Over the past few weeks, corporate media outlets have rolled out a flood of negative polling headlines against Donald Trump — just in time for the 100-day milestone of his second term. According to the media narrative, Trump’s approval ratings are at historic lows, with outlets like ABC News, The Washington Post, and Reuters Ipsos all claiming that Americans are souring on his presidency. But when you dig into the actual polling data — especially daily-tracking polls like Rasmussen Reports — it becomes clear: the media is lying about Trump's numbers.

Mark Mitchell, Rasmussen’s head pollster, exposed this psychological operation ("psyop") in a recent interview and report. Rasmussen, the most accurate pollster over the last 20 years (beating out competitors in 2016, 2020, and 2024), continues to show Trump’s approval in a healthy, stable range, while media pollsters selectively release and manipulate data to fit their narrative.

Rasmussen Daily vs. Cherry-Picked Polls

Rasmussen polls daily — meaning they track public opinion every business day. This is crucial because daily data reveals trends in real-time, avoiding the massive gaps and selective "batch" releases the corporate media relies on.

For example:

• Rasmussen's daily tracking showed Trump at 47% approval just last week, only -4 points underwater (47% approve / 51% disapprove). (Source: Rasmussen, April 2025)

• Rasmussen also shows 42% right direction numbers for the country — 13 consecutive weeks of 42%+ — a metric closely tied to incumbent support.

Compare that to media polls:

• ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos (April 2025): Claimed Trump at 39% approval, based on a small, skewed panel (Ipsos's proprietary left-leaning online panel).

• Reuters/Ipsos (April 2025): Had Trump only -1 point underwater, much better than the narrative suggests — but barely publicized.

• New York Times/Siena College: Claimed Trump was down -12 to -14 points — based on a tiny sample of only 900 respondents, not even close to Rasmussen's 40,000+ completed surveys.

Mark Mitchell noted: the worse the numbers for Trump, the closer they were released to the "100 days" news cycle. Before then, media outlets like Quinnipiac — which showed Trump at -11 — stayed suspiciously quiet.

Media Lies About Kamala Harris

The media tried floating a narrative that Kamala Harris was leading Trump. In reality, Rasmussen’s two-way matchup shows:

• Trump 49%

• Harris 44%
  (Source: Rasmussen, April 2025)

There has never been a reliable poll showing Kamala Harris consistently leading Trump across the general electorate. Ipsos/Reuters (September 2024) gave Kamala a fake +7 point lead, which even Mitchell called “laughable” given Rasmussen's consistent data showing Trump ahead.

Other polls Mitchell cited:

• LA Times: Showed a one-point race (Trump essentially tied or leading).

• Zogby: Trump +2 points against Harris.

• Investor’s Business Daily/TIPP: Historically one of the few accurate 2016/2020 pollsters — closely mirrored Rasmussen, showing no Kamala advantage.

The Kamala lead narrative was manufactured, just like the recent “Trump collapse” narrative.

The Big Picture: Rasmussen Reality Check

Mitchell’s analysis shows the following:

• Media pollsters flood the zone with bad numbers right before important news cycles (like the 100-day mark).

• ABC/Washington Post used a sample that was overloaded with Democrats — with an absurd 93% disapproval among Democrats, something even real-world Democrat voters wouldn't reflect.

• Independent voters were falsely shown as hating Trump by 50 points, when Rasmussen consistently shows Trump only about -10 among independents — completely within winning range.

On immigration — a key 2024 and 2025 issue — mainstream polls claim Trump is underwater. Yet Rasmussen shows overwhelming public support:

• 50%+ of voters trust Republicans over Democrats on immigration.

• Over 60% say there’s an invasion at the southern border caused by Democrats.

• A majority backs Trump’s policies of deporting criminal illegal aliens immediately.

ABC News/Washington Post claimed Trump was underwater on immigration by 6 points — a blatant lie when cross-checked with real immigration issue polling.

The Search Data Proves It Too

Even Google search trends confirm Trump's relevance. Searches for “Trump approval” are historically higher than for any other president — Bush, Obama, Biden — combined. Voters still care about Trump’s performance, despite media attempts to brainwash them into thinking he's finished.

In the end...

Rasmussen's Mark Mitchell made it crystal clear: the media's narrative about Trump's collapsing support is a lie. Rasmussen’s real-time, daily numbers show a strong Trump approval holding steady — better than Obama’s second-term averages, and much better than Biden’s disastrous numbers.

The establishment media, pollsters, and Democrats are desperately trying to gaslight Americans into believing Trump is doomed. But the daily reality measured by Rasmussen tells a completely different story: Trump is stronger than ever, and the people are seeing through the lies.

Sources Referenced:

• Rasmussen Reports (Mark Mitchell, April 2025)

• ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos Poll (April 2025)

• Reuters/Ipsos Poll (April 2025)

• New York Times/Siena Poll (April 2025)

• LA Times Poll

• Zogby Poll

• Investors Business Daily/TIPP

• Google Trends (Trump Approval search data)

White Paper Series Title: "Reviving America: A Supply-Side Blueprint for Economic Freedom"

Part 3:
Trump's America First Economic Strategy: A Supply-Side Analysis of Tariffs, Market Reactions, and Global Trade Realignment

Author: the Conservative TAKE contributor
Date: April 10, 2025
Prepared for: Advocates of Free Markets, Economic Nationalism, and American Sovereignty

Executive Summary

President Donald Trump's economic policies have been characterized by a bold commitment to America First principles, emphasizing fair trade, domestic industry revitalization, and strategic tariff implementations. On April 9, 2025, the financial markets responded emphatically to two pivotal developments:

Introduction: Reclaiming American Soil from Foreign Control

If the federal government can seize the private property of American citizens under eminent domain for a highway or a commercial development, then there is no constitutional or moral reason it cannot reclaim farmland from entities tied to the Chinese Communist Party. The Founders gave us tools to defend our nation, not just with armies, but with common sense. Foreign adversaries owning U.S. soil (especially near our military bases, critical infrastructure, and food production) is not merely a policy concern; it is a clear and present danger.

