Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
In an age of fast-moving misinformation, our expert teaches students how to spot what’s credible
As the new academic year begins, and at a time when misinformation often travels faster than facts, University of Rochester’s Kevin Meuwissen offers educators and young learners clarity and practical strategies for identifying credible sources. As an associate professor and chair of teaching and curriculum at the Warner School of Education and Human Development, Meuwissen focuses on how children and teens learn about politics and history — and how they can be taught to critically evaluate what they consume. “Young people pay close attention to who’s been consistently accurate,” he says. “They’re more likely to trust someone over time if their information holds up.” To empower students in our complex information environment, Meuwissen champions the so-called SIFT method — an easy-to-remember acronym and evidence-based toolkit that breaks down like this: • Stop! Pause before reacting or sharing • Investigate the source • Find better coverage • Trace claims back to their origin He also warns about how emotional framing, AI-generated visuals, deep fakes, and repeated exposure can distort judgment through the illusory truth effect — making misinformation feel believable even when it isn’t. His "Ever Wonder: How Can You Tell If A Source Is Credible?" video is a handy teaching tool. Meuwissen and his colleagues encourage teachers grappling with resistance over topics like climate science to consider not just evidence depth, but also students’ identities — political, cultural, and otherwise — when designing lessons. His approach emphasizes building trust, modeling thoughtful verification, and nurturing classroom norms rooted in accuracy — traits essential for forming discerning digital citizens. Kevin Meuwissen is available for interviews about identifying misinformation. He can be contacted through Warner School of Education Director of Communications Theresa Danylak at tdanylak@warner.rochester.edu.
As Trump rolls back regulations, this expert examines the costs of compliance
President Donald Trump has signaled a push to scale back federal regulation across a wide range of industries, reigniting a national debate over the costs and benefits of government rules. For Joseph Kalmenovitz, an assistant professor of finance at the University of Rochester’s Simon Business School who studies the economics of regulation, the moment underscores the importance of understanding not just what regulations do — but how much they cost. Kalmenovitz, who combines legal training with cutting-edge empirical methods, has developed innovative ways to measure regulatory intensity. His research shows how compliance requirements translate into millions of additional hours of paperwork for firms — costs that often fall outside public view. A recent Bloomberg Law article cited his work in explaining how Wall Street alone devotes an estimated 51 million extra hours each year to compliance since the Great Financial Crisis. Beyond tallying hours, Kalmenovitz’s studies also explore how overlapping rules across agencies — what he calls “regulatory fragmentation” — can stifle productivity, profitability, and growth, especially for smaller firms. His long-term aim is to provide evidence-based insights that can guide smarter rulemaking in Washington. “The dream is that people will take insights from my work and use them to improve the way regulation is conceived,” he told Simon Business Magazine. Kalmenovitz is a leading voice in translating data into meaningful insights about the hidden costs and design of regulation whose work has been published in the Journal of Finance, the Review of Financial Studies, Management Science, and the Journal of Law and Economics. He is available for interviews and can be contacted through his profile.
President Turns Up the Heat on Corporate America
NPR interviewed Dr. Meena Bose for its report: “Trump is tightening the screws on corporate America — and CEOs are staying mum.” President Trump recently demanded the resignation of Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan, which Dr. Bose called “one of the most aggressive public statements the president has made.” She added, “So much of President Trump’s second term is really charting an independent path, with very little attention to precedent — or in some ways, almost a rejection of precedent.” Dr. Bose is Hofstra University professor of political science, executive dean of the Public Policy and Public Service program, and director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency.
President Puts the Heat on U.S. CEOs
The Wall Street Journal interviewed Dr. Meena Bose about President Donald Trump upping public pressure on CEOs and telling them how to conduct their business. Recently he called for Intel’s chief executive to resign and told Detroit carmakers not to raise prices. Dr. Bose explained that this level of interference is highly unusual. “This is certainly not an approach the United States has seen in modern American politics,” she said. “It’s government bending economic interests.” Dr. Bose is a Hofstra University professor of political science, executive dean of the Public Policy and Public Service program, and director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency.
