Jiang Minqin's Perspective: After Approval Rating Falls Below 33%, How Many Cards Does Trump Have Left?

On July 30, the Associated Press/NORC poll was released, showing Trump's approval rating had fallen to 33%—a new low for his second term and even three percentage points lower than Biden's 36% at the same point in his presidency. At the start of his second term, Trump held a 47% approval rating, Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, and momentum from early military successes against Venezuela and Iran, projecting an image of dominance and assured victory. On January 3, U.S. forces raided Caracas, captured Maduro, and brought him to New York for trial—a swift and decisive operation that convinced the White House that any regime could be swiftly toppled using the same playbook. However, the Iran conflict, now dragging on for nearly half a year, has significantly eroded that momentum. Even Trump’s favorite phrase, 'winner’s language,' now rings hollow. The question is no longer 'Will he play more cards?' but rather, 'What effective cards does he actually have left?'

First Card: War On February 28, the U.S. and Israel launched a joint air campaign codenamed 'Epic Wrath,' killing Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei on the first day. This was meant to be a decisive blow, and the White House declared the war 'over in the first hour.' But the Iranian regime did not collapse as expected. His son, Little Khamenei, assumed power, and the conflict escalated into a regional conflagration: Iran briefly blocked the Strait of Hormuz, and the Houthis joined the fray, disrupting Red Sea shipping. A ceasefire mediated by Pakistan was reached on April 8, and a memorandum of understanding was signed on June 14. However, in July, the deal collapsed after Iran attacked three commercial vessels that had deviated from established routes. The U.S. resumed maritime blockades and, in the same month, bombed a desalination plant in Hormozgan Province, southern Iran, cutting off water to twenty villages.

For six months, the conflict has seesawed without end. Retired intelligence experts remain consistent: Iran is unlikely to surrender. This card, once expected to deliver a knockout punch, now resembles a thinning chip in a war of attrition. Even Fox News anchors have publicly questioned on air: If Iran's military has truly been 'completely destroyed,' as the president claims, why can it still attack Gulf states and U.S. bases? By late July, polls showed even Republican voters were losing support for the Iran war.

Second Card: The Old Playbook—'The Enemy Within' The White House, citing an executive order from March last year, released a report on July 4 accusing the Smithsonian Institution of 'ideological collapse.' By month's end, Trump signed an order requiring warning signs on sidewalks around the museum, urging visitors not to trust exhibits and directing them to government-approved information sources. Observers familiar with Soviet memory politics immediately recognized this tactic—'redefining who is lying'—by repeatedly promoting a simplified, comforting historical narrative to foster pride without confronting truth. This strategy once solidified his base, but the continued drop in support suggests diminishing returns, even among loyal voters.

Third Card: Institutional Takeover The White House Rose Garden was paved over and converted into a gilded ballroom. Giant portraits of the president now hang on federal buildings. Trump even publicly declared, 'I have the right to do whatever I want because I am the president.' This statement sounds less like confidence and more like a confession of overreach. On June 29, the Supreme Court rejected the administration’s petition by a 5–4 vote, allowing Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook to remain in office while litigation continues. Yet on the same day, the Court upheld Trump’s removal of a Federal Trade Commission commissioner. This shows the judiciary does not automatically accept executive overreach but draws lines case by case. This card has partial success, but each use involves a high-stakes gamble with federal courts, with uncertain outcomes.

Fourth Card: Economic Populism The bipartisan '21st Century ROAD to Housing Act' passed both chambers by overwhelming margins, but Trump dismissed it as a 'yawn' compared to the 'Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (SAVE Act)' and refused to sign it, allowing it to become law automatically after the ten-day deadline. Trump chose to lose substance to preserve his image of never backing down. Meanwhile, the war in Iran has driven up oil prices, and many Americans feel the cost at the pump. Trump still calls inflation concerns 'a hoax.' The price surge triggered by the 1890 McKinley Tariff Act contributed to Republicans losing 93 seats that year—McKinley himself lost re-election and later advocated reciprocal trade. The cost of playing this card is already written in history.

Fifth Card: The Hidden Card—Bypassing Public Opinion The first four cards, no matter how aggressively played, have all led to the same downward trend in approval ratings. The truly alarming card is the one Trump hasn’t fully played—one that doesn’t rely on public support at all: a nearly forgotten constitutional loophole. The House of Representatives has the power to unilaterally determine the qualifications of its own members, and this decision is not subject to judicial review. In 1839, a Democratic-controlled committee in New Jersey unilaterally declared its candidate the winner. From 1931 to 1932 in Illinois, defeated Democratic candidate Stanley H. Kunz used a party-controlled committee to recount votes and overturned a Republican opponent’s 1,000-vote lead. These precedents have occurred and each time reshaped the balance of power in the House. The danger of this card is that it requires no voter persuasion and is unaffected by polls—only a narrow seat margin and a united party caucus. The first four cards aim to 'win hearts,' but this fifth card aims to 'bypass hearts.' Their logic is fundamentally different, making the latter far more dangerous and worth recognizing early.

Real Cards, Fake Cards, and the Importance of Verification Using the National Memorial for Peace and Justice in Montgomery, Alabama, as a contrast case clarifies public sentiment: a privately funded, non-governmental organization built a lynching memorial and legacy museum, openly confronting the history of slavery and racial violence. It draws continuous visitors and boosts the local economy. Its founder said the true evil was the fabricated narrative used to justify slavery; without changing the narrative, harm continues. One side puts up warning signs telling people not to look; the other spends its own money inviting people to look closely. Which choice builds real trust is self-evident.

Because Trump holds both real and bluffing cards, meticulously verifying every public statement is key to judging the game’s outcome. 'Federal investigators have confirmed' versus 'regulators are investigating with no conclusion' are two entirely different cards. 'Court rulings confirmed election results' versus 'most lawsuits were dismissed due to procedural or evidentiary insufficiency' carry vastly different stakes. A credible fact-check reminds readers: discard numbers that can’t be traced to primary sources; don’t blame one agency for another’s failures when jurisdictions differ; even a one-percentage-point gap in a poll deserves rechecking the original data. When one side replaces verifiable facts with repeated slogans, restoring 'seemingly certain' statements to their inherent uncertainty is the most direct way to expose bluffing.

Fellow Sufferers, the Game Nears Its End Looking outward, Trump is not alone in this 'thinning hand' predicament. Netanyahu, despite tactical victories over Hamas, Hezbollah, and Tehran, has failed to achieve any new strategic reality. To annex Gaza and the West Bank, he sacrificed normalization with Saudi Arabia and goodwill from Western allies—even risking Israel’s judicial independence, a card he once never played. Reports suggest Israeli intelligence even considered reviving former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (though unconfirmed by officials and denied by Ahmadinejad). The mere idea reveals how detached from reality decision-making circles can become when surrounded by sycophants.

Putin is similarly trapped in his own narrative, believing Ukrainians would welcome 'liberators,' only to end up with a cruise missile landing in Poland and an economy entirely absent from the AI revolution. The common plight of all three is that their cards to win public support are nearly exhausted. What remains increasingly relies on bypassing public opinion rather than persuading it. Ironically, what may truly undermine Iran’s regime isn’t missiles or assassination lists, but an unrelated climate drought. This reminds all strongmen betting on military power that variables beyond the table remain entirely unpredictable.

Fairly speaking, Trump’s approval rating falling below 33% indicates not that he