And let’s not forget, Harris obtaining the nomination in 2024 was a fluke; she didn’t compete in one primary or receive one primary vote. The first time she ran for president, in the 2020 cycle, she also didn’t win one primary or receive a single primary vote, because she ran a bad campaign and hightailed it out of the race before a single vote was cast. Two strikes and you’re out?

We Democrats just don’t renominate losers. The last time we did it was exactly 70 — yes, 70 — years ago, with Adlai Stevenson in 1956 after he had lost the 1952 presidential race to Dwight Eisenhower. Stevenson rewarded Democrats for this recycling effort by losing to Eisenhower a second time — by an even worse margin. Democrats learned their lesson: Reheating doesn’t work with failed candidates.

And, come on, Harris not only lost to Trump, not only lost all seven swing states, but was the first Democratic presidential nominee in 20 years to lose the popular vote. And her weak showing also helped Republicans wrest control of the Senate from Democrats. We’re supposed to imagine that’s a credible record on which to run again for the nomination?

All of these breathless stories about Harris leading the field nationally also never mention her perilous standing in her own home state of California. A Berkeley IGS survey in August revealed that by a margin of 18 percentage points, even her fellow Democrats in California did not want her to run again. A Politico poll this month showed Gov. Gavin Newsom with a 2-to-1 lead in California among voters leaning toward voting in the 2028 Democratic primary.

So have fun, Kamala Harris, enjoying your name-ID high while it lasts (although maybe a mite longer than your 107-day presidential effort).

Garry South is a Democratic strategist who has managed four campaigns for governor of California and played significant roles in three presidential campaigns, including that of Al Gore.

Four Democrats running for governor called on their fellow candidates to boycott an upcoming debate at USC, reiterating concerns that the criteria used to determine who was invited to participate resulted in every prominent candidate of color being excluded from the forum.

“We ask each and every candidate who is in this race to recognize that if we can’t have a fair process for a debate, then we should all not participate,” said Xavier Becerra, the former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary. “We call on them to withdraw from this biased forum.”

Becerra’s call was echoed by former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former state Controller Betty Yee during a Friday afternoon news conference.

The candidate’s request comes a week after some of them raised concerns about the criteria for Tuesday’s debate, arguing that it was engineered to allow the inclusion of San José Mayor Matt Mahan, who entered the race in late January and quickly raised millions of dollars from Silicon Valley executives.

“The rules initially were polling and money. Matt Mahan is [polling] lower than some of us, period,” Villaraigosa said, adding that the debate organizers “then added time in the race,” which resulted in Mahan’s invitation.

Mahan’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment on Friday, but when Becerra raised such concerns last week, Mahan said the former Biden administration official ought to be included in the debate.

The matter is further complicated by Mahan supporters who have notable ties to the university.

Mike Murphy, a co-director of the USC center hosting the debate, has been voluntarily advising an independent expenditure committee backing Mahan. The veteran GOP strategist said last week that he had nothing to do with organizing the debate and that he has asked for unpaid leave at the university through the June 2 primary if he takes a paid role in the campaign.

USC has also received tens of millions of dollars in donations from billionaire real estate developer Rick Caruso and his wife. Caruso, a USC alumnus who served as a trustee for years, is also a Mahan supporter.

A representative for Caruso did not respond to a request for comment.

The debate, hosted by the USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future, KABC-TV Los Angeles and Univision, is scheduled to take place on campus at 5 p.m. Tuesday — less than two months before ballots begin arriving in voters’ mailboxes. The forum will be streamed and broadcast on ABC and Univision affiliates across the state.

USC and the television stations put out a joint statement Friday morning, prior to the candidates’ news conference, justifying the criteria used to determine who was invited to participate and saying none of the debate partners had any influence on the methodology.

“We want to be clear that we categorically, unequivocally deny any allegations that the debate criteria was in any way biased in favor or against any candidate and want to clarify the facts,” they said in a statement, adding that Christian Grose, a USC political science professor, was asked to develop “data-driven” benchmarks to determine which candidates were invited.

