President Donald Trump’s approval ratings have taken a significant hit in several key states he secured during the 2024 election, raising questions about his political standing as his second term progresses.

Recent polling data indicate that Trump is underwater—meaning more people disapprove of his performance than approve—in 15 states he previously won, including all seven critical swing states.

This development suggests potential challenges for the president and his party as they navigate future electoral landscapes.

With economic concerns, policy decisions, and public protests contributing to the shifting sentiment, this downturn in popularity could have far-reaching implications.

A troubling trend in swing states

The latest polls, as reported by Newsweek on June 21, 2025, reveal a stark reality for Trump: his approval rating is negative in every swing state that played a pivotal role in his 2024 victory.

States like Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—once considered strongholds or competitive wins for Trump—now show net disapproval among voters.

This is a dramatic shift from earlier in his term when, according to Morning Consult data shared on social media platforms in April and May 2025, Trump enjoyed positive approval in many of these states, such as North Carolina (+9) and Georgia (+8).

However, by mid-June, those numbers had slipped, with Georgia dropping to +4 and Pennsylvania turning negative at -1.

This decline is particularly concerning for Trump’s political future, as swing states often determine the outcome of national elections.

Analysts suggest that dissatisfaction in these battleground areas could signal broader discontent with the administration’s handling of key issues.

The Economic Times reported on June 20, 2025, that Trump’s approval rating has hit a low of -6 nationwide, marking the sharpest drop in months.

This decline coincides with widespread ‘No Kings’ protests, where millions have expressed frustration over economic policies and political decisions across major US cities.

Factors behind the decline

Several factors appear to be driving Trump’s slipping approval ratings. Economic challenges, including inflation and job market concerns, have been cited as primary grievances among voters.

The ‘No Kings’ protests, as detailed by The Economic Times, have further amplified public discontent, with many Americans voicing concerns over perceived overreaches of executive power and dissatisfaction with legislative gridlock.

These protests have not only drawn attention to specific policy failures but have also galvanised opposition in both urban and rural areas, including in states Trump previously carried with ease.

Additionally, recent policy decisions may have alienated segments of Trump’s base. While specific policies are not detailed in the most recent reports within the last six hours, earlier coverage from Newsweek in May 2025 highlighted growing frustration over unfulfilled campaign promises in swing states.

This sentiment seems to have persisted, with AllHipHop reporting on June 22, 2025, that there are signs of ‘electoral fatigue’ among Trump’s supporters in the 15 states where his approval has plummeted.

This fatigue could indicate that even loyal voters are reevaluating their support based on the administration’s performance over the past few months.

Donald Trump’s return to the presidency in 2024 marked a historic comeback, following a polarising first term and a contentious period out of office.

Strong performances in both traditional Republican strongholds and pivotal swing states bolstered his victory in the 2024 election.

Early in his second term, Trump’s approval ratings, as tracked by Morning Consult and reported on social media in April 2025, showed robust support in states like Wyoming (+55) and West Virginia (+35), alongside competitive positives in swing states.

However, as his administration faced mounting challenges—ranging from economic recovery to social unrest—public opinion began to shift.

The importance of swing states cannot be overstated. These states, often decided by narrow margins, are critical to securing electoral votes in presidential elections.

Trump’s ability to win them in 2024 was seen as a testament to his enduring appeal among a significant portion of the electorate. Yet, the current downturn in approval ratings suggests that maintaining this coalition may prove difficult.

The fact that Trump is underwater in all seven swing states is a ‘shocking’ development that could reshape political strategies moving forward.

Implications for the future

The implications of Trump’s declining approval ratings are multifaceted. For the Republican Party, this trend could signal vulnerabilities in upcoming midterm elections or future presidential races.

If dissatisfaction persists in key states, it may embolden opposition candidates to challenge Republican incumbents or target Trump-aligned policies.

Moreover, a sustained negative approval rating could impact Trump’s ability to push through legislative agendas, as public support often influences congressional cooperation.

