The Brief

During President Donald Trump's first term, the economy was a relative strength of his. During the 2024 presidential campaign, his promises to lower prices in a country grappling with post-COVID inflation propelled him back into office.

But toward the end of his first year in office this term, just 36% of Americans approve of his handling of the economy, according to the latest NPR/PBS News/Marist poll. It's his worst mark in the six years that Marist has been asking the question.

The only time in that span that Americans had a similarly negative view of a president's handling of the economy in the poll was in February 2022, when Joe Biden was president. Now Democrats are slightly more trusted to handle the economy than Republicans — 37% to 33%. That's not a wide margin, but it's a sharp turnaround from the 16-point advantage Republicans had on the question in 2022.

There are a number of other stark findings in this wide-ranging survey that focused on the economic pressures Americans are facing. The poll found that many Americans are having difficulty making ends meet, they worry about the economic outlook for themselves and the country, and most believe the country is already in a recession — with notable divides by race, age and gender on many questions.

The White House recognizes the challenge the current economy poses and is trying to make it a focus of events going forward. But the president has his work cut out for him to convince Americans his administration will make it better. He has struggled to do so, often returning to culture war arguments, particularly immigration, instead.

Trump's political standing is at the nadir of his presidency

Trump's handling of the economy has him under water with several key groups, including some that are important to his coalition. For example, 49% of people who live in rural areas disapprove of the job he's doing on the economy, while just 43% approve; 48% of white women without college degrees disapprove vs. 41% who approve. In the suburbs, which are often critical in swing districts, more disapprove by a 60%-33% margin.

In addition to Trump's low approval for his handling of the economy, his overall job approval rating stands at a meager 38%. That's the lowest of his second term and the lowest number he's seen in Marist's surveys since April 2018.

That year, his approval rating did not go much higher. It sat at 41% in the last Marist poll before the 2018 midterm elections. Republicans lost 40 seats in the House that year.

The intensity of disapproval of the president is particularly high — 50% of registered voters said they strongly disapprove.

Just 30% of independents and 8% of Democrats approve of the job Trump's doing. But, as has been the case for the entirety of Trump's time on the political stage, he retains robust support from Republicans. In this survey, 84% of Republicans approve of the job he's doing. That's down 5 points from last month, but within the margin of error.

Prices leap out as the top economic concern

By far, the biggest financial factor straining Americans is prices.

Asked for their top economic concern, 45% of respondents said prices. Nothing else came close — housing was second at 18%, followed by tariffs at 15% and job security at 10%.

Tariffs are certainly closely tied to higher prices in this administration. Two-thirds in this survey said they're very concerned or somewhat concerned about tariffs' impact on their personal finances.

That's down from 81% in June, but still a significant majority. The decline is driven by Republicans. In June, 70% of Republicans said they were concerned about tariffs' potential impact. Now, it's just 38%, while overwhelming majorities of independents and Democrats continue to say they're concerned about them.

Most say the country is already in a recession

When a country is in a recession is not always clear, but it is marked by a significant downturn in economic activity. The technical definition is two consecutive quarters of negative growth as measured by the country's gross domestic product, or GDP.

That's not where the country is right now, though there are signs of a slowing labor market. Just 64,000 jobs were added in November, as of the delayed jobs report released Tuesday, for example, and the unemployment rate ticked up to 4.6%.

For many, especially those who are Black, Latino and under 45 years old, times feel particularly tough. Latinos, for example, were 22 points more likely than those who are white to say the country is in a recession.

Respondents under 45 were 17 points more likely than those over 45 years old to say the country was in a recession. Women were also 15 points more likely to say so than men.

Prices in many sectors remain high and, overall, people say affordability is a major issue. In fact, 70% in this survey said the area where they live is not very affordable or not affordable at all for the average family. That's up from 45% when Marist asked the same question in June, a whopping increase and a sign of how much people are feeling the economic pinch.

Republicans and independents were sharply more negative now than they were in June on affordability of the area they live in. In June, by a 64%-36% margin, Republicans said the cost of living was affordable or very affordable. But in this survey, they were split, 51%-49%.

Independents in June were more positive, with 54% saying the area they live in was affordable. But that has cratered, down 30 points.

A strong majority also say the economy simply isn't working for them

Roughly 6 in 10 said the economy is not working well for them personally, and more said their financial situation has gotten worse in the past year than better (35% vs. 21%).

