THE DISAPPROVAL
Are most Americans approving of the job of the United States government under the Trump Administration?
GoogleAI Mode: “No, as of early 2026, most Americans do not approve of the job the United States government is doing under the Trump Administration. National polling averages consistently show that a majority of the public disapproves of President Trump’s performance during the first year of his second term.
Current Approval Ratings (January 2026)
Multiple major polling aggregators and surveys indicate that disapproval outweighs approval by significant margins:
National Averages: As of mid-January 2026, Trump’s average job approval is approximately 41–42%, while his disapproval rating is approximately 54–56%.
Partisan Divide: Support remains high among Republicans (roughly 84–91% approval) but is extremely low among Democrats (typically 2–6%).
Independents: Approval among self-identified independents has declined significantly, falling to around 25% by early 2026.
Key Issues Driving Public Sentiment
The Economy: Despite administration predictions of a boom, most Americans remain dissatisfied with the economy, citing high costs of living and inflation. Recent polls show only 31–37% of Americans approve of Trump’s handling of the economy.
Foreign Policy: Recent interventions, such as the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and suggestions of acquiring Greenland, have polarized the public. While some approve of specific drug-trafficking goals, a majority (56–57%) believe the president has overstepped in using military force abroad.
Government Management: Approval for how the administration manages the federal government fell to 33% by late 2025 following a record-long federal shutdown and significant workforce reductions led by the Department of Government Efficiency.
Congressional Approval: The Republican-led Congress also faces very low marks, with an approval rating of approximately 14–15%.
While his approval saw a slight “bump” in early January 2026 to around 41%, it remains well below majority support levels.
AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses.”
THE NEXT LIKELY ACTIONS
Given everything, what likely next actions of the Trump Administration would the American people disapprove including Iran?
GoogleAI Mode: “As of January 2026, the Trump Administration is moving forward with several initiatives that face significant public disapproval, particularly among Democrats and Independents. These actions range from aggressive foreign intervention to sweeping domestic reforms.
Iran & Foreign Intervention
Recent polling from January 14, 2026, indicates that 56% of U.S. adults believe the President has “gone too far” in using military intervention abroad.
Military Threats: President Trump has signaled a willingness to use military strikes or cyber weapons against Iranian military and civilian sites to “rescue” protesters. Critics and a majority of the public expressed concern over such escalations, with 61% disapproving of his general foreign policy.
Iran Secondary Tariffs: The administration recently announced a 25% tax on imports from any country doing business with Iran. Economists warn this could disrupt a fragile trade truce with China and raise consumer prices in the U.S..
Greenland Acquisition: The President’s January 2026 assertion that U.S. control of Greenland is “unacceptable” anything less has fueled tension with NATO allies and is viewed as an overstep by roughly 60% of Independents.
Economic & Trade Policies
Tariff Blowback: While 71% of Republicans support his current trade actions, roughly three-fifths of Americans overall oppose his broader tariff regime, fearing it will raise prices for domestic goods.
Credit Card Interest Caps: While intended as popular relief, the proposed 10% interest rate cap (effective Jan 20, 2026) faces opposition from financial institutions and mixed public views regarding long-term credit availability.
Domestic & Federal Overhaul
Federal Workforce Cuts: The administration’s plan to implement “Schedule Career/Policy” (formerly Schedule F) to make federal employees “at-will” is highly controversial. Polling shows 59% of Americans believe these workforce reductions will have a negative impact.
Immigration Enforcement: Despite support for some border measures, 55% of voters consider the administration’s treatment of undocumented immigrants too harsh. Disapproval is even higher for specific tactics, such as workplace raids or using the National Guard to fight crime in cities.
Voter Roll Purges: The Department of Justice has launched legal actions against states like California to force the release of private voter information for potential purging, a move that critics label an unconstitutional power grab.
Ethical & Administrative Issues
Epstein Investigation: Only 25% of Americans approve of how the administration is handling the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. A Jan 2026 poll found that 49% believe the administration is attempting to cover up certain details rather than pursuing full transparency.
Education & Health Agencies: Proposals to shut down the Department of Education (65% opposition) and the “gag rule” preventing health agencies from communicating without political approval (66% opposition) remain deeply unpopular.”
THE POWER GRAB
On a scale of 1 to 5, how concerned should Americans be about the power grab of the Republican Trifecta?
