ATLANTA – CNNsenior writer and chief data analyst Harry Enten walked through polling that shows President Donald Trump holding unusually strong support inside the Republican Party. Using CNN survey averages and side-by-side comparisons, Enten said Trump’s current approval among Republicans sits well above where Barack Obama and George W. Bush stood with their own parties at a similar stage of their presidencies.

The discussion came up while the panel talked about Trump’s influence in GOP primaries and the impact of his endorsements. According to Enten, the numbers suggest Trump’s pull with Republican voters remains firm. As he put it, Trump’s “magic touch has not seemed to wear off yet when it comes to the Republican base.”

Main Takeaways From Enten’s Breakdown

• Very high Republican approval: CNN polling averages show Trump at 86% approval among Republicans at this point in his second term.
• Higher than recent presidents at the same stage: At a comparable moment, George W. Bush was at 77% with Republicans, and Barack Obama was at 77% with Democrats.
• More intense support, too: 53% of Republicans strongly approve of Trump’s performance. By comparison, Obama measured 48% and Bush 47% on strong approval at the same point.
• Endorsement power tied to base loyalty: Enten compared Trump’s primary influence to famous athletes like Tom Brady and Babe Ruth. He also said Trump-backed candidates have posted 95% to 99% win rates in recent cycles, helped by tight party loyalty.
• Standout own-party support in the modern era: Enten summed it up plainly, saying Republicans support Trump more than any 21st-century president’s party supporters at this point.

Even as Trump’s overall national approval moves up and down, the Republican core stays steady. That gap between base support and broader approval is a major part of the story.

Own-Party Approval, Side-by-Side

Here’s the same comparison Enten shared, focused on approval within each president’s own party at roughly the same point in their second terms:

Source: CNN polling averages and historical figures as cited by Harry Enten. Timelines reflect approximate equivalents across presidencies.

Enten stressed that this level of party unity stands out. In many presidencies, overall approval sits in the 40% to 50% range because the country splits along party lines. In contrast, Trump’s near-unified backing from Republican voters gives him a strong base even when national debates heat up.

Why These Numbers Matter for Trump’s Influence

High own-party approval usually turns into real power inside a party, and Enten argued that’s exactly what’s happening here. Because Republicans approve of Trump at such a high rate, his endorsement often carries major weight in primary elections. Since 2020, Trump-supported candidates have won GOP primaries at a pace that goes far beyond what most endorsements can deliver.

As a result, challenges to Trump-aligned candidates often struggle to gain traction. Even when Trump’s broader public numbers soften, Republican enthusiasm hasn’t dropped in the same way.

Enten’s tone stayed data-focused, but he made clear the size of the gap surprised him. “Look at this: 86% of Republicans approve,” he said, while pointing back to the 77% figures for Obama and Bush.

A Quick Look at Party Loyalty Over Time

Presidents often begin terms with strong support from their party, then see it slip when controversies build or conditions change. In that context:

• Bush held about 77% party approval at a similar second-term point, before later drops tied to the Iraq War and economic concerns.
• Obama also measured 77% among Democrats at the same stage, showing solid support but less intensity than Trump’s current numbers.

Trump’s 86% approval, paired with higher strong approval, signals a more locked-in base. That kind of support can cushion a president from pressures that hit other administrations harder.

What to Watch Next

With the 2026 midterms on the horizon, the data suggests Trump still holds major influence within the Republican Party. It’s still unclear how long that strength will last or how it will shape policy fights and candidate choices, but the polling shows little sign of fatigue among GOP voters.

Enten’s segment also highlights something many headline polls miss. National approval matters, but internal party support can say even more about a president’s staying power. After the clip aired, the comments spread quickly on social media and conservative outlets, mainly because the contrast between Trump’s GOP numbers and his broader national approval remains so sharp.

Related News:

Karoline Leavitt Slams CNN’s Kaitlan Collins Over Killed U.S. Soldiers

WASHINGTON, D.C. – President Donald Trump is making an early second-term Cabinet change, tapping U.S. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) as the next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). He will replace Kristi Noem after a rocky stretch that drew heavy attention to the administration’s strict immigration enforcement push.

Trump shared the decision on Thursday on Truth Social. He called Mullin a “Highly Respected” lawmaker and a “MAGA Warrior,” adding that Mullin works well with others and has the “Wisdom and Courage” to move the America First agenda forward.