MSU team develops scalable climate solutions for agricultural carbon markets
Why this matters: Builds trust in carbon markets. This science-based baseline system dramatically improves accuracy, helping ensure carbon credits are credible and truly reflect climate benefits. Enables real climate impact by accounting for both soil carbon and nitrous oxide emissions, the approach delivers a full, net climate assessment. Scales across millions of acres. Tested on 46 million hectares in 12 Midwest states, this approach is ready for large-scale adoption, helping farmers transition to regenerative practices with confidence and clarity. New research from Michigan State University, led by agricultural systems scientist Bruno Basso, addresses a major problem in agricultural carbon markets: how to set an accurate starting point, or “baseline,” for measuring climate benefits. Most current systems use fixed baselines that don’t account for the soil carbon changes and emissions that would occur if business-as-usual practices were maintained on fields. Such inaccuracies can distort carbon credit calculations and undermine market trust. “The choice of baseline can dramatically influence carbon credit generation; if the model is inaccurate, too many or too few credits may be issued, calling market legitimacy into question,” said Basso, a John A. Hannah Distinguished Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, the Department of Plant, Soil and Microbial Sciences and the W.K. Kellogg Biological Station at MSU. “Our dynamic baseline approach provides flexible scenarios that capture the comparative climate impacts of soil organic carbon, or SOC, sequestration and nitrous oxide emissions from business-as-usual practices and the new regenerative system.” The research, published in the journal Scientific Reports, covers 46 million hectares of cropland across the U.S. Midwest, provides carbon market stakeholders with a scalable, scientifically robust crediting framework. It offers both the investment-grade credibility and operational simplicity needed to expand regenerative agriculture. Regenerative agriculture and carbon markets Regenerative agriculture includes practices like cover cropping, reduced or no tillage, diversified rotations, adaptive grazing and agroforestry. These methods restore soil health, enhance biodiversity, increase system resilience and help mitigate climate change by building SOC and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon markets offer a promising financial mechanism to accelerate regenerative transitions. By compensating farmers for verified climate benefits, they can act as either offset markets (for external buyers) or inset markets (within agricultural supply chains). However, the integrity of these markets hinges on reliable, science-based measurement, reporting and verification systems that integrate modeling, field data and remote sensing. A breakthrough multi-model ensemble approach To overcome limitations in traditional modeling, the MSU scientists and colleagues from different institutions in the U.S. and Europe deployed a multi-model ensemble, or MME, framework, using eight validated crop and biogeochemical models across 40,000 locations in 934 counties spanning 12 Midwestern states. The MME avoids model selection bias, lowering uncertainty in soil carbon predictions from 99% (with single models) to just 36% (with the MME). “This is a game changer for carbon markets,” said Basso. “It delivers a level of accuracy and scalability — from individual fields to entire regions — that current systems lack.” The MME platform also enables the creation of precalculated, practice-based dynamic baselines, reducing the burden of data collection and easing participation for producers. Improved mitigation assessments Unlike many approaches that consider only SOC, the MSU lead team’s study evaluates both SOC sequestration and nitrous oxide emissions to determine net climate impact. “This comprehensive assessment ensures that carbon credits represent true climate mitigation,” said Tommaso Tadiello, postdoctoral fellow in MSU’s Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences and co-author of the study. “A practice that increases soil carbon may improve soil health,” added Basso, “but it may not deliver actual climate benefits if it simultaneously increases nitrous oxide emissions. Our method provides a full accounting of the net climate effect.” The research team found that the combination of no-till and cover cropping delivered an average net mitigation of 1.2 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent per hectare annually, potentially abating 16.4 teragrams of carbon dioxide-equivalent across the study area. This research was supported by the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, U.S. Department of Energy’s Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, National Science Foundation Long-Term Ecological Research, Builders Initiative, The Soil Inventory Project, Generation IM Foundation, Walton Family Foundation, Morgan Stanley Sustainable Solutions Collaborative and MSU AgBioResearch.
