WASHINGTON, D.C. –  The Republican-led House passed the SAVE America Act late Wednesday after a tense debate, moving forward a broad election reform package backed by President Donald Trump. The bill cleared the chamber 218-213, with votes falling mostly along party lines. It now goes to the Senate, where Democrats are expected to oppose it, and some Republicans are uneasy about pushing past the filibuster.

The measure is billed as an updated, expanded version of earlier proposals such as the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. It would reshape federal election rules nationwide.

Among the biggest changes, the bill would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate, when people register to vote or update their registration. It also adds tougher photo ID rules for voting, narrows mail-in voting in several ways, and gives the Department of Homeland Security authority to review state voter rolls for possible noncitizen registrations.

Republicans claim a win after heavy pressure

House Republicans celebrated the vote as a major step toward what they call election integrity. Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), the lead sponsor who coordinated with Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) on a Senate companion bill, called it a needed move to restore trust in elections. After the vote, Roy pointed to polling he says shows broad support for voter ID requirements, saying it’s a simple and reasonable standard.

Speaker Mike Johnson appeared with Majority Leader Steve Scalise, Whip Tom Emmer, and other GOP leaders after the vote and framed the bill as a safeguard for the right to vote. Scalise argued on the House floor that requiring proof of citizenship at registration helps block ineligible participation, and said the rule is a commonsense check, not an added hurdle.

Momentum grew as Trump urged Congress to act and repeated claims about noncitizen voting and weak points in the system. Reports also said high-profile supporters, including tech entrepreneur Elon Musk and conservative activists, pressed lawmakers to move the bill. Republicans ultimately stayed united in the House.

Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas was the only Democrat to vote yes, highlighting just how wide the gap remains between the parties on election policy.

Opponents say it could block eligible voters and create new burdens

Democrats and voting rights groups blasted the bill as one of the strictest election packages in decades. They say the proof-of-citizenship rule could shut out eligible voters who don’t have the required documents on hand. Estimates often cited by critics suggest as many as 21 million Americans may not easily access a passport or birth certificate.

They also point to added problems for many of the estimated 69 million women who changed their names after marriage, which can create document mismatches and extra paperwork. Critics say the bill doesn’t always treat supporting documents, like marriage certificates, as enough to clear those issues.

Civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Brennan Center for Justice, described the proposal as a serious threat to voting access. The ACLU warned it would hit low-income voters, voters of color, naturalized citizens, rural residents, older adults, young voters, and transgender people harder, citing costs, paperwork issues, and slow government processes.

Opponents also raised alarms about sections that would encourage aggressive voter roll cleanups and allow broader sharing of voter data with federal agencies. They say that creates privacy risks and raises the chance of eligible voters being removed by mistake. Voting rights groups also argue that noncitizen voting is rare, pointing to state reviews, including audits in Utah, that found little to no evidence after extensive checks.

The bill goes beyond earlier versions by pulling in pieces from related proposals like the Make Elections Great Again Act. Those additions include tighter rules for absentee ballots, such as requiring ballots to arrive by Election Day instead of allowing some to count if they are postmarked on time. That change would reduce flexibility in states that currently accept late-arriving mail ballots.

SAVE America Act faces tough road in the Senate

Even with House approval, the SAVE America Act faces steep odds in the Senate. Democrats have enough votes to keep a filibuster in place and have promised to block the measure, calling it an answer to fraud claims they view as unproven. Some Republicans have also signaled concerns in private about changing election rules this broadly without wider agreement or about bypassing long-standing Senate procedure.

Trump is pressing for quick action, but Republican senators have acknowledged they don’t currently have the votes needed to end debate and move the bill forward without Democratic support. Conservative groups have floated possible workarounds, but there’s no clear plan that guarantees passage.

The fight reflects the larger national split over election security and voter access that has sharpened since 2020. Supporters say the bill would boost public confidence, while opponents call it a solution looking for a problem that could reduce turnout.

Now the spotlight shifts to the upper chamber, where party unity and outside pressure will be tested against Senate rules and a deeply divided debate over voting rights.

Related News:

Democrats’ Stance on Voter ID Described as Racist by Many Blacks

If you’re looking for a real-time Trump approval rating during his second term in February 2026, the quick answer is this: most fresh snapshots cluster around 41 to 42% approve, 52 to 55% disapprove, putting net approval at roughly minus 11 to minus 15.

That headline number won’t stay still for long. “Real time” approval ratings move whenever a new poll drops, so this post focuses on the latest polls from February 2026, then zooms out to show what the trend has looked like since early 2026.