For Trump himself, these numbers may prompt a reevaluation of strategy.

Political analysts speculate that the administration might double down on addressing economic concerns or attempt to reconnect with disaffected voters through targeted policy initiatives.

However, the scale of public protests and the depth of disapproval—evidenced by a national rating of -6—suggest that rebuilding trust will be an uphill battle.

Regional variations and persistent support

Despite the overall negative trend, Trump retains positive approval ratings in some staunchly Republican states.

According to posts on social media platforms citing Morning Consult data from June 18, 2025, states like Wyoming (+41), West Virginia (+30), and Idaho (+25) continue to show strong support.

Additionally, Instant News reported on June 21, 2025, that Trump still enjoys favourable ratings in states such as South Carolina, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, and Kentucky.

This regional divide highlights the polarised nature of American politics, where Trump’s base remains loyal in certain areas even as broader national and swing state support wanes.

Donald Trump’s approval rating struggles in key states he won during the 2024 election represent a significant challenge for his administration.

With negative ratings in all seven swing states and a national approval drop to -6, as reported by multiple sources, the president faces mounting public dissatisfaction fueled by economic issues and widespread protests.

While Trump retains support in some Republican strongholds, the loss of favour in battleground states could have profound implications for his political future and the Republican Party’s electoral prospects.

As this situation evolves, it remains to be seen whether the administration can address voter concerns and reverse this troubling trend. For now, the data paints a picture of a presidency at a critical juncture, navigating a deeply divided electorate.

Disclaimer: Portions of this article were generated with the assistance of AI tools and reviewed by the Invezz editorial team for accuracy and adherence to our standards.

The post Donald Trump’s approval rating struggles in key states he won appeared first on Invezz

It’s official. The United States has bombed Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites, opening a volatile new chapter in a conflict that markets were hoping would stay regional. 

After months of escalating proxy warfare between Israel and Iran, Donald Trump’s decision is more than a direct military action.

It could be the end of economic assumptions that have guided markets for years. 

From oil spikes to inflation fears, from the Strait of Hormuz to Beijing’s bargaining table, the shockwaves are forming.

Whether this turns into a global crisis or just another short-lived spike depends on what happens next and how markets, central banks, and governments respond.

How far could this conflict go?

The airstrikes were targeted and precise. Trump hit three nuclear sites in Iran, after giving Israel space to weaken Tehran’s long-range missile capability. 

Iranian leaders have already made threats that they will retaliate but how this will be done is yet to be seen. Iran’s economy is fragile enough to not be able to sustain a prolonged conflict with both the US and Israel.

From the US side, there are no signs of a full-scale invasion or deployment of American troops so far. And public opinion doesn’t support one. The majority of Americans oppose a war with Iran. 

And Trump’s history lines up with that sentiment. Limited strikes, big announcements, no boots on the ground, so far.

This isn’t the first time. The assassination of Qasem Soleimani in 2020 followed the same playbook: remove a high-value target, then pull back. 

This time, he’s betting on precision power to pressure Iran and avoid prolonged war. But while the military risk may be calculated, the economic fallout is much harder to control.

Oil is still the red line

The global economy’s vulnerability isn’t about Iran itself. It’s about geography. 

The Strait of Hormuz, a 21-mile-wide channel, carries 20% of the world’s daily oil supply and a massive chunk of liquefied natural gas. 
Iran has repeatedly threatened to close it even before the US attacks. It’s done so before in limited ways such as seizing tankers, laying mines, harassing vessels with speedboats. 

During the 1980s “Tanker War,” and again in incidents as recent as 2023, Iran disrupted Gulf shipping to pressure adversaries.
If Iran now acts more forcefully, it has the means to block or severely disrupt traffic. The IRGC could strike ships, mine the waterway, or simply make it too risky for insurers to greenlight passage.

Threats have already been made against European fuel ships.

Bloomberg Economics forecasts that a full shutdown of Hormuz would send oil past $130 per barrel. 