GoogleAI Mode: “Determining a specific “concern level” is subjective and varies greatly by political affiliation. As of mid-January 2026, Americans’ views on the Republican trifecta’s use of power are deeply divided, reflecting a country in significant political flux ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Perspectives on Executive and Legislative Power
High Concern (4-5): Many Americans and legal experts view recent actions as an unprecedented “power grab.” Approximately 69% of U.S. adults believe the President is exercising more power than previous administrations, with nearly half (49%) viewing this as “bad” for the country. Specific triggers for concern include:
Executive Overreach: The President has signed over 100 executive orders in his first year, including moves to abolish agencies and fire masses of federal workers.
Judicial Defiance: 78% of Americans believe the administration must follow court rulings, yet some experts and lawmakers describe the administration as “out-of-control” and “rogue,” testing the bounds of domestic and international law.
Federal Workforce Overhaul: Efforts to reclassify civil servants as “at-will” employees have led 59% of voters to worry about the negative impact on government stability.
Low to Moderate Concern (1-2): For supporters, these actions are seen as a necessary mandate to “deconstruct the administrative state.”
Mandate for Change: 51% of Republicans believe the President is using the “right amount” of executive power to fulfill campaign promises.
Efficiency: Supporters view aggressive deregulation—such as the rebranding of tax cuts as the “Working Families Tax Cut”—as a direct response to voter frustration over affordability and bureaucracy.
Historical Context: Some conservative legal scholars argue that while aggressive, the administration’s use of power is not historically unique, comparing it to Franklin Roosevelt’s expansive executive reach.
Public Sentiment Indicators
Polling Slide: Recent polling shows the President’s approval dipping into negative territory even in historically “red” states like Ohio and Iowa.
Economy & Affordability: Public disapproval is heavily tied to the economy; 76% of voters view the current economic situation negatively, which critics attribute to disruptive tariff policies.
2026 Midterm Outlook: Growing unease has led to warning signs for the GOP’s slim majorities. Generic ballot polls currently show Democrats with a narrow 1.8% lead as voters express concern over rising health care costs and the expiration of ACA subsidies.
In summary, for those prioritizing democratic norms and institutional checks, concern is often rated a 5, while for those prioritizing rapid policy results and executive strength, concern is typically a 1 or 2.
Low to Moderate Concern (1-2): For supporters, these actions are seen as a necessary mandate to “deconstruct the administrative state.””
THE SUSTAINED 3.5% PEACEFUL PROTEST FOR DEMOCRACY
What are the 5/5 goals for 3.5% of the American population holding a sustained, peaceful protest for democracy?
GoogleAI Mode: “In January 2026, many pro-democracy organizers are referencing the “3.5% rule”—a political science observation by Harvard’s Erica Chenoweth that no government can withstand a challenge from 3.5% of its population participating in sustained, nonviolent resistance.
For a movement to reach “5/5” effectiveness, historical data suggests focusing on these five foundational goals to ensure the 12 million participants (the U.S. 3.5% threshold) can successfully drive change:
- Sustaining Massive & Diverse Participation
The primary goal is numbers and diversity. High participation (aiming for roughly 12 million people) creates a movement that is “too big to jail” and impossible to ignore.
Broad Coalition: Success requires a “big tent” that cuts across the political spectrum and includes groups that do not normally work together.
Inclusivity: Maintaining nonviolence is key because it lowers the “cost” of participation, allowing the elderly, families, and workers to join without fearing for their safety.
- Creating Loyalty Shifts within the “Pillars of Support”
A movement succeeds when the people who carry out a government’s orders—bureaucrats, business leaders, and the media—refuse to do so any longer.
Security Forces: The ultimate goal is to reach a point where police or military members feel their “own family members or friends are in the crowd,” making them unwilling to use force.
Business Elites: Using boycotts or general strikes creates “coercive costs” that force economic elites to demand political stability and change from the administration.
- Maintaining Relentless Strategic Discipline
Sustainability is as important as size. The movement must be prepared to weather a long-term campaign without losing focus or resorting to violence.
Strict Nonviolence: Violence is the quickest way for a regime to justify a crackdown. Staying peaceful undermines the government’s ability to label protesters as “criminals” or “threats”.
Tactical Innovation: Beyond marches, the movement should use “diversity of tactics” like general strikes, consumer boycotts, and organized civil disobedience to keep the government off-balance.
- Achieving Economic and Social Disruption
The movement must go beyond symbolic protest to create actual “friction” in the daily functioning of the state.