Life Hacks in Retirement: Strategies for Aging Well
If Jean Smart can star in Hacks at 72, clearly life hacking is age-appropriate. Hacks may be a TV comedy about a sharp-tongued, aging comic, but let’s face it: retirement needs a few hacks of its own. It turns out that aging well requires more than good genes—it demands good strategy. The goal isn’t perfection. It’s progress. Progress with fewer bruises, bigger laughs, and more money left at the end of the month than freezer-burnt chicken. So here are some tried-and-true hacks in three essential areas: Money, Muscle, and Mood. Let's get you hip, fit, and financially free. Ready, Set, Go! Money Hacks: Japan Might Have Found Something In Japan, there's a charming financial custom called Kuzukai, where men hand over all their income to their wives and receive a monthly allowance. No joke—it's a thing. And it works. Japan boasts: • One of the highest household savings rates at 23% (OECD, 2023) • Low household debt per capita (World Bank) • The lowest personal bankruptcy rate in the developed world (IMF Report) • And a whopping 74% of households follow this practice (Nikkei Asia, 2021) Maybe they’ve discovered the ultimate money hack: give the money to the person most likely to use spreadsheets recreationally. But you don’t need a spouse or a sushi habit to save big. Whether you're solo or shacked up, a homeowner or a renter, here are some effectively universal money-saving tips. Everyday Money-Saving Hacks: • Cut the Hidden Fees: Banking, streaming, delivery apps—if you’re not actively using them, cancel or deactivate. Your wallet will thank you. Read your bank and investment statements carefully, as if they were love letters from your money. That $3 “maintenance fee”? It might be costing you more than you realize. • Unsubscribe to Survive: Subscriptions are like house guests—pleasant at first but staying too long and costing too much. Establish a quarterly ritual—Subscription Audit Sunday. Review auto-renewals—Netflix, meditation apps, fancy sock clubs. If it doesn’t bring you joy or serve your needs weekly, cancel it. You might find enough loose change for a weekend escape. • Shop Daily, Eat Fresh: Instead of over-buying in bulk, buy just what you need for the day. It supports spontaneity and reduces waste. (Bonus: you can honour the “I feel like chicken wings” days guilt-free.). Power Tip: Shop daily, eat fresh. Channel your inner Parisian. Shop just for today—reducing waste, adding joy, and turning dinner into a choice rather than a guilt-ridden freezer excavation. • Use Senior Discounts Like a Boss: Shoppers Drug Mart (55+), Pet Valu (60+), movie theatres, golf, bowling… but only if you ask. Ask proudly: “I dare you, card me.” Mark senior days on your calendar like paydays, because they are. • Split with a Buddy: Share groceries with a friend. Half a BBQ chicken is more realistic (and less greasy) than the whole bird, and it reduces “fridge clutter”! • Ride Together: Share Ubers or Lyft. Or better yet, plan your errands with a friend and make a day of it; it will feel more like an adventure. • Scan for Free Fun: Check local listings for subsidized classes, outdoor concerts, and "pay what you can" events. Even dress rehearsals can be hidden gems at a discount. Money Traps to Avoid: 1. Subscription Creep – Set reminders to cancel trials. They add up faster than your grocery bill in the frozen aisle. 2. Silent Statement Siphons – Monitor your monthly expenses. Cut out what doesn’t bring joy or value. 3. Lifestyle Drift – Just because you can spend, doesn’t mean you should. You don’t need another air fryer. 4. Over-Gifting – Love isn’t measured in Amazon orders. The best gift is your time, or your famous banana bread. 5. Retail Therapy – If it’s cheaper than therapy, it’s probably just a distraction. But that doesn’t mean it’s helpful therapy. 6. Impulse Upgrades – Your current phone may be a few years old—but so are you, and you’re still fabulous. Your toaster doesn’t need Bluetooth, and neither do your socks. Physical Hacks: Train Like You Really Mean It The book ‘Younger Next Year’ (thank you, Bill P. and Steven H.) offers a wake-up call: Life is a test of endurance. Prepare yourself for it. In retirement, fitness isn’t just a hobby — it’s your new full-time job. And this job offers better hours, no toxic bosses, and a dress code that includes spandex. Fitness Hacks That Work 1. Schedule it: If it’s not on the calendar, it’s not happening. Even better, set a recurring date with a friend. Accountability is appealing. 2. Make it enjoyable: Not feeling spin class? Skip it. Try Zumba, power walking, or even disco gardening. Move as if no one’s watching (even if your neighbour is). 3. Start where you are: Don’t join Advanced Pickleball if your last workout was chasing a runaway dog in 2017. 4. Make It Social: Grab a friend or make new ones—bonus points for post-sweat smoothies and commiseration. 