raising

WASHINGTON — Mired in a persistent cost of living crisis and an unpopular war with Iran, President Trump reached a perilous milestone last week, registering an approval rating of 34% in a top-tier poll — a record low less than halfway through his second term.

The results mark one of the sharpest polling collapses of any modern president. The data, from the Economist and YouGov, brings Trump back down to his political nadir, matching a number he hasn’t seen since the immediate aftermath of the Jan. 6 attack five years ago.

It follows on several other surveys published in recent days showing the president entering precarious political territory roughly six months ahead of the midterm elections, raising alarm bells in Republican campaign offices across the country over the party’s prospects in the fall.

It has also led pollsters to question long-standing assumptions about the president’s floor of support, wondering whether it is at risk of giving way.

“It’s harder to get lower, but it’s possible depending on what he does,” said Christopher Wlezien, a political scientist at the University of Texas at Austin. “To get that number down, you are going to have to eat into his core.”

Trump’s base of support remains strong, reinforcing a long-standing theory among pollsters that partisanship now serves as a direct proxy for presidential approval. But softening Republican support on specific policy matters — including top voter priorities, such as the economy — have begun raising questions among experts whether further erosion is possible.

A New York Times poll found his approval at 38%, and a Politico poll recorded a similar erosion, driven by a majority of Americans — including 18% of Trump supporters — stating they are financially worse off than they were before he resumed office.

Roughly 2 out of 3 Americans oppose the war Trump started with Iran. And the coalition that swept him back into office — including a surge in support from Latino, independent and young voters — has effectively disappeared.

While the downward trend looks like a story of a presidency in perpetual trouble, political scientists see a more complicated picture.

“Polarization has raised the floor and lowered the ceiling for approval ratings,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a professor of political science at the University of Houston. “Dramatic swings are less common because approval ratings are now fixed to partisanship.”

The comparison to George W. Bush, whose numbers famously soared after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and cratered into the mid-20s after Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war, is instructive of how polarization has changed in the Trump era.

Bush governed in a country capable of moving together, in favor or against a president, in response to major events. Americans are no longer swayed in that way when it comes to their views of the president, Rottinghaus argues.

“Approval ratings today are increasingly a measure of who the president is rather than what the president does,” he said.

Trump, in his own way, has seemed to nod at this dynamic. When challenged on his standing with the public, or when a Republican lawmaker breaks with him over a policy issue, he has made the argument that he and the MAGA movement are inseparable. In other words, that opposition to any decision he makes is opposition to the movement itself.

“MAGA is me. MAGA loves everything I do, and I love everything I do,” Trump said in a January interview with NBC News when asked if his base supports long-term military interventions abroad.

Rottinghaus compared the questions about presidential approval as the “same as asking whether you’re Republican or not.”

“So why ask it,” he said.

Gallup, the organization that had tracked presidential approval for eight decades, announced earlier this year that it would stop publishing approval ratings of individual political figures, a shift that underscores how the traditional measure of a politician’s popularity has evolved.

When asked about the change, a Gallup spokesperson told the Washington Post at the time that “the context around these measures has changed.”

“They are now widely produced, aggregated and interpreted, and no longer represent an area where Gallup can make its most distinctive contribution,” the spokesperson added.

Samsung Electronics Co. and its labor union failed to reach a wage agreement Wednesday, raising concerns over a major strike later this month that could disrupt operations at the world’s largest memory chipmaker.

The breakdown came after two days of government-led mediation talks that had been viewed as a last-ditch effort to avert the strike scheduled for May 21.

Union and management have remained sharply divided over performance-based bonuses tied to the company’s earnings related to artificial intelligence (AI).

The union has demanded performance bonuses equivalent to 15 percent of operating profit, along with the removal of the payout cap and the formal institutionalization of the bonus system.

The management, meanwhile, proposed allocating 10 percent of operating profit to bonuses and offering a one-time special compensation package that it said exceeds industry standards.