The shift is scheduled for March 31, 2026, and it depends on Senate confirmation. If confirmed, Mullin would have to give up his Senate seat. Under federal vacancy rules, he could also serve in an acting role while the process plays out.

The announcement came only days after Noem faced sharp criticism in congressional hearings. Lawmakers from both parties pressed her on immigration raids, a disputed $220 million ad campaign urging people to leave voluntarily, disaster response, and DHS spending.

At the same time, reports pointed to frustration inside the administration about the speed and management of mass deportation efforts. That includes high-profile incidents, such as the shooting deaths of two protesters in Minneapolis tied to immigration enforcement officers.

Kristi Noem’s statement to the press

After Trump’s post, Noem spoke at a DHS event and avoided mentioning the change. Instead, she stayed on prepared remarks that backed the president’s priorities. Later, she posted a statement on X (formerly Twitter) and thanked Trump for her new assignment:

“Thank you, @POTUS Trump, for appointing me as the Special Envoy for the Shield of the Americas. @SecRubio and @SecWar are incredible leaders, and I look forward to working with them closely to dismantle cartels that have poured drugs into our nation and killed our children and grandchildren.

The Western Hemisphere is absolutely critical for U.S. security. In this new role, I will be able to build on the partnerships and national security expertise I forged over the last 13 months as Secretary of Homeland Security.”

Trump said Noem will lead “The Shield of the Americas,” a new regional security effort focused on fighting drug cartels across the Western Hemisphere. The administration plans to roll it out on Saturday in Doral, Florida. Noem, a former South Dakota governor, becomes the first Cabinet secretary to leave her post during Trump’s second term.

Why Trump picked Markwayne Mullin

By choosing Markwayne Mullin, Trump appears to want a close ally running DHS as the administration keeps pressing its hard-line immigration strategy. Markwayne Mullin, 48, has strongly defended mass deportations and ICE activity. He has described ICE agents as “red-blooded American patriots.”

Several factors seem to have helped Mullin rise to the top:

• Loyalty and shared priorities: Markwayne Mullin has stood with Trump on America First policies, especially border security and enforcement.
• Time on Capitol Hill: He served in the House from 2013 to 2023, then won his Senate seat in 2022 with 62% of the vote. That background may help during confirmation and with tough policy fights.
• A tough public image: Mullin is known for an aggressive style, plus an undefeated pro MMA record (5-0). Trump pointed to that persona in his announcement.
• A distinct personal story: Mullin is a member of the Cherokee Nation and is the first Native American senator in two decades. He also ran his family’s plumbing company after earning an associate’s degree, and he often stresses practical results.
• Alignment on major DHS issues: He has supported strict immigration enforcement, changes to disaster response, and actions against cross-border threats, which track closely with the administration’s goals.

Mullin responded by calling the moment “humbling.” He told reporters he called his father after hearing the news and said, “A little kid from west Oklahoma gets to serve in the president’s cabinet, that’s pretty neat.” He added that he didn’t expect the call, but he’s “excited to get started.”

What it could mean next

The DHS leadership swap lands during a tense period for the department. DHS is dealing with a partial shutdown that has hit some operations and employee pay. On top of that, lawsuits over enforcement tactics continue, and protests against deportations remain active.

Markwayne Mullin’s nomination may draw questions about his limited executive management experience. Still, with Republicans in control, confirmation could move more smoothly.

For the White House, the change looks like an attempt to reset DHS leadership while keeping the broader immigration crackdown on track. Meanwhile, moving Noem into a focused envoy job keeps her in the mix on regional security, while shifting day-to-day DHS control to a new face.

As Markwayne Mullin heads toward confirmation hearings, the spotlight will move to his plans for mass deportations, FEMA-related reforms, cybersecurity, and ongoing border threats.

Trending News:

Trump Orders Complete Freeze on Economic Ties with Spain

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Iran is claiming that the recent U.S. and Israeli military action breaks international law, and it points to support from Canada, the United Kingdom, and France. Still, the claim has faced pushback in Washington and among many Western security analysts. They say Iran’s credibility suffers because of its past violations of international sanctions, its backing of armed proxy groups, and repeated clashes with global nuclear inspectors.

The dispute is turning into a wider geopolitical split. Canada’s strong criticism of the United States, delivered in Australia by Prime Minister Mark Carney, has also sparked talk that ties could worsen before sensitive CUSMA trade talks. As a result, some analysts warn that President Donald Trump, now back in office, could push to rework parts of the North American trade deal if tensions keep rising.