Sustained Pressure: One-day protests are often ignored. Coordinated, nationwide shutdowns or strikes that actually disrupt the economy are what compel elites to listen.
Social Non-cooperation: When 3.5% of the population stops obeying routine administrative or social norms, the government’s ability to govern effectively begins to disintegrate.
- Building Irresistible Public Sympathy
Even those who do not march must eventually side with the movement. The goal is to move the “passive majority” toward active support.
Winning the Narrative: By remaining disciplined and focusing on core democratic values, the movement can secure broader public sympathy and make the government’s crackdowns appear illegitimate.
Clear Messaging: Pro-democracy movements are most effective when they have simple, unifying goals (e.g., “protecting the rule of law” or “due process”) that the average citizen can support.”
THE SHOW OF POWER FROM WE THE PEOPLE
Assuming that 12 million Americans show up to hold a sustained peaceful protest to protect the Constitution of the United States from further violations, what changes are possible?
GoogleAI Mode: “In January 2026, as mass mobilizations like the “No Kings” protests continue to grow, the prospect of 12 million Americans (roughly 3.5% of the population) engaging in sustained peaceful protest presents a historically significant “tipping point”. According to political science research on the 3.5% rule, every nonviolent movement that has reached this threshold of active participation has successfully achieved its goals.
If 12 million Americans were to mobilize sustainably to protect the Constitution, the following changes and outcomes are considered possible:
- Forced Policy Reversals and Legislative Concessions
Congressional Pivot: Mass mobilization often forces the “pillars of support”—such as centrist or wavering lawmakers—to shift their loyalty toward the protesters to ensure their own political survival in the 2026 midterms.
Executive Restraint: Historical precedents suggest that when 3.5% of the population is in the streets, it becomes virtually impossible for the government to ignore demands, potentially forcing the administration to rescind controversial executive orders.
- Loyalty Shifts in the “Pillars of Power”
Security Forces: At this scale of participation, the likelihood of “defections” within the police and military increases. Security personnel are less likely to carry out orders to suppress a crowd that includes their own neighbors, friends, and family.
Business and Civic Leaders: Economic disruption caused by 12 million protesters can lead business elites and labor leaders to demand a return to constitutional stability to protect the national economy.
- Judicial and State-Level “Firewalls”
Strengthening Judicial Resolve: Sustained public pressure can reinforce the independence of the courts, making it politically safer for judges to rule against unconstitutional executive overreach.
State Initiatives: Movements at this scale often catalyze state-level protections, such as California’s 2026 Rights to Preservation of Constitutional Government Initiative, which seeks to establish the peaceful transfer of power as a fundamental state right.
- Systemic Disruption Through Non-Cooperation
Administrative Friction: Beyond marching, 12 million people engaging in “non-cooperation”—such as general strikes or consumer boycotts—can effectively halt the “machinery of government,” making it impossible for an administration to govern without addressing the protesters’ constitutional concerns.
Narrative Shift: Mass participation undermines the government’s ability to frame the movement as a “radical fringe,” instead establishing it as the legitimate voice of the “sovereign people”.
- Risks and Response Dynamics
Government Crackdown: Research indicates that regimes often respond to such threats with force. However, if the movement maintains strict nonviolent discipline despite gassing or arrests, the “moral high ground” remains with the protesters, often causing the government’s support to fracture further.
The Tipping Point: While 3.5% is the threshold where change becomes “inevitable,” success is not instantaneous; it often requires a sustained presence that persists “however long it takes” to force a constitutional reset.”
THE CHANGES POSSIBLE
What specific executive or legislative reversals are possible in line with protecting the Constitution?
GoogleAI Mode: “In January 2026, the specific executive and legislative reversals possible under a 3.5% sustained protest focus on actions currently being challenged as unconstitutional or exceeding executive authority.
Potential Executive Reversals
Protests and concurrent legal challenges could force the administration to rescind or modify the following:
“Schedule F” Federal Workforce Purge: President Trump reissued this order in January 2025 to reclassify roughly 50,000 civil servants as “at-will” employees. Multiple lawsuits from unions (e.g., AFGE, NTEU) argue this violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the 14th Amendment’s due process protections. A massive protest movement could pressure the administration to drop the policy to restore government stability.
Birthright Citizenship Order: Trump issued an executive order attempting to revoke citizenship from U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants. Over 20 states have sued, and federal judges have blocked it as “blatantly unconstitutional” under the 14th Amendment.