5. Keep Commitments (Especially to Yourself): Be a “serious person,” as Logan Roy would say. If you schedule a walk, show up—even if you’re in Crocs and a hoodie. 6. Track progress, not perfection: Count steps, not pounds. Celebrate consistency. Aim for “better than yesterday,” not “six-pack by September.” Fitness Traps to Avoid: 1. Choosing Something You Hate: If you dread it, you’ll ditch it. Guaranteed. 2. Overestimating Your Ability or Availability: Planning to run a marathon in 30 days after a decade on the couch? That’s... aspirational. 3. Overpaying for Motivation: Fancy gym + guilt ≠ results. Try a budget-friendly gym, or even YouTube workouts in your living room. 4. Ignoring Recovery: If you can’t walk after leg day, you’re doing it wrong—stretch, hydrate, nap. Repeat. 5. All-or-Nothing Thinking: Missing one workout doesn’t mean the week’s a write-off. Perfection is the enemy of progress. 6. Comparing Yourself to 30-Year-Olds on Instagram: Just… don’t. Unless you want to feel bad in high def. 7. Try "Fitness Snacking" Squats while the kettle boils. Do wall push-ups before brushing your teeth. Have a dance break during Jeopardy. Movement matters. 8. Stretch Before Bed Nightly stretches improve sleep and help you wake up feeling refreshed. It’s five minutes that pay dividends. Emotional Hacks: Mindset Is Your Muscle This is the part they don’t teach in school—or even in yoga class. Emotional health is what sustains you when the stock market tanks, your golf swing falters, or the kids “forget” to call. Emotional Hacks to Try 1. Upgrade Your Self-Talk: You hear your voice more than anyone else’s. Make it kind. Make it constructive. 2. Be Your Own Biggest Fan: Self-love isn’t arrogance. It’s survival. 3. Treat Yourself Like a Dear Friend: Would you tell your best friend she’s lazy, useless, and past her prime? No? Then stop saying it to yourself. 4. Forgiveness: Begin with yourself. Write that forgiveness letter, see a therapist, cry it out. Let go. No one leaves here flawless. 5. Basic Self-Care: Feed your body with wholesome food, ensure proper rest, and maintain regular grooming. Yes, plucking your chin counts. 6. Gratitude: morning and night. Focus on one thing you’re grateful for each day. It’s better than Botox. 7. Practice "Mental Hygiene" meditation, journaling, or a walk without your phone. It's like flossing for your nervous system. 8. Try Five-Minute Journaling: “What made me smile today?” “What felt hard?” “What do I want more of tomorrow?” Answer honestly—no grammar police. Emotional Traps to Avoid 1. Negative Self-Talk: There is zero upside. Science backs this up—positive self-talk improves performance and wellbeing. Try this: “Today wasn’t my best. I was tired and snappy. I’ll apologize and do better tomorrow.” or “I know I can do this. I need to practice and be patient with myself.” 2. Not Making Yourself a Priority: The oxygen mask rule is absolute. If you don’t take care of yourself, you can’t help anyone else. 3. Self-Medicating with Booze, Bingeing, or Buying: Feel the feelings. Don’t dodge them with Chardonnay or Amazon. 4. Righteousness Addiction: Would you rather be right or be happy? Being “right” is expensive—emotionally, physically, and energetically. 5. All-or-Nothing Perfectionism: Perfection is a myth—and frankly, a boring one. Flaws are where the fun and growth live. 6. Regret. Let’s face it, regrets are a part of life. The trick is not to dwell on them. Don’t store them in Samsonite to pull out whenever we want to beat ourselves up! Ever notice that the windshield on your car is much bigger than the rearview mirror? Read that again. The Social Capital Audit You are more than your RRSP and Fitbit stats. What do you bring to the table? Your kindness? Humour? Lived wisdom? A killer lemon loaf? Whatever it is—own it. Hone it. Make it your signature. Whether you’re the neighbourhood listener, laughter-bringer, or human glue-stick, your contribution matters. What Are You Proud Of… and Is It Still Serving You? Maybe once upon a time, you were known for your hair, your legs, your singing voice, or your abs of yesteryear. But here's the truth: gravity always wins. And that’s not failure—it’s biology. So if you’re still starting sentences with “Back in my day…”, you might be overdue for a mindset update. Choose something new to feel proud of now: your resilience, your sense of humour, your garden, or your ability to FaceTime your grandkid without accidentally hanging up. Adjust the metric. Celebrate the upgrade. Some Mantras for the Journey • “Done is better than perfect.” • “I am doing the best I can, and that’s enough.” • “Every day is a fresh start (even if my back cracks getting out of bed).” • “Progress, not perfection.” • “I am not too old, and it’s not too late.” • “If not now… when?” • “Stop acting my age.” The Final Hack: Don’t Just Celebrate – Throw Confetti Practice makes progress. And progress, my friends, is where the magic lives. Every step matters. Every stumble adds a twist. Perfection is overrated. Progress is the new gold standard. And as Mel Robbins reminds us: “There will be many people who won’t appreciate your value. Make sure you’re not one of them.” You’ve spent your life caring for others. Now it’s your turn to care for yourself—thoughtfully, warmly, and with plenty of good humour. Retirement isn’t the end. It’s the ultimate reboot. Be the Jean Smart of your own story. Jean, watch your back... and Kuzukai, watch our money. Star power meets allowance power. Don’t Retire…Re-Wire! Sue