There was a sharp partisan divide; it's become common over the past decade or so for the strength of the economy to be viewed through a political lens, like so many other things.

In this survey, most Democrats and independents said the economy isn't working well for them personally, while two-thirds of Republicans said it is.

Here, again, there were also significant divides by race, age, income, education and gender. For example, three-quarters of those who are Black and two-thirds of Latinos said the economy isn't working for them, compared to 56% of white people who said so.

Notably, there was also a sharp divide between men and women without college degrees — 69% of white women without degrees said the economy wasn't working for them, compared to 51% of white non-degreed men. This split was evident on several questions among this group, which is core to Trump's coalition.

Many are barely getting by, and they're worried about health care costs

Seven in 10 people surveyed said their expenses either match or exceed their income every month, and it's far worse for non-whites and younger people. While 68% of people who are white fall into this category, a far higher percentage of those who are Black (77%) and Latino (78%) said so.

It was a similar story for those who are younger, lower income or don't hold a college degree.

A quarter of people said their expenses consistently exceed their income, which translates to roughly 64 million adults who are accruing debt month to month. That was highest among people who make less than $50,000 a year, white women without college degrees, Millennials, those who are Black, Latino and those who have children under 18 years old.

This socioeconomic divide shows up throughout the survey, including on the question of whether people are satisfied with their savings. Fifty-four percent of those who are white are at least somewhat satisfied with the amount of money they currently have saved, versus just 41% of those who are Black and 40% of Latinos.

Similar gaps are clear by age and education, with a particularly wide chasm between those who have college degrees (60% satisfied with their savings) and those who do not have college degrees (41%).

The cost of health care is a major concern. In fact, a majority (54%) said they're concerned that their household will be unable to pay for needed health care services in the next year. Again, this was highest for those who are Black (69%), Latino (65%), make less than $50,000 a year (67%), are under 45 (61%), especially those 18-29 (63%) and women (61%).

People are pessimistic about the future and the state of the country

As the new year approaches, almost 6 in 10 said they are more pessimistic about what's ahead for the world in 2026.

Among those most pessimistic were Democrats, white women with college degrees, independents and Latinos. Those most optimistic included Republicans, white evangelical Christians, people who live in rural areas and whites without degrees (particularly white men) — all generally solid pro-Trump groups.

A significant share of respondents said the country is headed in the wrong direction — 63% — though there were similar demographic splits.

The survey was conducted from Dec. 8-11, reaching 1,440 adults through live interviewers, text and online. The survey has a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percentage points. The survey includes 1,261 registered voters. Where voters are mentioned, there is a +/- 3.4 percentage point margin of error.
Copyright 2025 NPR

The average 30-year fixed-rate mortgage leaped to 7.03% on Thursday, according to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., which also goes by Freddie Mac.
This is the first time the rate has passed the 7% mark in 20 months, or since January 2025. While the 7% mortgage rate milestone holds no literal significance beyond the psychological effect of the round number, the sharp rise in rates since March risks further squeezing the budgets of homebuyers. And it's bound to deepen the freeze on a housing market held stagnant for years by the high cost of homeownership.

Mortgage rates tend to follow the 10-year Treasury note, which has risen sharply over the summer amid concerns about high inflation as well as the size of the federal debt.

The Federal Reserve last week raised its benchmark interest rate by a quarter percentage point — its first move this year — and many policymakers projected it may raise it one more time before year's end. Investors are bracing for potentially even more rate hikes to help fight inflation.

The housing market is hurting

High mortgage rates contributed to a 2% decline in existing home sales in August from the previous month, according to the National Association of Realtors.

The median sale for an existing home was about $429,000. At that price, a single percentage point increase in the mortgage rate can cost buyers hundreds of additional dollars a month and tens of thousands over the life of the loan.

Housing researchers had hoped 2026 would provide a break for buyers and sellers waiting for cheaper rates and those savings. For a brief moment, that seemed to happen as mortgage rates fell below 6% by the end of February.

But they quickly shot back up with the war with Iran, which has led to volatility in the bond markets. Continued fighting has also prolonged worries about inflation, further helping push up mortgage rates.
Copyright 2026 NPR

A new report from the ACLU and Amnesty International USA says universities like the University of California, Los Angeles violated free speech laws and imposed severe punishments on students, faculty and staff who expressed support for Palestinian rights. The universities’ responses “made it easier for the Trump administration to crack down on student activism, causing long-term damage to higher education.”