“Because the differences between the labor union and management did not narrow, we requested mediation and waited for nearly 12 hours, but the proposal only worsened,” Choi Seung-ho, head of Samsung Electronics’ largest labor union, told reporters after the meeting at the National Labor Relations Commission office in the administrative city of Sejong.

Choi said some 41,000 unionized workers have expressed their intention to take part in the general strike, adding that the number could rise to more than 50,000.

“It is meaningless to wait any longer,” Choi said. “We do not plan to hold an illegal strike. We will proceed in a legitimate way.”

Choi added that the union now will focus on responding to Samsung’s request for an injunction restricting the union’s planned strike.

Later Wednesday, the Suwon District Court concluded a closed-door second hearing attended by about 30 people, including lawyers and officials from both sides.

During the hearing, the union argued that the strike would be carried out lawfully within a limited period and that it had no intention of illegally occupying company facilities, making an injunction unnecessary.

The court is expected to decide by May 20 whether to grant the injunction.

Following the breakdown in talks, Samsung Electronics expressed regret over the suspension of the mediation process, while pledging to continue efforts to engage in dialogue.

“The post-mediation process, which the government worked hard to arrange, unfortunately collapsed after the union declared negotiations broken down,” the company said in a press release. It, however, vowed to continue making sincere efforts until the very end to prevent the worst-case outcome from materializing.

The labor dispute at Samsung Electronics, the world’s largest memory chip maker and South Korea’s most valuable company, has raised concerns that a walkout could disrupt production and upend the semiconductor supply chain, as well as hurt the broader economy overall.

Observers say that if a full-scale strike takes place, losses to the South Korean economy, which is heavily dependent on exports, could exceed 40 trillion won (US$26.8 billion).

South Korea’s exports reached a record $219.9 billion in the first quarter of 2026, driven by strong global demand for AI data centers. Semiconductor exports were a major contributor, surging 139 percent from a year earlier to $78.5 billion as investment in AI-related servers accelerated.

Some observers have speculated that the government could invoke emergency arbitration powers to prevent further escalation.

Under South Korea’s labor laws, the labor minister may order emergency arbitration when industrial action is deemed likely to endanger public welfare or seriously harm the national economy.

If invoked, all strike actions would be prohibited for 30 days while mediation and arbitration procedures are conducted by the commission. Emergency arbitration powers have been exercised only four times in South Korea’s history.

A commission official declined to comment on the possibility, saying, “It is not something we are reviewing.”

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

SACRAMENTO — The debate over immigration issues has reached a fever pitch nationwide, and Angelica Salas said it’s putting her employees at risk.

Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, said her staff experiences harassment and death threats.

“They ask themselves, what if someone who disagrees with our work can find where I live, will my family be safe?” Salas said, addressing state lawmakers at a recent legislative hearing.”People begin to self-censor; they step away from their work and some leave the field entirely.”

Salas was speaking in support of Assembly Bill 2624, which would provide privacy protections for those facing harassment for working or volunteering with organizations that offer legal and humanitarian aid to immigrants. The bill would create an address confidentiality program, like the one already offered to reproductive healthcare workers, and prohibit people and businesses from selling or posting images or personal information about the protected individuals on the internet.

The measure has drawn ire from Republicans, who argue it could have a chilling effect on free speech and the media. Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) dubbed it the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” and said it would prevent right-wing social media influencers like Shirley from conducting immigrant-related investigations in California.

Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), who authored the legislation, said the proposed law would help keep people safe — but several 1st Amendment experts this week told The Times the bill could have unintended consequences.

“There could be grounds for concern,” said Jason Shepard, a media law and communications professor at California State Fullerton. “It reflects a legitimate and important state interest in protecting people from harassment and threats. But at the same time, this bill punishes the publication of information.”

The legislation defines “personal information” as anything that identifies, describes or relates to the protected individuals, including their names, addresses, telephone numbers, physical descriptions, driver’s licenses, financial information, license plate numbers and places of employment.

Shepard said the potential new law could be applied unevenly, and the language could have a chilling effect on investigative journalism.

Given the polarized political environment, Shepard said the legislation also could prompt other groups to request similar protections, as those working in a range of professions are facing increasingly heated rhetoric or attacks.