Aston University researcher investigates safety risks of secondhand cosmetics sold online
As second-hand beauty products grow in popularity, so do questions about their safety. At Aston University, Dr Amreen Bashir, senior lecturer in biomedical science, is leading an academic investigation into the microbiological risks associated with pre-owned cosmetics being sold through online platforms like Vinted and Facebook Marketplace. The project, which has received ethical approval from the University’s Health and Life Sciences Ethics Committee, will assess the types of bacteria and potential contaminants found in used cosmetics – such as makeup and skincare – when they are resold and reused by new owners. “Second-hand beauty is trending for sustainability and affordability,” said Dr Bashir. “But very little research has explored what’s actually living in those products — and what kind of risk that might pose to everyday users.” Why this matters Pre-owned beauty items are often marketed as sustainable and cost-effective, but without careful handling they can harbour microorganisms – from bacteria to mould – that may cause infections, allergic reactions, or worse. Without knowing when a product was first opened or its expiry date, buyers could be unknowingly using unsafe cosmetics. Dr Bashir’s study will be among the first in the UK to analyse not just contamination, but also expiry timelines, and how low consumer awareness of these dates adds to the risk. The study will explore: • Types of microbiological contamination found in used products • Risks posed by product type (e.g., mascaras vs. powders) • Storage conditions and packaging integrity • Expiry dates and consumer awareness, for example: - Cosmetics have expiry timelines printed as either a date or a small jar symbol with a number (e.g., 6M, 12M, 24M, 36M), indicating months after opening. - Products can be contaminated long before the expiry date if not stored properly. - Dr Bashir’s previous research found that many makeup users didn’t know where to find the expiry date on the packaging and often kept products for years past their safe-use period. Potential to shape consumer safety and regulation With second-hand beauty sales on the rise, the findings could help shape public health messaging, consumer awareness campaigns, and online marketplace guidelines. Results could also support industry discussions on product labelling, returns, and hygiene standards. The project bridges the gap between digital consumer behaviour and health science, with implications for how individuals make purchasing decisions and how regulations adapt to a fast-changing beauty market. ⸻ Want to learn more or collaborate? Updates will be shared through academic publications and public-facing channels once data collection and sample testing are complete. Click on the icon below to connect with: Dr Amreen Bashir, senior lecturer in biomedical sciences Areas of expertise: Clinical microbiology, antimicrobial resistance, bacteria found in food, makeup products, food and water microbiology
New National UMass Amherst Poll Finds President Trump’s Job Approval Gap Slides 6 Points Since April
Topline results and crosstabs for the poll can be found at www.umass.edu/poll Public approval of Donald Trump’s presidency has dropped by 6 percentage points since April and his approval rating is now 20 points underwater, 38-58, according to a new national University of Massachusetts Amherst Poll of 1,000 respondents conducted July 25-30. “Six months into his second term as president, Donald Trump looks to be on the ropes with the American public,” says Tatishe Nteta, provost professor of political science at UMass Amherst and director of the poll. “Trump’s approval ratings, already historically low for a newly elected president, continue to sink with close to 6-in-10 Americans (58%) expressing disapproval of the job that Trump is doing in office. While Trump remains a popular figure among Republicans and conservatives, Trump’s time in office is viewed more negatively across genders, generations, classes and races, with majorities of each of these groups disapproving of Trump’s performance. With over three years