In 2024, a wave of activism overtook college campuses — including the USC and UCLA — as students erected tents and set up encampments to protest Israel’s war in Gaza and calling to cut ties with Israel.

The universities’ response and the Trump administration’s subsequent actions, according to the report, have “profoundly chilled student speech and advocacy, resulting in a steep decline in protests and a less visible protest movement on campuses across the country.”

What happened at UCLA?

Students set up an encampment in Dickson Court in spring 2024 to protest UCLA’s financial connections to arms manufacturers, as well as Israel’s military actions in Gaza. Five days later, around 100 masked counter-protesters attacked the encampment overnight. At the time, LAist reported how students were attacked with sticks, mace spray and fireworks.

The lack of police response to the attacks was heavily criticized; UCLA promised an independent investigation.

But soon after the attack, university officials called the encampment unlawful; law enforcement personnel from several departments tore it down overnight.

That police response drew widespread criticism and lawsuits. A UCLA Task Force reported, “We have documented multiple injuries from rubber bullets and police batons … We have seen the injuries to the face, head, legs, and chest. Some students were shot at close range. The police shot regular volleys of stun grenades, beat protesters with batons.”

A push against student activism

Soon after UCLA’s encampment was disbanded, the University of California enacted a new policy mandating disciplinary proceedings for anyone arrested. UCLA said this new policy would be implemented — retroactively — for those arrested in the encampment breakup. UCLA also banned encampments for four months.

The increased police presence on the Westwood campus following the disbanding of the encampment was “akin to a police state,” with students and faculty saying they were on high alert.

According to the report, UCLA’s response to the encampment was “particularly problematic” and “exemplified the heavy-handed and excessive responses by universities and colleges to campus protests, as well as the ongoing suppression and retaliation against pro-Palestine speech and expression on campus.” Other schools singled out for their responses include Columbia University, Tulane University, the University of Michigan and the University of Texas at Austin.

The report says UCLA's response also made it easier for the Trump administration to take further action as well, such as by:

• Withholding federal research grants from universities
• Coercing universities into "accepting broad-ranging agreements to restore federal funding in exchange for making institutional changes in programs, curricula, admissions, and hiring, curtailing the free speech rights of students and faculty."
• Targeting noncitizen students for arrest and deportation "in direct retaliation for their advocacy for Palestinian rights."

UCLA did not respond to LAist's request for comment.

How student activism changed

According to the report, the number of protests fell by 64% in the fall 2024 semester compared to the previous year, with protests declining through to the current academic year.

That was despite sympathy growing for Palestinians and support for Israel declining.

“The decline in protests was the direct result of crackdowns on protesters, university policies restricting protests, and the Trump administration’s attacks on universities,” according to the report.

You can read the full report here.

Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco lost in California’s Supreme Court on Thursday morning. Then he lost again.

In back-to-back rulings, the justices ruled unanimously that Bianco broke the law when he seized more than 650,000 ballots from that county’s top election administrator earlier this year and that he broke it again when he ignored directives from the state’s attorney general to reverse course shortly after.

The court ruled that Bianco must end the investigation, pending a review by Attorney General Rob Bonta.

Bianco’s argument "overlooks that allowing law enforcement unfettered access to ballots, or the ability to handle and count them in secret based on unregulated protocols, itself creates a substantial risk to election integrity,” Guerrero wrote.

“There is no need to introduce this risk because the Elections Code already contains its own comprehensive procedures for recounting and examining ballots, including for law enforcement purposes, without exposing them to alteration or tampering — unlike the unlawful seizure that occurred here,” the ruling read.

The twin courtroom defeats for the conservative lawman who unsuccessfully ran for governor as a Republican earlier this year represents both a legal and moral victory for voting rights advocates who warned that Bianco’s ballot seizure could serve as a playbook for other right-wing law enforcement officers hoping to upset the outcome of the coming midterm elections.

Bianco went before the California Supreme Court in August to argue that a search warrant obtained by a politically friendly judge was sufficient justification to take the ballots. That’s despite a state law prohibiting the removal of ballots, contested or otherwise, from election officials.

In the second case, Bianco argued that Bonta overstepped his authority in directing him to hold off on executing the warrant.

The justices expressed varying degrees of skepticism about both arguments last month, describing them as “bizarre” and “more than counterintuitive.”

In their rulings on Thursday, the justices adopted a similarly withering tone.