That could drive US inflation back to 4% and likely force the Federal Reserve to delay or cancel expected rate cuts.

It would also crush growth in countries like Germany, Japan, India, and China, who are heavily exposed to energy imports.

Yet history suggests any full shutdown of the Strait would be short-lived. During the 1991 Gulf War, Brent crude doubled in weeks, only to normalize months later. 

The 2003 Iraq War and 2022 Ukraine invasion caused similar spikes that reversed quickly. Why? Spare capacity and rapid US military response.

Even without a full closure, early signs of market reaction are clear. After the strikes, crude oil derivatives jumped 8.8%. 

Who gets hurt and who gains?

The US economy is better positioned than most. After the shale boom, America became a near-balanced oil trader, exporting and importing roughly the same amount. 

This means when oil prices rise, US oil companies benefit, while transportation and manufacturing companies take the hit. But overall, the economy stays steady.

Inflation may rise, but recession risk stays low.

Russia, on the other hand, could benefit from the chaos. As a major exporter, higher oil prices help Moscow fund its war in Ukraine. 

With Iran’s supply under pressure, Russia could become an even more important partner for countries looking to skirt US influence, especially China.

Speaking of China, it’s now in a bind. Nearly all of Iran’s oil exports go to Beijing, and China has enjoyed steep discounts of around $6 per barrel cheaper than market prices.

If that supply is interrupted, China won’t just have to find new sources, it will have to pay full price. That’s a direct blow to Chinese industry and leverage, right when its economy is struggling to recover.

Europe is exposed too. While it imports less oil directly from Iran or through Hormuz, it depends on stable global prices.

If Qatar’s LNG exports are disrupted, which also flow through Hormuz, European gas prices could spike, especially in winter. 

With the eurozone economy already flirting with stagnation, this would compound existing pressures from higher interest rates and weak consumer demand.

Is the market overreacting or underestimating?

Even if Iran disrupts Hormuz, oil is a global commodity. 

Gulf oil exporters do have some room to reroute. Saudi Arabia operates a 5 million barrel-per-day pipeline from its Gulf fields to the Red Sea. 

The UAE has a 1.5 million barrel-per-day line to Fujairah, bypassing Hormuz. 

But Iraq, Kuwait, and Qatar, all 3 who are key exporters, have no viable alternatives. A full shutdown would hammer their revenues and global supply.

Oil is fungible, meaning that it can be shipped anywhere with minimal cost differences.

Europe could buy more from Latin America or the US, while Asia shifts toward Saudi Arabia or Iraq.

But this ignores how markets work in practice. Oil demand is inelastic in the short term. People still drive, companies still ship, and governments still heat buildings, regardless of price. 

This means even a small disruption can cause a big spike in price. A few tankers pulled from the Gulf could cause panic that ripples far beyond the Persian coastline.

It also ignores geopolitical psychology. Investors hate uncertainty.

And right now, they’re looking at a US president who may bomb again, an Iran that feels cornered, a volatile Israeli war front, and multiple points of potential failure across the global energy map.

What happens next?

There are three likely paths from here.

In the most limited case, Iran retaliates with minor attacks on US bases or assets, and the conflict stays contained. Oil rises moderately, inflation ticks up, but central banks stay the course.

In a mid-range scenario, Iran targets Gulf infrastructure or commercial tankers. The Strait of Hormuz becomes semi-operational. Oil spikes into the $110–$120 range.

The Fed, ECB, and others freeze rate cuts, while global growth stalls.

In the worst case, Hormuz shuts down entirely. Crude surges past $130. Inflation hits 4–5%.

Interest rates stay high through 2025. Europe and Asia face energy crises. China scrambles to source oil at higher prices. Russia benefits. Markets spiral.

One thing is certain however: the era of risk-free geopolitics is over. Welcome back to volatility.

The post A war markets weren’t ready for: what US strikes on Iran mean for the global economy appeared first on Invezz

The Strait of Hormuz, through which around a fifth of the global oil supply is transported every day, remains at the centre of attention on Monday. 