This white paper presents a constitutional and legal framework to expedite the reclamation of American farmland from Chinese control. It leverages the foreign commerce power, national security statutes, and the President’s emergency authorities to ensure that America’s enemies do not hold our land under our flag. This is not a question of partisanship; it is a question of sovereignty, security, and survival.

A Constitutional Strategy for Immediate Federal Action

I. Executive Summary

Foreign ownership of U.S. farmland by adversarial powers, chiefly the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and state-backed corporations, poses a growing national security threat. This paper outlines a rapid federal strategy, rooted in the Constitution, to reclaim such land without delay, drawing from the Foreign Commerce Clause, national defense powers, and historical precedent.

II. Constitutional Foundations

1. Foreign Commerce Clause – Article I, Section 8, Clause 3

• Congress has exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.

• Includes transactions such as land purchases by foreign entities.

2. National Security and Executive Power – Article II

• The President, as Commander-in-Chief, is charged with protecting the homeland.

• Land owned by adversaries near sensitive infrastructure justifies direct executive action.

3. Takings Clause – Fifth Amendment

• Applies only when property is taken for public use and from persons under U.S. protection.

• Foreign adversaries are not entitled to constitutional protections where national defense is implicated.

III. Immediate Federal Tools & Pathways

A. Executive Orders Under IEEPA

Legal Basis: International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1707

• Allows the President to block, freeze, or seize property of foreign entities during a national emergency.

• Past uses: Freezing Iranian, North Korean, and Russian assets.

Recommended Action:

• Declare a National Emergency under IEEPA.

• Issue an Executive Order targeting all farmland held by:

  • Chinese government-affiliated entities.

  • Corporations with substantial CCP ownership or direction.

• Immediate asset freeze, pending investigation and divestment orders.

B. Legislative Expansion of CFIUS

Legal Basis: Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA, 2018)

• CFIUS reviews foreign acquisitions affecting national security.

• Can already block land purchases near military bases.

Legislative Proposal:

• Amend FIRRMA to:

  • Mandate review of all past farmland acquisitions by Chinese entities.

  • Authorize retroactive divestment.

  • Criminal penalties for concealment or shell company evasion.

C. Emergency Use of the Defense Production Act (DPA)

Legal Basis: Defense Production Act of 1950

• Authorizes the federal government to prioritize resources for national defense.

• Includes infrastructure, agriculture, and logistics.

Proposal:

• Amend to classify U.S. farmland as critical infrastructure.

• Allow for emergency federal acquisition or forced divestment.

IV. Legal Precedents: Supreme Court Support for Federal Takings

1. Berman v. Parker (1954)

• Government may seize private property for public use under broad definitions of "public interest."

2. Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984)

• Redistribution of land ownership deemed a valid public use.

3. Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

• Controversially upheld taking private property for economic development.

• Though not favored by conservatives, it affirms broad federal takings power.

Implication: If liberal justices upheld Kelo, a national security-driven seizure from a foreign adversary is even more defensible.

V. Strategy for Compensation

• No automatic compensation for foreign adversaries under national security exceptions.

• If Congress chooses to offer payment:

  • Must be discretionary.

  • Based on strategic calculus, not constitutional requirements.

VI. Summary of Recommendations

VII. Constitutional Rationale: Why the U.S. Can Reclaim Farmland from Foreign Adversaries

Eminent Domain and the Fifth Amendment

Under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the government may take private property for public use, provided just compensation is paid. This doctrine has been upheld in cases like:

• Berman v. Parker (1954)

• Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

In these cases, the government was allowed to take land from American citizens for purposes like economic development or public improvement, even when those purposes were indirect.

So the Question Must Be Asked:

If the U.S. government can take farmland from its own citizens for something as vague as "public benefit"... then why should it hesitate to take land from entities tied to the Chinese Communist Party (our geopolitical rival) for the defense of the nation?

This is not just a legal justification—it's a national imperative.

Foreign Adversaries Have No Greater Rights Than American Citizens

Foreign state-affiliated corporations do not enjoy greater constitutional protection than American citizens. In fact, they enjoy fewer protections when:

• They are operating under foreign influence,

• Their actions pose a national security risk,

• Or their property is subject to emergency wartime or national defense powers.

Precedents for Seizing Enemy Property

• World War II: The U.S. seized German and Japanese-owned property under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

• Iran (1979) and Russia (2022): The U.S. froze and seized assets of foreign governments and oligarchs involved in hostile actions.

Bottom Line:

The Constitution allows us to take land from Americans under strict conditions. But when it comes to land controlled by hostile foreign powers, the bar for action is lower, not higher. This is especially true under emergency powers and national defense doctrine.

VII. In the end: the Founder's Take...

The Founding Fathers feared foreign influence as a threat to liberty and sovereignty. As Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist No. 68, we must guard against "the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils." Reclaiming American farmland from CCP hands is not only prudent; it is constitutionally imperative.

This is not a partisan issue. It is a question of sovereignty, security, and survival. The Constitution was not written to tie our hands in the face of foreign aggression; it was written to empower us to defend this nation. We cannot allow our farmland, our food supply, our infrastructure, our very soil to be owned or controlled by those who seek our decline. Now is the time for bold, lawful, and decisive action. Reclaim the land. Protect the Republic. And remember: no enemy has the right to what generations of Americans have fought and died to preserve.