“This is not unique to people who are working in immigration support services; this really could apply to anybody engaged in public debate today,” he said.

Carolyn Iodice, the policy director for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, known as FIRE, said the organization has noted an uptick in laws nationwide implementing privacy protections for those in certain professions.

She pointed to a statute enacted a few years ago in New Jersey that protects the addresses of judges, prosecutors and police officers. The law was used in 2023 to block an editor with New Brunswick Today from publishing an article about the police chief living two hours outside of the city.

“It was obviously newsworthy, but this officer was able to wield the law against this journalist, and that is the kind of thing we are worried about,” Iodice said. “When you think about handing what could be a huge number of people the ability to just block anything from being posted about them online — it could easily be abused.”

David Loy, the legal director for the nonpartisan First Amendment Coalition, said the measure would censor the free speech of all citizens, not just those who defamed or threatened immigrant aid workers.

“Someone might have a legitimate dispute with them and wants to refer to it online,” he said. “But they could then basically silence [that person] from referring to them on a Yelp review or Facebook posts that has nothing to do with threatening them — and that is going way beyond the narrow exceptions of the 1st Amendment.”

Loy said the coalition reached out to Bonta’s office and hopes to help tweak the bill.

Meanwhile, the legislation continues to face scrutiny from Republicans.

“We exposed CA Democrats for the ‘Stop Nick Shirley’ Act that silences citizen journalists who expose their fraud and corruption,” DiMaio wrote this week on social media.

Shirley released a viral video last year alleging fraud in Somali-run immigrant daycare centers in Minneapolis. He recently shared videos of himself in Sacramento confronting Democrats who support Bonta’s bill.

“The enemy is truly within,” Shirley wrote on Instagram. “When our politicians would rather protect fraudsters and illegal migrants, it’s time for us to stand up or face mass oppression from the traitors.”

Bonta dismissed the assertion that the bill is intended to deter journalists, stating in a news release that “right-wing agitators” and “ineffective legislators” were intentionally spreading misinformation.

Bonta spokesperson Daniel McGreevy said the bill has a straightforward goal of protecting immigrant service providers. He said the office is working to refine the legislation to address concerns and welcomes good-faith dialogue.

The bill is progressing through the state Legislature and most recently was referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

A majority of South Koreans support raising the country’s senior age threshold to 70 from the current 65, a survey by Gallup Korea showed Friday.

The survey, conducted from Tuesday to Thursday on 1,002 adults aged 18 and older, found that 59 percent of respondents favored raising the eligibility age for senior benefits.

Opposition stood at 30 percent, while 12 percent either declined to answer or said they were unsure.

In similar surveys conducted in 2015 and 2023, 46 percent and 60 percent of respondents, respectively, backed raising the threshold.

The poll also found 60 percent of respondents believe individuals should be primarily responsible for their own livelihood in old age.

By contrast, 29 percent said the government and society should take responsibility, while 4 percent said such responsibility fell on their offspring and 3 percent chose other options.

Across all age groups, more than half said individuals should take primary responsibility for their retirement.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi arrives in Islamabad, but Tehran yet to commit to more talks with US delegation.

United States President Donald Trump is sending envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to Pakistan as Iran’s foreign minister arrived in the country, raising hopes of new talks on ending the US-Israeli war on Iran amid a fragile ceasefire and growing tensions over control of the Hormuz Strait.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Friday that US envoys would sit down with Abbas Araghchi, expressing hope that parties would “move the ball forward to a deal”, but it remained unclear whether the Iranian delegation had agreed to hold talks.

Writing on X on Friday, Iran’s top diplomat had said he was off on a “timely tour of Islamabad, Muscat, and Moscow”, to coordinate on “bilateral matters”, with no specific mention of any intention to meet with US negotiators.

Trump expressed optimism over a potential deal, telling the news agency Reuters that Iran was “making an offer” aimed at satisfying US demands, which include ending its nuclear programme.