On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel carried out coordinated airstrikes across Iran. Reports said the targets included nuclear sites, military assets, and senior regime leadership.

President Donald Trump called the operation a preventive move meant to end Iran’s nuclear drive and remove the Ayatollah-led leadership. Early accounts also claimed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei died, and that damage spread across more than 100 Iranian cities. Iran responded quickly, firing missiles and drones toward Israel and US positions in the Gulf. It also struck civilian areas in Dubai, while framing the attacks as self-defense under international law.

Still, Iran’s claim that the US-Israel action broke global rules has landed poorly with many watchers. For decades, Tehran has ignored sanctions, backed armed groups, and pushed actions that shake regional security.

That history is shaping today’s fallout. Allies such as Canada, the UK, and France criticized parts of the strikes, even as they condemned Iran’s regional attacks. Their mixed messaging shows growing strain inside the Western camp, with ripple effects that may reach trade talks tied to the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA).

In the background, the split also raises the stakes for CUSMA trade negotiations in 2026. That pressure increased after Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, speaking in Australia, criticized the strikes and argued they broke key legal norms.

Iran’s Long Pattern of Defiance: Iran Sanctions Breaches and Global Rules

Iran’s anger over alleged legal violations stands out because Tehran has spent decades testing the limits of international enforcement. Since 1979, Iran has faced sanctions from the UN, the United States, the EU, and others.

Those measures aimed to restrict its nuclear program, respond to human rights abuses, and curb support for armed groups. Yet Iran has repeatedly worked around them through informal networks, proxy firms, and open defiance.

Here are key areas often cited by critics:

• Nuclear non-compliance: Iran has repeatedly fallen short of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and related UN expectations. In June 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Iran violated non-proliferation duties, pointing to undeclared work and enrichment beyond agreed limits. After UN measures “snapped back” in October 2025 when Resolution 2231 expired, Iran kept advancing parts of its program. That escalation helped set the stage for the US-Israel attack on Iran in 2026.
• Human rights sanctions evasion: The EU and US have sanctioned Iranian officials tied to violent crackdowns, mass arrests, and executions. In January 2026, the EU added asset freezes and travel bans on militia commanders over abuses and alleged support linked to Russia’s war in Ukraine. Even so, Iran has used front companies and third-party workarounds to limit the impact. Ordinary people often pay the price when restrictions tighten, and goods become harder to get.
• Economic and financial sanctions breaches: US measures, including CISADA, restrict most trade with Iran. Even so, Tehran has kept revenue flowing through oil smuggling and indirect sales. These networks have been linked, in public reporting, to partners in China and Russia. In October 2025, the US sanctioned 38 entities accused of supplying Iran’s military. Canada has also imposed asset freezes tied to human rights abuses.
• Arms and missile proliferation: After 2025, when UN arms restrictions eased, Iran increased missile-related exports and support tied to ballistic technology concerns. Critics also point to continued weapons transfers to groups like the Houthis, which fuel conflict in Yemen and threaten shipping routes.

Taken together, these Iranian international law violations weaken Tehran’s credibility when it appeals to global norms after being attacked.

Iranian Regime Terrorism Globally: Proxies, Plots, and Pressure Campaigns

Sanctions are only part of the story. Iran has also faced long-running accusations of directing or supporting violence through partners and proxies. The US has listed Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984. In many accounts, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) plays a central role, providing money, training, weapons, and planning support to aligned groups.

Examples often highlighted include:

• Support for Hezbollah: Iran provides major funding to Hezbollah, with estimates often reaching hundreds of millions per year. That support has helped enable attacks on Israel and US-linked interests. The group has also been tied to major historical bombings, including the 1983 US Embassy attack in Beirut.
• Backing Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ): Iran has been accused of sending money, weapons, and technical support to armed groups in Gaza. That support has been tied in public debate to broader cycles of rocket fire, escalation, and retaliation, including the aftermath of the October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel.
• Houthis in Yemen: Iran’s support for the Houthis has been linked to Yemen’s prolonged war, cross-border strikes on Saudi Arabia, and attacks on Red Sea shipping. Those actions also raise international maritime law concerns.
• Militias in Iraq and Syria: Iran-backed groups, including Kata’ib Hezbollah, have carried out attacks against US forces and partners. These campaigns have added to instability and helped sustain a wider proxy struggle across the region.
• Assassinations and overseas plots: Several European governments have accused Iran of targeting dissidents and Jewish or Israeli-linked sites abroad. Reports from 2021 to 2024 described dozens of disrupted plots, including surveillance and planned attacks, sometimes using criminal intermediaries.
• Africa and Indo-Pacific reach: Iran has also been linked to attempted attacks or planning activity in parts of Africa, including Uganda, Ethiopia, and Kenya. Similar allegations have surfaced in parts of Asia, including Thailand and India, often involving Israeli targets.
• Cyber and hybrid operations: Iran has run cyber campaigns against US and European infrastructure targets. These actions blur the line between espionage, intimidation, and sabotage.