“In short, Bianco’s arguments fail to persuade us that we should interpret (California election law) in a manner inconsistent with its plain text, which mandates that voted ballots remain in the custody of elections officials,” wrote Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero.

Bianco seized the ballots after the November 2025 special election, in which a majority of voters agreed to redraw the state’s political boundaries to favor Democrats. As CalMatters reported shortly after the raid, he did so at the urging of members of the “constitutional sheriff” movement and other local activists who pointed to apparent discrepancies in local election results.

Riverside’s registrar of voters, the county’s top election administrator, has said those claims were based on a misinterpretation of preliminary vote count data.

Secretary of State Shirley Weber argued in a friend-of-the-court brief that California law explicitly dictates that ballots must remain in the custody of an elections official.

“Sheriff Bianco violated (California election law’s) clear mandate when he removed voted ballots from the custody of the Riverside County Registrar of Voters,” Weber said in the brief. “For that reason alone, the court should issue an order compelling the return of those ballots and related materials to the proper custodian dictated by the elections code.

California Democratic leaders passed two new laws after Bianco’s office seized the ballots. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed them last week. One makes it a felony to seize — or order the seizure of — ballots, election records or voting machines before election results are certified. The other expands on existing state election laws and makes it illegal to take election materials or voting machines from elections officials.

With the ruling today, Bianco will be required to give the ballots back to the registrar. But the matter may not be settled yet. In August, Bianco said his office would continue its investigation into the 2025 election, no matter the court’s ruling.

The ruling also helped settle a rarely contested but politically important question at the heart of California’s constitutional order: Do local law enforcement leaders answer to the state attorney general?

The California constitution grants the attorney general “direct supervision” over sheriffs. Past attorneys general have rarely exercised such supervision and when they have it hasn’t been challenged. Bianco argued that “supervision” in this case amounts to more of an advisory role.

In the second of two rulings today, the court disagreed, firmly putting the debate to bed.

“[Bianco’s] arguments all boil down to the unsustainable view that the state’s chief law enforcement officer … must remain a mere bystander to an unprecedented sheriff’s investigation of undeniable statewide significance," the court ruled. "As we have explained, that is not the case.”

CalMatters reporter Lynn La contributed to this story.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

The long-awaited LAX People Mover train is facing new delays due to issues with the final stage of testing and ongoing disputes with the city of Los Angeles. The contractor’s latest estimate has the train opening in January.

Those delays put LINXS, the lead contractor for the project, teetering on breaching an agreement with the construction funders of the train. That agreement laid out that LINXS had to get the train ready for passengers before Oct. 8.

To avoid breaching that agreement, LINXS successfully secured an agreement this week with lenders to extend that deadline by two months to Dec. 8.

The 2.25-mile-long elevated train designed to transport riders between airport terminals and local transit was initially scheduled to open in 2023. The project is so far $880 million over budget.

The deadline extension

A spokesperson for LINXS said they welcome the agreement with lenders.

“The project is approximately 99% complete, and our focus remains on completing the remaining testing and turnover activities required,” the spokesperson said.

Had the deadline remained unchanged and the train unfinished, LINXS would have been in a state of a technical default, according to Scott Lehman, a senior director at Fitch Ratings, a credit agency monitoring the project.

Under a technical default, Lehman said lenders could have started a process of switching the contractor on the train though that would have proved to be “practically very difficult.”

The same situation could arise if the contractor fails to ready the train for passengers in December or if the deadline is not extended through a settlement in ongoing litigation against the city.

LINXS and the city of L.A. have agreed to extend contract deadlines on five occasions in the past.

Status of testing

In the spring, LINXS began testing how the train will operate when it’s open to the public. Airport officials at the time heralded the start of the testing phase as a “visible milestone” and predicted it would take 60 days to complete. 

According to documents prepared by LINXS requesting the latest deadline extension, recent testing has been paused twice to fix components of the tracks that "accommodate movement resulting from temperature changes, seismic activity and normal structural behavior.”

As of last week, LINXS said those fixes are “ongoing.”

The extension gives the contractor enough time to complete testing by Dec. 8 “as long as they start it within the next several weeks,” Shannon McCue, a director for Fitch Ratings, said in an interview with LAist.

In response to questions about the current testing delays, Los Angeles World Airports said safety and reliability of the train are its top priorities.

“We will not compromise on these stringent safety protocols, as delivering a system that safely, dependably, and durably serves Los Angeles and our upcoming global events is our primary focus,” the statement said.