You’ll also see why different trackers don’t match. Some polling averages pull from registered voters, some from likely voters, and some use online panels or app-based ratings, so it’s normal to spot a few points of spread between sources.

Approval matters because it shapes how much room a president has to push policy, keep the party aligned, and set the tone ahead of midterm fights. If you want the most current picture of voter sentiment, plus context for what’s changing and what’s noise, you’re in the right place.

The February 2026 real-time Trump approval rating, in plain English

“Real-time” approval is just a running read of how people say the president is doing right now, based on the newest polls and trackers that publish frequent updates. In early February 2026, the Trump approval rating story is pretty steady: approval sits in the low 40s in many trackers, disapproval sits in the mid-50s, and the gap between the two is negative.

Here’s a quick, easy-to-scan set of the newest toplines referenced in this post, plus what they suggest:

• ActiVote (Feb 1): 44.0% approve, 52.7% disapprove (net -8.7). That’s a clearer “underwater” number, but not the worst case. See ActiVote’s writeup, Trump’s approval takes a big hit.
• Silver Bulletin average (Feb 8): net about -13.7, a small uptick from roughly -14.6 the week before. This is an average, so it moves slower than any single poll. The running page is Trump approval rating latest polls.
• Pew Research (Jan 2026): 37% approve. Pew tends to be less “day to day” and more “big picture.”
• Feb 6 snapshot table (individual tracker reads): Economist 41/56, NYT 41/55, VoteHub 41.7/55. These point to the same basic pattern: approval around 41, disapproval around 55.

One quick caveat: as of Feb 8, some big brand polls with strong pollster ratings were not in the latest set of fresh releases used here, so the most reliable “real-time” view often comes from aggregates plus whatever high-frequency trackers have posted recently.

Quick snapshot: approve, disapprove, and net approval rating

These three terms show up everywhere, so here’s the plain-English version.

• Approve: the percent of people who say they approve of Trump’s job performance as president.
• Disapprove: the percent who say they disapprove of the job he’s doing.
• Net approval rating (net rating): the gap between the two. It’s approve minus disapprove. The net approval rating gives a quick sense of overall sentiment.

Simple math example: if a poll says 42% approve and 55% disapprove, then net approval rating is 42 - 55 = -13.

A net negative means more people disapprove than approve, like being down by 13 points on a scoreboard.

Why different trackers show slightly different numbers

If you check two real-time approval pages on the same day, it’s normal to see a spread of a few points. That doesn’t mean one is lying; it usually means they’re measuring slightly different things due to variations in methodology.

Here are the big reasons the numbers drift:

• Different poll dates: One tracker may include interviews from yesterday, another may still be averaging results from a week ago. Fast-moving news can shift results before every tracker catches up.
• Different samples: Some use adults, others use registered voters or likely voters. Online panels can look different from phone-based samples, even when both are well-run.
• Different question wording: “Do you approve of the way Trump is handling his job?” can get a different response than a question that names a specific issue (like the economy or immigration).
• Approval is not favorability: Approval is about job performance right now. Favorability is more like, “Do you like this person?” You can dislike a president and still approve of a decision, or like them and still think they’re doing a poor job.
• Rolling averages smooth the bumps: Many trackers are rolling averages, meaning they blend multiple polls across time. That’s helpful because it reduces wild daily swings, but it can also make the tracker look “slow” when public opinion shifts quickly.

Is Trump’s approval trending up or down in early 2026? What the shift looks like

If you’ve been watching the latest polls on the real-time Trump approval rating in early 2026, the direction is easier to describe than the magnitude. The numbers show a drop heading into January, then a flatter stretch, and now a small improvement this week in at least one major average (Silver Bulletin’s net moving from about -14.6 to -13.7). That’s movement, but it’s not automatically a “turnaround.”

The bigger tell is what’s happening on the disapproval side. When disapproval pushes into the mid-40s (around 46% at a recent high), the floor feels firmer. That tends to make presidential approval swings look dramatic, even when the underlying public mood is only drifting a little.

What counts as a real change versus normal poll noise

A lot of people treat a one-point move like a stock chart. Polling doesn’t work that way.

Most national polls come with a margin of error that often lands around plus or minus 3 points (it varies by poll, sample size, and method). That means if a poll shows Trump at 41% one week and 42% the next, those results can easily overlap due to statistical variation. In plain terms, a 1 to 2 point shift is often just the normal wobble you get when you ask a few thousand humans questions on different days.

Here’s a practical way to think about it:

• One poll, small change: treat it like background noise, especially if it is within a couple points.
• Same direction across multiple polls: that’s when it starts looking real.
• A shift that lasts several weeks: that’s the strongest sign you’re seeing a genuine trend rather than a blip.