Earlier, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Iran had a chance to make a “good deal”. “Iran knows that they still have an open window to choose wisely … at the negotiating table,” he said, adding that all they had to do was “abandon a nuclear weapon in meaningful and verifiable ways”.

But two Pakistani government sources told Reuters that the Iranian foreign minister’s visit would be brief, focusing on Iran’s proposals for talks with the US, which mediator Pakistan would then convey to Washington.

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem said a “senior official” had “made it clear” to him that there would not be any US-Iran talks in Pakistan.

“These regional partners all have their own ideas on how to solve this deadlock, but for the moment, Iran has said it would not meet for a new round of talks,” he said.

Top negotiators from last round absent

Reports on Araghchi’s trip in Iranian state media made no mention of Mohammad Baqer Ghalibaf, the speaker of Iran’s parliament, who was the head of its delegation at talks with a US delegation earlier this month that ended with no breakthrough.

The Iranian parliament’s media office denied a report that Ghalibaf had resigned as head of Iran’s negotiating team, adding that there was no new round of talks scheduled yet, according to Reuters.

US Vice President JD Vance also participated in the first round of talks, but is not travelling to Pakistan on this occasion, though Leavitt said he remained “deeply involved” and was on “standby” to join if needed.

She said Trump decided to send Witkoff and Kushner to Pakistan “to hear the Iranians out”. “We’ve certainly seen some progress from the Iranian side in the last couple of days,” she maintained, without offering any further details.

Reporting from Washington, Al Jazeera’s Mike Hanna said there appeared to be a “graded process” in place, describing it as “an initial exploratory phase” that could lead to “higher-level engagement if negotiations deepen”.

A new round of talks had been expected to start on Tuesday but did not materialise, with Iran saying it was not yet ready to commit to attending.

Trump had unilaterally extended a two-week ceasefire on Tuesday to allow more time to reconvene the negotiators as the US continued its blockade on Iranian ports.

Iran says it will not stop blocking the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial maritime trade chokepoint, until Trump lifts his blockade. On Friday, the US applied more pressure on Tehran by freezing $344m in cryptocurrency assets in a bid to “systematically degrade Tehran’s ability to generate, move, and repatriate funds”.

A former executive at Live Nation, the world’s largest live entertainment company, is suing the company, alleging that he was wrongfully terminated after he raised concerns about alleged financial misconduct and improper accounting practices.

Nicholas Rumanes alleges he was “fraudulently induced” in 2022 to leave a lucrative position as head of strategic development at a real estate investment trust to create a new role as executive vice president of development and business practice at Beverly Hills-based Live Nation.

In his new position, Rumanes said, he raised “serious and legitimate alarm” over the the company’s business practices.

As a result, he says, he was “unlawfully terminated,” according to the lawsuit filed Thursday in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

“Rumanes was, simply put, promised one job and forced to accept another. And then he was cut loose for insisting on doing that lesser job with integrity and honesty,” according to the lawsuit.

He is seeking $35 million in damages.

Representatives for Live Nation were not immediately available for comment.

The lawsuit comes a week after a federal jury in Manhattan found that Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary had operated a monopoly over major concert venues, controlling 86% of the concert market.

Rumanes’ lawsuit describes a “culture of deception” at Live Nation, saying its “basic business model was to misstate and exaggerate financial figures in efforts to solicit and secure business.”

Such practices “spanned a wide spectrum of projects in what appeared to be a company-wide pattern of financial misrepresentation and misleading disclosures,” the lawsuit states.

Rumanes says he received materials and documents that showed that the company inflated projected revenues across multiple venue development projects.

Additionally, Rumanes contends that the company violated a federal law that requires independent financial auditing and transparency and instead ran Live Nation “through a centralized, opaque structure” that enables it to “bypass oversight and internal checks and balances.”

In 2010, as a condition of the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger, the newly formed company agreed to a consent decree with the government that prohibited the firm from threatening venues to use Ticketmaster. In 2019 the Justice Department found that the company had repeatedly breached the agreement, and it extended the decree.

Rumanes contends that he brought his concerns to the attention of the company’s management, but his warnings were “repeatedly ignored.”