“The methodology was based on well-established metrics consistent with formulas widely used to set debate participation nationwide — a combination of polling and fundraising — and developed without regard to any particular candidate.”

After the Democratic candidates called for their competitors to not participate, USC and KABC declined to comment further. Univision did not respond to a request for comment.

Grose defended the methodology he crafted as “objective” in an interview Friday, and said he met with Becerra as well as the staff of other candidates to explain it.

“The idea that it was biased or designed to create some sort of outcome to disfavor the candidates who spoke at the press conference is just not correct,” Grose said, adding that attacks on the methodology have a “chilling effect” on universities and media outlets who sponsor debates.

“I’m not worried about the optics,” he said. “The optics are we are having a debate at USC to inform voters and educate students.”

Jarred Cuellar, a political science assistant professor at Cal Poly Pomona, described Grose’s methodology as “thoughtful” and “empirically grounded,” and characterized the concerns raised by candidates not included in the debate as unfounded and not credible.

“The formula is methodologically sound and represents a clear improvement over how debate participation has often been determined,” he said. “Rather than relying on a single metric such as polling, it takes a multidimensional approach to evaluating candidate viability. That approach better reflects how political scientists measure complex phenomena like electoral competitiveness.”

But the controversy has caused consternation among USC professors past and present.

“It seems like an unforced error that is casting the entire event in a bad light,” said a current USC professor who closely follows politics but is not involved in the debate, and who asked for anonymity to speak candidly. “It’s super important that if the debate happens, it happens correctly.”

Darry Sragow, a veteran Democratic strategist who taught election and environmental law at USC for 19 years, said that while he believes the large field of Democratic candidates needs to be winnowed, that’s not the job of a university or media outlets.

“Every one of these eight [Democratic candidates] is capable of running the state of California,” he said. “ It would certainly be my advice to USC and to Univision and to ABC to allow all the candidates to take part, or to cancel the debate.”

The four Democratic candidates not invited to the debate argued that voters are just starting to pay attention to the thus-far sleepy race and that diverse candidates should be represented.

“We are a minority-majority state, and the idea that the four candidates of color are not going to be on the stage to bring those perspectives, to really speak to those communities, is really not doing right by the voters,” Yee said.

Becerra said some of the candidates had requested to speak with top university leadership, including President Beong-Soo Kim. In other conversations, he said university officials raised the possibility of “either canceling this debate or incorporating more of the candidates in it. Evidently they could not agree to do that. … I think they recognize that there were problems with the way this debate had been organized.”

Becerra said he reviewed the formula and has “never seen” debate criteria like it before during his decades of serving in elected office.

“Your fundraising numbers are divided by the number of days you’ve been out there campaigning in front of voters,” he said. “So you could have raised millions of dollars, but if you’ve been in longer than someone else who just raised millions of dollars very quickly, you get penalized.”

Campaigns for the invited candidates — Democrats Rep. Eric Swalwell of Dublin, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, climate activist Tom Steyer and Mahan; as well as Republicans Chad Bianco, the sheriff of Riverside County, and former Fox News host Steve Hilton — did not respond to requests for comment on the call to boycott the debate.

SANTA FE, N.M. — Democratic-led states alarmed by the prospect of federal immigration officers patrolling the polls during this year’s midterm elections are taking steps to counter what they see as a potential tactic to intimidate voters.

New Mexico this week became the first state to bar armed agents from polling locations in response to President Trump’s immigration crackdown, a step being considered in at least half a dozen other Democratic-led states.

The moves highlight a deep distrust toward the Trump administration from blue states, which have been the target of his aggressive immigration tactics while threatened with military deployments and deep cuts in federal funding. Their concerns were heightened after the president suggested he wants to nationalize U.S. elections, even though the Constitution says it’s the states that run elections.

The Trump administration said it has no plans to deploy immigration agents to polling locations. Last month, the heads of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol told a congressional committee “No, sir” when asked if they had any plans to guard polling places. The Department of Homeland Security’s deputy assistant secretary for election integrity, Heather Honey, recently told secretaries of state it “is simply not true” that immigration agents will be at the polls this year.