The 2025 Global Terrorism Index has been cited in arguments that Iran-linked activity connects to incidents across many countries. Critics say that the record makes Iran’s current victim narrative hard to accept, even for audiences that oppose the strikes.

Allies Step Back: Canada, UK, and France Statements on Iran Strikes

The strikes also exposed stress inside the Western alliance. Canada, the UK, and France condemned Iran’s retaliation, but they also raised alarms about the legality and wisdom of the initial attack.

On March 1, 2026, France, Germany, and the UK released a joint statement criticizing Iran’s “indiscriminate” regional attacks. At the same time, they stressed they did not take part in the US-Israel operation and called for restraint. French President Emmanuel Macron warned that the situation was dangerous. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer also emphasized the UK’s non-involvement.

Canada went further. On March 4, in a speech at Australia’s Lowy Institute, Mark Carney said the strikes were inconsistent with international law and showed a breakdown in the international order.

He argued the action lacked UN consultation and did not meet the standard of an imminent threat. In that same Mark Carney speech in Australia, he urged middle powers to defend sovereignty and reinforce shared rules.

Legal critics have pointed to the UN Charter’s limits on the use of force without Security Council approval, unless self-defense applies against an imminent attack. Meanwhile, Iran’s counterstrikes, even when framed under Article 51, have hit civilian sites, which raises separate humanitarian law issues.

These fractures matter because Washington tends to remember public breaks, especially when other negotiations sit on the calendar.

CUSMA Trade Negotiations 2026: Trade Risks Grow as Politics Turn Sharper

The dispute is not just diplomatic. It could also shape trade, especially with the CUSMA trade negotiations 2026 approaching in July. Trump, who pushed the NAFTA rewrite in his first term, has increasingly dismissed CUSMA as unhelpful and has floated the idea of walking away.

Several factors are adding pressure:

• Trump’s pressure tactics: The White House has used tariff threats against Canadian goods, often tied to migration and fentanyl concerns. In February 2026, Trump imposed 25 to 50 percent tariffs on steel, aluminum, and copper, which rattled supply chains across North America.
• Carney’s pushback: Carney said the old model of US-Canada integration is over, and he has called for a new security and economic arrangement. Talks had stalled in June 2025, then resumed after Canada dropped a digital tax plan.
• Risk of exit: Reports have said Trump has privately weighed whether to end the agreement, arguing it disadvantages the US. If governments do not renew by July 1, 2026, the deal could lapse, opening the door to a new tariff fight.
• Economic fallout: Higher tariffs tend to lift prices and disrupt auto, energy, agriculture, and manufacturing flows. Canada briefly responded with its own measures, but it has also signaled it wants to cool things down.

Because Carney tied his criticism to a broader claim about US law violation and a weakening world order, it may harden Trump’s view. That also increases chatter about whether Trump’s cancellation of CUSMA becomes more than a threat.

Conclusion: Iran’s Claims Meet Its Record, and Alliances Keep Splitting

Iran’s argument that the US-Israel strike violated international law has restarted debates over sovereignty, self-defense, and accountability. Yet Tehran’s history of Iran sanctions breaches, nuclear secrecy claims, and proxy warfare undercuts its moral standing in many capitals.

At the same time, the Western response shows a real split. Canada, the UK, and France tried to balance legal concerns with security fears, and that balance pleased no one fully.

As military conflict spills into diplomacy and trade, the impact could stretch far past the battlefield. If the alliance strain continues and CUSMA talks collapse, North American trade could shift fast, with costs measured in jobs, prices, and long-term trust.

Iran wants the world to treat it as the wronged party. However, its long record of defiance makes that a hard sell. Meanwhile, allies speaking on principle may still pay a price, especially if Washington chooses retaliation at the negotiating table instead of compromise.

Related News:

US Ambassador Calls Out Iran at Tense UN Security Council Meeting