Aggregates help because they smooth out odd samples and one-off “house effects.” That’s why a week-to-week move in polling averages, like Silver Bulletin’s roughly 0.9-point improvement in net approval, is best read as a nudge, not a headline by itself. If that improvement repeats across the next few updates, it becomes a story. If it snaps back next week, it was likely just normal churn.

One more tip: watch disapproval closely. When disapproval is already high (mid-40s and up), small swings in either direction can look like momentum, but the public may simply be re-sorting between “disapprove” and “not sure,” not flipping into approval.

How today compares with late 2025 and earlier benchmarks

The cleanest summary is: early 2026 looked weaker than late 2025, then stabilized.

Pew’s late January 2026 read had Trump at 37% approval, down from about 40% in fall 2025. That supports the idea that the start of 2026 brought a softer patch. Silver Bulletin’s average also reflects that dip, followed by the recent modest uptick to around -13.7 net.

ActiVote’s January 2026 pattern (as summarized in the tool data used for this post) reads as roughly in line with its second-half 2025 average, which fits the “leveling off” theme even if other sources show a sharper January drop. Different methods can disagree by a few points, so it’s smarter to compare direction across sources than to obsess over one exact number.

For longer-run context, historical data shows Trump’s approval is often discussed as averaging around the low-40s across his first term (many references put it near 41%, depending on the series). And on the “apples-to-apples” net comparison, Silver Bulletin’s early February net (about -13.7) is slightly worse than Biden’s net at a similar point (about -12.2), based on the same dataset.

If you want a single place that tracks side-by-side approval averages over time, Ballotpedia maintains a running comparison in Ballotpedia’s Polling Index.

Who approves and who disapproves: the groups that drive the national number

National approval is like a team average in baseball. A few players can hit .300, but if the rest of the lineup is slumping, the team stat still looks rough. That’s the basic story in most February 2026 reads: Trump’s approval holds strong inside the GOP, but it stays weak with Democrats and soft with independents, so the national number remains underwater.

Party split: why approval stays high with Republicans but weak elsewhere

Start with party ID, because it does most of the heavy lifting. In the latest set of reads referenced in this post, Republican approval sits very high, roughly 73% to 95% approve depending on the source and method (Pew on the lower end, ActiVote-style results on the high end). That range sounds wide, but the takeaway is consistent: Republicans are still largely unified behind the president.

Democrats are the mirror image. In the ActiVote-style breakdowns, Democratic and left-leaning groups show near-unanimous disapproval, with Democrats offering little room for positive movement. When one party is giving you three-quarters to near-total approval and the other, including Democrats, is giving you near-total disapproval, the national average turns into a math problem, not a mystery.

Independents and centrists are the swing piece, and they’re not propping up the topline right now. In the ActiVote-style readout highlighted earlier, centrists run about net -8 (approve minus disapprove). That’s not a collapse, but it’s negative, and negative is enough to keep the national number down when Democrats are strongly opposed. Republicans, by contrast, remain a reliable source of strength amid this divide.

This is party sorting in action. Many voters now experience politics through a party lens first, and issues second. That keeps approval sticky within the base, while making it hard to gain ground in the middle. Republicans stick with their leader through ups and downs, but if you want an example of how independent support can shift, YouGov’s writeup on independent support slipping shows why the “middle” gets so much attention in approval coverage.

Demographic patterns mentioned in recent reads, and what they suggest

Beyond party, the recent reads point to a familiar cluster of groups where approval tends to run stronger amid these demographic shifts:

• ActiVote-style positives: rural, men, Latinos, ages 50 to 64, middle-income.
• Pew’s higher-approval groups: older Americans, White adults, non-college.

These patterns often move together for possible reasons that are not strictly partisan. For example, media habits can differ by age and geography. Local economic conditions can shape how people feel about prices, jobs, and wages. Policy priorities can also vary, with some groups placing more weight on things like immigration enforcement, energy production, or public safety.

None of that proves cause and effect, but it helps explain why approval can look “split” even within the same party coalition.

A simple way to think about weighting, turnout, and why subgroups matter

Polls don’t just count whoever answers. They weight results to better match registered voters in the country (age, gender, race, education, and sometimes party). That means a small subgroup, even a very enthusiastic one, usually cannot swing the national approval number by itself.

Two quick reminders keep expectations realistic:

1. Approval polls are not election results or favorability ratings. They measure performance views, not vote choice or personal liking.
2. They still offer clues about enthusiasm (base energy) and persuasion (movement in the middle).