But a group of eight secretaries of state wants that in writing from the nominee to succeed Kristi Noem as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. In a letter Monday to Trump’s new pick to lead the agency, Markwayne Mullin, the group pressed for assurances “that ICE will not have a presence at polling locations during the 2026 election cycle.”

Federal law already prohibits the deployment of armed federal forces to election locations unless “necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States,” but Democratic lawmakers, election officials and governors remain concerned.

“The fear is that the Trump administration will attempt to evoke a national emergency or execute some other deployment of federal agents or military troops in order to interfere with elections and intimidate voters,” said Connecticut Democratic state Rep. Matt Blumenthal, co-author of a state bill to establish a 250-foot buffer from federal agents at local polls and other restrictions on federal intervention. “And we’re not going to let that happen.”

A potential clash between states and the federal government

Other bills seeking to ban immigration agents at the polls are pending in Democratic-led states, large and small, from California to Rhode Island.

In Virginia, lawmakers are weighing legislation that could prevent federal civil immigration officials from making arrests within 40 feet of any polling place or courthouse. But the provision on polling sites remains under negotiation, and it’s unclear whether it will be in the final bill.

The newly signed law in New Mexico prohibits orders that put any armed person in the “civil, military or naval service of the United States” at local polling locations and related parking areas, or within 50 feet of a monitored ballot box, from the start of early voting.

Under New Mexico’s new law, which takes effect in May and will be in place for the state’s June 2 primary, people who experience intimidation or obstruction at the polls from federal agents or military personnel can file a civil lawsuit seeking relief in state courts. State prosecutors and local and state election officials also can sue, and the courts can apply fines of up to $50,000 per violation.

It also prohibits changes to voting qualifications and election rules and procedures that conflict with New Mexico law, as Trump prods the U.S. Senate to approve a bill to impose strict new proof-of-citizenship requirements in elections nationwide.

Any state measures intended to counter federal election law will face legal hurdles because of the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution, which says federal law supersedes state law.

“It could set up a direct clash between state governments and the federal government. We don’t know exactly how that’s going to go,” said Richard Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at the UCLA School of Law. “Given the supremacy clause, there’s only so much states can do.”

‘We will hold free and fair elections’

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said her own distrust of the Trump administration in election oversight stems from ongoing Department of Justice efforts to get detailed state voter data without explaining why and Trump’s continuing false claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

“Do I believe the federal government and people in the White House? No,” said Lujan Grisham, who terms out of office at the end of 2026.

“We are sending a message to everyone: We will hold free and fair elections, and New Mexicans will be safe in every ballot location and that’s our responsibility,” the Democrat said Tuesday during a news conference. “The Constitution says the states run their elections, and that bill makes that painfully re-clear to the federal government.”

Federal seizure of ballots and election records is a growing concern

New Mexico Republicans, who are in the minority in the legislature, voted in unison against the bill.

“I would question strongly why we have to do this other than just to have to poke the president in the eye,” state GOP Sen. Bill Sharer of Farmington said during floor debate.

State Sen. Katy Duhigg, an Albuquerque Democrat who was a co-sponsor of the legislation, said it’s “better safe than sorry with democracy.” She said she wanted to “make sure that there was some sort of tool that our local law enforcement would have at their disposal if something does happen, if the federal government does in some manner try to interfere with our elections.”

Connecticut’s bill, scheduled for a hearing later this week, also takes aim at federal attempts to seize ballots or other election material. It would require that state officials receive notification of such a move.

Blumenthal said state lawmakers can’t prevent seizures such as the January search by the FBI on an election center in Fulton County, Ga., a Democratic stronghold that includes Atlanta. But he said, “there might be an opportunity for our state attorney general’s office or the secretary of the state’s office to challenge that.”

Lee and Haigh write for the Associated Press. Haigh reported from Hartford, Conn. AP writer Oliva Diaz in Richmond, Va., and David A. Lieb in Jefferson City, Mo., contributed to this report.