left in the Trump administration, there is still time for him to right the ship and fulfil the promises that catapulted him to the presidency, but the president is not off to the start he or his supporters envisioned.” In the previous UMass Poll, conducted as Trump approached the three-month anniversary of his return to the White House, Trump held a 44-51 approval rating, buoyed by a positive overall approval on his handling of immigration. The new poll, however, has found a significant shift in views on this issue. “Immigration has been central Trump’s political campaigns and his strongest issue in his first few months in office, but the percentage of people who say he is handling it well has dropped substantially from 50% four months ago to just 41% today, a 9-point drop,” explains Raymond La Raja, professor of political science at UMass Amherst and co-director of the poll. “Trump came into the presidency promising change, and he’s made significant alterations in many areas of federal policy,” says Jesse Rhodes, professor of political science at UMass Amherst and co-director of the poll. “He came into office believing that he had limited time to make the changes he promised his most ardent supporters, and moved with unparalleled speed to enact these changes, including sometimes by legally questionable means. Now, it seems, he’s reaping the consequences as a large majority of Americans don’t like these changes. Clear majorities say that Trump has handled his key issues – immigration (54%), inflation (63%), jobs (55%) and tariffs (63%) – not very well or not well at all. With so many Americans grading his handling of public policy poorly, it’s no wonder they disapprove of his presidency.” Rhodes also notes that the president is seeing an erosion in support from one of his most reliable groups of supporters: men. “Trump has cultivated a ‘masculine’ reputation and sought to build support among American men but, strikingly, we find that support for Trump has deteriorated most substantially among members of this group,” says Rhodes. “In April, Trump enjoyed approval from 48% of men, compared with 39% of women. Now, only 39% of men express approval of Trump, compared with 35% of women. “In addition to losing support among men, Trump has seen approval for his presidency crumble among political independents, a critical swing constituency,” Rhodes adds. “While 31% of independents approved of his presidency in April, that number is now down 10 percentage points to 21%. This is really bad news for Trump, and for Republicans who depend on support from independents in close elections.” “Polarization has changed the interpretation of presidential approval ratings,” says Alexander Theodoridis, associate professor of political science at UMass Amherst and co-director of the poll. “Partisans just aren’t willing to evaluate presidents from the other side positively and are reluctant to say negative things about presidents from their own party. So, approval numbers fluctuate within a narrower range. Gone are the days when George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush both achieved approval numbers over 90%. This is certainly true for Trump, who is likely the most polarizing figure in modern American politics. Even in this polarized environment, though, Trump’s approval ratings are low by any standard – he is very close to the practical floor. Especially noteworthy is that nearly half of Americans say they strongly disapprove of Trump and the percentage of Americans who say they strongly approve of Trump has decreased substantially. Even among Republican respondents, only half strongly approve of the president. The GOP should be concerned about these numbers heading into the odd-year elections in 2025 and, especially, the midterm elections in 2026. It is very difficult for a party to win when its leader is this unpopular.” Americans’ views on Epstein and Trump Of all issues surveyed in the latest University of Massachusetts Amherst Poll, one appears to be the greatest drag on Trump’s presidency: Jeffrey Epstein and Trump’s handling of the evidence gathered in the federal investigation of the accused sex-trafficker and his long-time friend. “The Epstein scandal remains a serious vulnerability – indeed, quite possibly, the most serious vulnerability – for Trump right now,” Rhodes says. “Fully 70% of Americans believe he has handled this issue ‘not too well’ or ‘not well at all,’ and nearly two-thirds (63%) believe his administration is hiding information about Epstein. The Epstein scandal is also likely undermining public confidence in Trump more broadly. Indeed, we find that nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that Trump is corrupt and nearly 70% believe he is dishonest. Critically, these numbers mean that many Republicans and conservatives are disappointed with Trump’s handling