So when you see high GOP approval but a net-negative national number, it usually means the base is solid, and the center and the other party are driving the overall rating down.

What is behind the ratings right now: the issues and trust factors people cite

When you see Trump’s approval in his second term stuck in the low 40s while disapproval sits in the mid-50s, it helps to separate two different things people answer in surveys: trust and character (who he is, who he listens to, and whether he’ll follow the rules) versus issue performance (how he’s handling the economy, immigration, and prices).

These often move on different tracks. A voter might like a tough stance on the border but still worry about ethical conduct, decision-making, or respect for democratic norms. That split shows up clearly in recent polling.

Trust and character measures that are dragging approval

In the recent confidence data, the weakest areas are blunt and personal, and the numbers are low:

• Ethical conduct in office: about 21% say they’re extremely or very confident.
• Picking good advisers: about 25% extremely or very confident.
• Respecting democratic values: about 25% extremely or very confident.

Those figures matter because trust questions tend to act like the foundation of a house. If the foundation looks shaky, even people who agree on a few issues can hesitate to give an overall job-approval “yes.”

Another key detail is where confidence is slipping. The same polling also points to drops among Republicans on measures like ethical conduct and respecting democratic values, plus a noted decline on mental fitness. That does not automatically mean GOP approval collapses, but it can raise the “soft support” problem: people still approve overall, yet they’re less willing to defend the president on character and norms. For context, executive approval on these metrics lags behind confidence in congressional leaders, highlighting trust issues across government figures.

Trust metrics also shift differently than issue metrics for one simple reason: they don’t require a scoreboard. On the economy, voters may wait for prices, wages, or markets to change. On ethical conduct or democratic values, a single headline can reshape perceptions fast. For the underlying data and wording, see Pew’s report on confidence measures and policy support.

A short reminder on volatility: one big news cycle can move approval for a week or two, even if nothing material changes. A major court ruling, a high-profile firing, or a foreign-policy flashpoint can temporarily pull people toward disapproval, or push them into “not sure”, before things settle back.

Issue performance: economy, immigration, and cost of living

On issue handling, the trackers and summaries cited in the tool data keep circling the same set of topics:

• The economy
• Cost of living (affordability and prices)
• Immigration
• Trade and tariffs

Immigration is often the swing issue because it can cut both ways. Strong enforcement messaging can boost approval with voters who prioritize border control, but it can also drive disapproval if people see outcomes as chaotic, unfair, or simply not working. In the referenced tracking, Trump hit new lows on immigration, which helps explain why overall presidential approval can stay underwater even when the base remains supportive.

For a public, frequently updated reference point on approval movement over time, the Economist approval tracker is one example readers often check alongside other averages.

“Better than expected” vs “worse than expected,” and why that gap matters

Approval asks about job performance, “Do you approve of the job he’s doing?” Expectations ask something different: “Compared to what you thought would happen, how is it going?”

In the latest split cited, about 50% say Trump has been worse than expected, while about 21% say better than expected. That gap matters because expectations shape how people interpret the next headline. If many voters already feel disappointed, it takes less to reinforce disapproval.

Expectations can still change. A few plausible paths include:

1. Policy wins that feel concrete, like visible price relief or a widely seen border-management improvement.
2. A crisis (domestic or overseas) that changes what voters value most, either rewarding steady leadership or punishing turmoil.
3. A clear economic shift, such as easing inflation or a downturn that resets blame.

In other words, approval is the current grade, but expectations are the curve the class is being graded on, and right now, that curve looks steep.

Conclusion

Right now, the real-time Trump approval rating in February 2026 sits in a familiar range: low 40s approval and low-to-mid 50s disapproval, which keeps his net rating clearly negative (often around minus 11 to minus 15). The early 2026 story line is also pretty consistent across sources, a drop into January, then a steadier stretch, with a small uptick this week in at least one major average.

If you want to track this without getting whiplash, stick to a simple checklist. First, watch polling averages more than any single result. Second, compare multiple pollsters and trackers, since their methodologies and samples differ. Third, focus on the trend in historical data over time, not day-to-day wiggles. Fourth, keep approval separate from favorability and from issue trust, because those can move in different directions.

Thanks for reading, if you’re following along, bookmark a couple trackers you trust and check them on a set schedule (once a week works well). The next meaningful shifts in presidential approval will likely come from what voters feel most in daily life, such as the economy and prices, immigration outcomes, or a major national or global event.

Trending News:

Trump Says Iran Should Be Worried, U.S.Prepared for Iranian Military Action

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a striking sign of changing party loyalty, House Oversight Democrats are no longer shielding Bill and Hillary Clinton, two names that once defined the modern Democratic Party.

