G. Elliott Morris delivers a data-driven reality check that cuts through the political noise: the administration's signature immigration agenda is not just unpopular, it is decisively rejected by voters in the very states where the political stakes are highest. By leveraging a sophisticated Multilevel Regression with Poststratification (MRP) pipeline, Morris moves beyond national averages to expose a stark geographic reality that even Republican lawmakers are beginning to fear.
The Geography of Discontent
Morris opens by addressing a specific reader question about Maine, but quickly expands the scope to reveal a national pattern. He writes, "Trump is underwater on deportations in 34 states, including all the swing states plus Florida, Texas, Iowa, and Alaska." This is a damning statistic for a party that has historically claimed ownership of the issue. The author notes that the range of net approval runs from a modest +20 in Oklahoma to a crushing -37 in Hawaii, illustrating that the administration's policy has failed to find a home in the political center.
The data becomes even more revealing when the questions shift from abstract approval to specific policy mechanisms. When voters are asked about the recent budget increase of $170 billion for the Department of Homeland Security—intended for new detention facilities and additional agents—support plummets. Morris points out that "among registered voters nationally, 43% supported the 2025 OBBBA's ICE funding provision," with the majority of states opposing the measure. This suggests that the "One Big Beautiful Bill," often touted as a legislative triumph, may be "the most unpopular budget law of modern history," a phrase Morris uses to underscore the disconnect between legislative maneuvering and public sentiment.
"Not one state prefers deporting everyone once voters are given an option to give citizenship to non-criminal long-term immigrants."
This finding is particularly potent because it reframes the debate from a binary choice of "open vs. closed borders" to a pragmatic discussion about due process and integration. Morris highlights that when asked if immigrants should have the right to appear before a judge, 65% of voters oppose the administration's push for "expedited removal." He argues that the administration is "really weak on questions of due process, especially for long-term migrants," a vulnerability that is being exploited by the very party in power.
The Hypocrisy of the Incumbent Party
The most compelling part of Morris's analysis is how he connects this polling data to the behavior of Republican incumbents. He focuses on Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who is attempting to distance herself from the administration's harsh tactics while having previously voted for increased ICE funding. Morris writes, "With Collins claiming credit for body cams, we are seeing high-profile, electorally vulnerable members of the president's own party campaigning on reining in his signature policy." This behavior is not born of ideological conversion, but of political survival.
The author draws a parallel to historical precedents to add depth to this observation. Just as the ghost of "Operation Wetback" from the 1950s looms over modern enforcement debates, today's political calculus is being driven by the immediate fear of electoral backlash. Morris notes that Collins's pivot is a direct response to the fact that "the whole saga illustrates how foolish the argument from certain centrist Democrats is that the party needs to move right on immigration and 'not talk about' the issue." Instead of silence, the data suggests that highlighting the administration's overreach is a winning strategy.
Critics might argue that focusing on the hypocrisy of individual senators misses the broader structural power of the executive branch, which can enforce policies regardless of congressional opinion. However, Morris counters this by showing that even in states with Republican leadership, the public mood is shifting. The administration's inability to maintain support even among its base is a critical weakness. As Morris puts it, "Even Trump voters aren't very impressed by the GOP's tax overhaul," suggesting a broader trend of disillusionment that extends beyond immigration.
"That's because Trump's immigration agenda is decisively unpopular, and she knows it."
Bottom Line
G. Elliott Morris's analysis is a masterclass in using granular data to expose political fragility. His strongest argument is that the administration's immigration agenda has become a liability even in its own party, forcing lawmakers like Collins to publicly distance themselves from policies they previously supported. The biggest vulnerability in this approach is the assumption that public opinion will translate directly into electoral outcomes, ignoring the potential for mobilization of a passionate minority. Readers should watch for how the administration responds to this growing dissent, particularly as the 2026 midterms approach and the pressure on swing-state Republicans intensifies.