New Trump approval poll
Executive summary
A wave of national surveys in January 2026 shows President Trump’s job approval clustered in the high 30s to low 40s, with aggregate measures and individual polls producing net ratings ranging from about -18 to roughly -13 depending on methodology [1] [2] [3]. The pattern is consistent across multiple firms: approval is underwater overall, sharp declines on immigration and foreign‑policy measures are notable, and partisan polarization surrounds every metric [4] [5] [6].
1. The raw landscape: what the recent polls actually report
National polls this month place Trump’s approval between roughly 38% and 42%, depending on the pollster and whether the figure is an individual survey, an aggregator, or a daily average; Marist recorded 38% approval (56% disapprove) in a 1,408‑respondent survey (MOE ±3.3) [4], CNN/SSRS found 39% approval in early January [7], the New York Times/Siena reported 40% approval [5], and RealClear aggregates sit around 42.4% as of Jan. 20 [3], while Nate Silver’s average translates to a net approval around -12.9 on Jan. 18 [2].
2. Where the damage is concentrated: issues and demographics
The slide is not uniform: immigration — a signature issue for Trump — has seen sharp erosion, with approval in some averages falling to the high 30s or lower [2] economy-election/" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[8], and the economy, while still negative in net terms, has shown small bouncebacks from earlier, deeper negatives [2]. Working‑class voters and independents appear to be primary sources of deterioration in several surveys, with Marist and Economist/YouGov showing particularly weak marks outside the Republican base [1] [7].
3. Partisan polarization and outlier readings
Polls uniformly show extreme partisan splits: analyses note roughly nine in ten Republicans approve while single‑digit percentages of Democrats do so, producing an 80‑plus point gap in some samples (91% Republican approval vs 6% Democratic approval was reported in January) [6]. That polarization helps explain why some polls or likely‑voter screens produce higher approval readings (mid‑40s in isolated surveys) while household‑adult samples and certain aggregators record approval in the high 30s to low 40s [9] [10].
4. Interpreting the trend: decline, stabilization, or noise?
Most reputable aggregators and multiple respected polls point to a net decline from Trump’s early‑term highs and a current position that is decidedly “underwater” (more disapprove than approve) — Marist and AP‑NORC produced some of the strongest negative nets in mid‑January [1] [4]. Still, short‑term movement is modest: RealClear and other averages show only small week‑to‑week shifts, meaning that headlines of “cratering” must be weighed against the persistence of a sizable, loyal base and methodological differences across polls [3] [11].
5. Competing narratives and methodological caveats
Two narratives are competing in the media: one frames January polls as evidence that Trump’s coalition is unraveling and his agenda is unpopular (echoed by CNN, Marist, Newsweek and Mother Jones reporting) [7] [4] [1] [8], while conservative outlets argue that the president’s low‑40s approval is a durable mandate and that media aggregators overemphasize marginal declines [11]. Methodological factors — likely‑voter vs adult samples, online vs mixed‑mode interviewing, question wording, and timing around news events — account for several points of variation; several polls cited include margins of error and differing sample frames that matter for interpretation [4] [9].
6. Political implications: midterms, messaging, and the day after
If the current spread holds into autumn, it presents real risks for Republican candidates in competitive districts where independents and working‑class voters are swing constituencies; pollsters and analysts flagged this as a midterm concern in January reporting [7] [8]. However, the intensity of approval among core Republican voters — far higher than among Democrats — limits how much national averages alone predict electoral outcomes, and the administration’s capacity to shift assessments on economy or security could blunt some losses [6] [2].