In a bipartisan vote last month, nine Democrats joined Republicans to move forward a resolution that recommends holding former President Bill Clinton in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a subpoena tied to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

Three Democrats also backed a similar step aimed at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It was an uncommon, very public rebuke of leaders who shaped Democratic politics for decades.

The vote also points to a wider shift inside the party. The centrist Clinton-era brand carries less weight with many of today’s Democrats. With depositions scheduled later this month, the moment is a reminder that yesterday’s stars can turn into today’s baggage.

The Epstein Investigation Brings New Heat on the Clintons

The dispute comes from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell. Republicans, led by Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), issued subpoenas to the Clintons last year.

They cited Bill Clinton’s well-documented contact with Epstein, including multiple flights on Epstein’s private plane, and said they want details on any possible government failures tied to earlier investigations.

The Clintons first pushed back. They sent sworn statements saying their knowledge was limited, and they described the subpoenas as a political stunt encouraged by President Trump to attack opponents. They also missed scheduled depositions in January, which led the committee to advance contempt resolutions on January 21, 2026.

What drew the most attention was the number of Democrats who broke ranks. Of the 21 Democrats on the committee, nine, including Reps. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), and others voted to advance the contempt measure against Bill Clinton in a 34-8 vote (with two voting “present”).

Three Democrats supported the contempt measure aimed at Hillary Clinton. Several Democrats said transparency in the Epstein case mattered more than protecting past party leaders, repeating the idea that “no one is above the law.”

Comer highlighted the bipartisan votes, saying, “Republicans and Democrats on the Oversight Committee have been clear: no one is above the law, and that includes the Clintons.” The resolutions moved to the full House. After that, the Clintons agreed to sit for transcribed, filmed depositions, Bill on February 27 and Hillary on February 26, which avoided an immediate full contempt vote.

A Growing Gap: The Clintons’ Shrinking Pull With Democrats

The Oversight Committee fight reflects bigger changes inside the Democratic Party. Bill Clinton, the “Comeback Kid” who won in 1992 and 1996, once enjoyed near-automatic support. Hillary Clinton carried the party’s hopes in 2008 and 2016. But many Democrats today are younger, more progressive, and shaped by the post-2008 economy and modern social justice movements. For them, the Clintons’ “Third Way” approach often feels out of date.

Commentators point to a clear generational divide. Some of the committee’s progressive members, including those who backed contempt, chose accountability over defending party icons. As one observer put it, many Democrats now have little personal memory of the Clinton years, and they are more focused on avoiding ties that could turn off voters. The lack of a strong party-wide defense also signals how much the Clinton brand has cooled, with some Democrats linking it to recent election frustration.

There have been other signs of distance. After the 2024 election, party post-mortems again criticized Clinton-era triangulation, trying to win moderates while upsetting core supporters, as a poor fit for today’s calls for bigger, bolder action. The Epstein probe became a flashpoint where old loyalties gave way to public scrutiny and demands for openness.

Democrats Weigh Risk, and Warn About the Precedent

Democrats who opposed the contempt push called it a Republican trap. They argued the goal is to use the Epstein case as a weapon, and they warned that contempt threats can cut both ways. They said that when Democrats regain the House, the same tactics could be used against former President Trump or other Republicans with Epstein connections.

Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.) said the precedent could be used “when we take back the majority.” Others, including Ranking Member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), accused Comer of giving the Clintons extra attention while moving slowly on Justice Department document requests.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was reported to be privately unhappy with the defections, viewing them as needless while talks were still happening. Still, the vote showed that loyalty is no longer automatic, and it forced the party to face uncomfortable choices in public.

The Clintons also fought back. They called for public hearings instead of closed-door depositions, warning against what they described as a “kangaroo court.” They insisted they had already shared what they knew. They only agreed to testify after the contempt threat gained traction, and Comer said they had “caved.”

What It Means for Democratic Unity

The episode adds to questions about Democratic unity during a time of high partisan conflict. Letting the Clintons face tough scrutiny, instead of closing ranks, could play well with independents and moderates who dislike the idea of special treatment for political elites. At the same time, it may upset older donors and activists who credit the Clintons with helping rebuild the party after the Reagan years.

With the depositions coming up, attention will turn to what comes out of the sessions, and whether anything new emerges or the Clintons’ accounts stay narrow. For now, the message from the Oversight Committee vote is hard to miss: the Democratic Party looks less tied to its Clinton past, and even former standard-bearers are no longer treated as untouchable.

Related News:

CNN Delivers Stark Reality Check to Democrats Over Voter ID