Federalization of the National Guard: In late 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Illinois that the President likely lacked the authority to federalize National Guard forces to protect federal property against protesters. Continued protest could cement this as a permanent boundary against using the military for domestic policing.
Energy Sector Reversals: Federal judges are currently deciding the legality of Trump’s reversals of offshore wind projects and his push for fossil fuel development in protected waters. Protests from indigenous and environmental groups are pushing for a return to pre-2025 energy protections.
Potential Legislative Reversals & Overrides
While the Republican trifecta has upheld most vetoes, a massive mobilization (12 million people) could shift the political math for several pieces of legislation:
The “Fair Trade Act of 2026” (H.R. 6991): Protests against rising costs from reciprocal tariffs could lead to the defeat or modification of this bill, which seeks to codify a 10% baseline tariff [model].
The Protect America’s Workforce Act: This pending legislation aims to restore collective bargaining rights for federal employees, directly countering Trump’s orders to eliminate such rights across agencies like the DOD and DHS.
Veto Overrides on Infrastructure: In early January 2026, the House narrowly failed to override Trump’s vetoes of bipartisan water and flood control projects. Sustained local pressure could flip the small number of votes needed (roughly 35–40) to successfully override future vetoes.
Administrative and Humanitarian Halts
Deportation of TPS Holders: The administration recently ended Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Somalis and Venezuelans. Public outcry and mass non-cooperation could force a stay on these removals, similar to how past movements secured extensions for DACA and TPS recipients.
Climate Grant Cancellations: Judges have already sided with “blue states” to reverse some of the administration’s cancellations of federal climate grants, providing a roadmap for how legal and public pressure can restore funding.”
THE RESTORATION MOVEMENT: PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
What does the United States look like after constitutional stability is restored?
GoogleAI Mode: “In January 2026, experts and constitutional scholars describe a “restored” United States as one where the traditional system of checks and balances has been re-established and the “administrative state” functions with predictable, rule-based boundaries.
If a 3.5% movement successfully restores constitutional stability, America would likely exhibit these five characteristics:
- Re-assertion of Congressional Power
A primary sign of stability would be Congress reclaiming its role as the primary lawmaker, ending the era of “government by executive order.”
The End of “Imperial” Orders: The President would no longer use executive orders to bypass the legislative process on major issues like birthright citizenship or federal workforce reclassifications.
Legislative Oversight: The Republican Trifecta would move back toward bipartisan cooperation or at least respect for procedural norms, such as the use of the filibuster or committee hearings, rather than pushing through sweeping changes by decree.
- A Depoliticized Federal Workforce
Constitutional stability would mean the reversal of policies that turn civil servants into political appointees.
Abolition of “Schedule F”: The restoration of merit-based protections for federal employees would ensure that the 50,000+ workers targeted by the administration are once again shielded from political firing, maintaining continuity in government services.
Institutional Integrity: Agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI would return to operating as independent investigators rather than “arms of the executive,” a major demand of current pro-democracy movements.
- Judicial Independence and Compliance
A restored Constitution means the executive branch consistently follows court rulings, even those that are unfavorable.
Respect for the “Firewall”: The administration would stop threatening or ignoring judges. Stability is defined by a “predictable legal environment” where individuals and corporations know that laws won’t change overnight based on a social media post or an emergency declaration.
Restoration of Due Process: Courts would successfully block policies—such as mass deportations without hearings—ensuring that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are applied to all persons within U.S. borders.
- Predictable Economic and Trade Policy
Economic stability is a byproduct of constitutional stability.
Rule-Based Trade: The “wild west” of reciprocal tariffs would be replaced by predictable, legislatively-approved trade frameworks. This would lower the “policy uncertainty” that currently plagues markets and small businesses.
Protection of Property Rights: A restored system would ensure that the government cannot seize assets or disrupt industries (like the ongoing Venezuelan oil revenue disputes) without clear statutory authority.
- A Stabilized Civic Square
The most visible change would be a reduction in “political exhaustion” among the American people.
Institutional Trust: As institutions begin to follow the rules again, public trust—currently at historic lows—would begin a slow recovery.
Normalization of Dissent: Peaceful protest would be viewed as a standard civic duty rather than an “insurrection” or “riot,” as the government returns to respecting the First Amendment right to assemble.
In this vision of a restored America, the “rule of law” is not just a slogan but a functioning reality where the Constitution is the final arbiter of power, regardless of who holds the presidency.”