of the Epstein situation. Republican frustration with Trump’s handling of the Epstein case could erode enthusiasm for his presidency and for Republicans in 2026.” “If Trump and those around him have been wishing the Jeffrey Epstein story would disappear, their wishes have not been granted,” Theodoridis says. “Most Americans (77%) tell us they have heard a lot or some about the Epstein case. In addition to believing that the Trump administration is hiding important Epstein case information, the vast majority of respondents say that a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the Trump DOJ’s handling of the Epstein case (59%), that Donald Trump was good friends with Epstein (67%), and that a list of Epstein’s clients exists (70%). Even substantial numbers of Trump voters believe these things. And, when it comes to an Epstein ‘cover-up,’ it seems the buck stops with Trump himself. While a lot of Americans blame Attorney General Pam Bondi (59%), FBI Director Kash Patel (49%), and House Speaker Mike Johnson (47%) for hiding information about the Epstein case, a whopping 81% blame President Trump.” “The controversy over the handling of the Epstein files by the Trump administration has – interestingly – brought Americans together,” Nteta adds. “While on most issues, we see clear and persistent generational, class and racial divisions; on Epstein, Americans across these divides speak with one voice. This controversy has even resulted in agreement across partisan lines as majorities of Democrats and Republicans support a special prosecutor and believe a list of clients exists, and disapproval of Trump’s handling of the whole matter is surprisingly seen among members of Trump’s base, as 43% of Republicans and conservatives indicate that Trump has not handled this issue well.” “Where Trump faces his poorest rating in our poll is on perceived corruption and dishonesty,” adds La Raja. “A clear plurality (49%) sees Trump as ‘very dishonest,’ with an additional 20% saying that he is ‘somewhat dishonest.’ And 45% see him as ‘very corrupt,’ with an additional 20% as ‘somewhat corrupt.’ Only about one-third reject those labels entirely. Trump also gets low ratings on transparency – a majority (52%) say Trump is not at all transparent, his weakest score after dishonesty. Only 23% believe that he’s very transparent. For a candidate who brands himself as a truth-teller and disruptor, this appears to be a credibility gap.” “Strength is Trump’s strongest attribute,” La Raja explains. “Fifty-eight percent see him as very or somewhat strong, indicating appeal among his base and possibly swing voters who value ‘toughness.’ However, views on his competence are split evenly, with 52% saying he’s competent to some degree, while 48% say not at all.” Voter Regret? “Since President Trump took office, a number of reports of regretful Trump voters have been covered in the nation’s leading media outlets,” Nteta says. “From voters upset with Trump’s immigration policies to supporters who take issue with the president’s unwillingness to release the files associated with the Epstein case, there seemed to be a wellspring of regret among Trump’s once loyal base. Our results suggest that while there are, in fact, areas where the president is weak, most notably on his handling of the economy and the Epstein controversy. When asked directly, close to 9-in-10 (86%) would vote for Trump again if given the opportunity to revisit their 2024 presidential vote choice. These results indicate that the number of regretful voters covered in the mainstream press may be overblown, as the overwhelming majority of Trump voters remain in the president’s camp.” “Only 1% of Trump voters say they regret their vote and would choose differently, 2% say they ‘might’ choose differently and 3% say they wish they hadn’t voted at all,” Theodoridis says. “When we simply ask voters how they would vote if they could go back and recast their ballot, 6% of Trump voters tell us they would vote for Harris, while only 2% of Harris voters say they would switch to Trump. There is clearly more erosion in support among Trump voters than among Harris voters and, in what is likely small consolation to Harris and her campaign team, significantly more 2024 non-voters who say they wish they had voted indicate they would now cast a vote for the former vice president. In a relatively close election, shifts of these magnitudes might have been decisive, but there are no ‘take-backs’ in electoral politics, so these numbers are best used to inform choices going forward.” “Our results are not wholly positive for President Trump, and there exist areas of concern for his team moving forward,” Nteta warns. “Since April, the number of Trump voters expressing strong confidence in their vote for Trump has declined by 5 percentage points. Additionally, we find small increases in the number of Trump supporters who have mixed feelings about their vote and who indicate that they would ‘rather not have voted.’ Finally, 14% of Trump voters indicate that they would not vote for Trump if given the chance to revisit, while only 8% of Harris voters express a similar sentiment. Time will tell whether the growing number of disaffected Trump voters are the canaries in the coal mine, indicating a larger problem among the Trump coalition and the MAGA movement more generally.” “We do find a meaningful percentage – 31% – of Trump voters unwilling to say they feel very confident they made the right choice,” Theodoridis adds. “Nineteen percent of Trump voters tell us they are still confident but have concerns, and 6% tell us they have mixed feelings about their vote. Given what we know about the psychological predispositions against admitting to having been wrong, these numbers suggest some softening in support for Trump among the very voters who returned him to the White House last November. This should certainly be alarming for Republican politicians. However, for Democrats or journalists looking for a mass mea culpa from Trump voters, our numbers are, perhaps, sobering.” Methodology This University of Massachusetts Amherst Poll of 1,000 respondents nationally was conducted by YouGov July 25-30. YouGov interviewed 1,057 total respondents who were then matched down to a sample of 1,000 to produce the final dataset. The frame was constructed by stratified sampling from the full 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) one-year sample with selection within strata by weighted sampling with replacements (using the person weights on the public use file). The matched cases were weighted to the sampling frame using propensity scores. The matched cases and the frame were combined, and a logistic regression was estimated for inclusion in the frame. The propensity score function included age, gender, race/ethnicity, years of education, region, and home ownership. The propensity scores were grouped into deciles of the estimated propensity score in the frame and post-stratified according to these deciles. The weights were then post-stratified on 2020 and 2024 presidential vote choice as ranked on gender, age (4-categories), race (4-categories) and education (4-categories), to produce the final weight. The demographic marginals and their interlockings were based on the sample frame. The marginal distribution of 2020 presidential vote choice and its demographic interlockings were based on a politically representative “modeled frame” of US adults, using the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) public use microdata file, public voter file records, the 2020 Current Population Survey (CPS) Voting and Registration supplements, the 2020 National Election Pool (NEP) exit poll, and the 2020 CES surveys, including demographics and 2020 presidential vote. The marginal distribution of 2024 vote choice was based on official ballot counts compiled by the University of Florida Election Labs and CNN. Demographic interlockings for 2024 vote choice were based on CNN’s 2024 Exit Polls. The margin of error of this poll is 3.5%. Topline results and crosstabs for the poll can be found at www.umass.edu/poll
President’s Discussion of Conspiracy Theories Have “No Parallel in American Politics”
Peter Baker, the chief White House correspondent for The New York Times, interviewed Dr. Meena Bose about conspiracy theories that appear to be consuming the Trump administration. “The president’s repeated discussion of multiple conspiracy theories, most recently about the 2016 election, has no parallel in American politics,” said Dr. Bose. “Presidential allegations that have no factual basis undermine public confidence in the political system and present dangerous challenges to constitutional principles and the rule of law, particularly if they are not subject to checks by other institutions.” Dr. Bose is Hofstra University professor of political science, executive dean of the Public Policy and Public Service program, and director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency.
Charli Carpenter, professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and director of the Human Security Lab, is available to discuss a recent survey she led of U.S. military members and veterans that found a real-time drop in their trust in the president’s nuclear launch authority that occurred during the recent Iran crisis. Carpenter and colleagues Grace Bernheart, Joseph Mara and Zahra Marashi recently published an article on the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists explaining what their findings mean and why they are important, and Carpenter also appeared on the podcast The Fire This Time to discuss the survey. To speak with Carpenter about the survey, contact her via her ExpertFile profile here.