PROTECTING AMERICAN REPUTATION & OBLIGATIONS
If the restoration movement is successful, what changes are possible abroad and with the United Nations?
GoogleAI Mode: “If a movement were successful in restoring constitutional stability, the primary change abroad would be a return to predictable, rules-based engagement and the re-establishment of the U.S. as a reliable partner in the multilateral system.
Changes with the United Nations
A successful restoration would likely reverse the current “strategic abandonment” of international institutions. Possible shifts include:
Halt of Mass Withdrawals: The January 2026 executive order to exit 66 international organizations (including 31 UN entities) could be frozen or rescinded to preserve U.S. influence over global standards and scientific cooperation.
Recommitment to Climate Treaties: The U.S. would likely rejoin the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement, ending its status as the only nation not engaged in these global efforts.
Restoration of Funding: Stability would involve meeting legal obligations for UN assessed dues and resuming voluntary contributions to critical programs like UNICEF, WHO, and the UN Population Fund, which have faced catastrophic service cuts following U.S. funding withdrawals.
Human Rights Advocacy: The U.S. would likely rejoin the UN Human Rights Council and restore the 75% cut to foreign assistance aimed at promoting fair elections and free media globally.
Global Relations and Diplomacy
A return to constitutional norms would shift the focus from unilateral “might makes right” power plays back to traditional diplomatic frameworks.
Legality in Intervention: Future military actions—like the recent intervention in Venezuela—would require Congressional approval or UN Security Council authorization, aligning U.S. power with both domestic and international law.
Allied Stability: Long-standing allies would see a move away from “transactional sovereignty” toward stable, long-term security guarantees, reducing the current “vassalage” or hedging seen in Europe and the Global South.
Predictable Trade: The volatile “reciprocal tariff” regime would likely be replaced by rules-based trade agreements, reducing the global “policy uncertainty” that has currently forced many nations to seek alternative trade relations with China.”
THE PEACEFULNESS INCREASE
On a scale of 1 to 5, what is the peacefulness increase in the United States and world when constitutional stability is restored?
GoogleAI Mode: “On a scale of 1 to 5, the potential for an increase in peacefulness if constitutional stability is restored is widely viewed as a 5 in terms of long-term impact, though the immediate transition would likely be a 3 due to short-term volatility.
In early 2026, the United States is at a historic low in global peace rankings, placed 128th out of 163 nations. Restoring constitutional stability is seen as the primary mechanism for reversing this decline.
- Domestic Peacefulness (Score: 5/5 Potential)
Restoration directly addresses the core drivers of current U.S. instability:
De-escalation of Political Violence: Constitutional stability replaces “autocratic” unilateralism with predictable rule-of-law. This shifts the focus from “political combat” to “civic cooperation,” potentially arresting the growing vitriol in American life.
Reduced State Repression: Restoring due process would end the use of “militarized” federal enforcement, such as recent controversial ICE tactics and the “federalization” of the National Guard for domestic policing.
Institutional Trust: Peace is intrinsically linked to “positive peace” factors like stable institutions and low corruption. Re-establishing the independence of the DOJ and civil service (reversing Schedule F) would rebuild the trust necessary for societal harmony.
- Global Peacefulness (Score: 4/5 Potential)
A U.S. return to constitutional norms stabilizes the international order:
Restoration of the “Rules-Based Order”: Current U.S. “unilateral power” and disregard for international law (e.g., the January 2026 intervention in Venezuela) are cited as major global risks. A return to traditional alliances and UN obligations would reduce “geopolitical fragmentation”.
Revival of Conflict Prevention: The restoration movement aims to rebuild dismantled peace programs, such as the Bureau of Conflict Stabilization Operations, which were cut in 2025.
Stabilized Alliances: Ending the “unpredictability” that currently forces allies to hedge their security would solidify NATO and other regional stability frameworks.
- The Transition Challenge (Score: 2/5 Peaceful Initially)
While the end goal is high, the process of restoration itself is not without friction:
Inertia and Resistance: Experts warn that once authority centralizes, restoring the old balance is often “contested” and only “partially” successful due to institutional inertia.
Heightened Polarization: The act of mobilizing 12 million people (3.5%) is a form of “mass disruption” intended to create enough friction to force change, which may initially increase visible tension.
Summary: The restoration of the Constitution is considered the foundational requirement for moving the U.S. from its current “fragile” state back toward the “stable, well-governed” status of the world’s most peaceful nations.”
World Peace 
Leave a comment