Oil and LNG markets face significantly increased supply risks following the weekend bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities by the US.

Now, the critical question is: how will Iran respond?

A significant risk to the oil market is the potential for Iran to disrupt shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz.

Approximately 20% of the world’s LNG trade also passes through this strait.

“We could also see Iran disrupt shipments at other choke points through its proxies. Recently, we’ve seen the Houthis targeting shipments through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait,” Warren Patterson, head of commodities strategy at ING Group, said.

“An effective blocking of the Hormuz would lead to a dramatic shift in the outlook for oil, pushing the market into deep deficit,” he said, adding that spare production capacity of OPEC+ would not be sufficient in that scenario. 

The spare output capacity of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and allies also sits in the Persian Gulf. 

“So, these flows would also have to go through the Strait of Hormuz,” Patterson added. 

However, Commerzbank AG believes that it would also impact Iran if they shut down the Strait of Hormuz. 

Iran’s dilemma

The oil flowing through the Strait of Hormuz could not be transported to the world market via other routes such as pipelines in the event of a blockade by Iran. 

In such a scenario, the market would tighten considerably. 

“A higher risk premium on the oil price is therefore justified, even if the probability of the Strait of Hormuz being closed is very low,” Carsten Fritsch, commodity analyst at Commerzbank, said. 

However, this would harm Iran itself considerably, as it would also no longer be able to export oil and would also offend China, its most important customer.

“This is because China obtains the majority of its oil imports from countries in the Persian Gulf and would therefore be particularly affected by a blockade of the strait,” Fritsch said. 

Should Iran no longer be able to export its oil, the reluctance threshold for a blockade would sink.

This will likely also be true if the Tehran regime is on the verge of losing power.

Will Iran really shut down the strait?

Reports indicate that while the Iranian parliament supports the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the ultimate decision rests with the country’s national security council.

“Given the potential impact on oil flows and prices from such action, there would likely be a swift response from the US and others,” ING’s Patterson said. 

Given that over 80% of oil transiting the Strait of Hormuz is destined for Asia, the region would experience a greater impact than the US.

“Therefore, Iran would want to be careful in upsetting the likes of China by disrupting oil flows,” Patterson noted. 

This morning’s price action indicates the market, at least for now, does not anticipate a blockage of flows through Hormuz, according to Patterson. 

Brent crude, after a brief spike earlier in the trading session, has fallen back below $80 per barrel.

Impact on prices

Geopolitical risks have clearly risen significantly, though a successful blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is unlikely, according to ING. 

However, ongoing Israeli strikes on Iran present clear supply risks for Iranian oil.

Therefore, ING has revised its oil forecasts for the remainder of the year. 

ING had previously forecasted that Brent would average $62 per barrel in the third quarter. “We’ve increased this to $70/bbl to reflect a larger risk premium,” Patterson said. 

Meanwhile, ING increased its fourth-quarter forecast from $59 a barrel to $64 per barrel.

Patterson said:

Any supply disruptions would require further price revisions. It follows that, in the absence of supply disruptions, we are likely to see the risk premium fade over time.

The post Why closing the Strait of Hormuz is a double-edged sword for Iran? appeared first on Invezz

Tesla Inc. made a modest but pivotal move in its bid to dominate the autonomous vehicle industry by launching its robotaxi service in Austin, Texas on Sunday.

The pilot program, involving up to 20 Tesla Model Y electric vehicles, marks the automaker’s first public deployment of its fully driverless ride-hailing service—a concept long touted by Chief Executive Elon Musk as the company’s next transformative frontier.

There are no human drivers in these vehicles. Instead, they are steered by Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) software, the company’s most advanced iteration of its driver-assistance technology.

The ride cost? A flat fee of $4.20, according to a post by Musk on X.

The Robotaxi gets positive early reviews

The Model Ys, retrofitted to operate without a driver, are being monitored remotely by Tesla staff who can intervene in complex traffic situations.

Each vehicle also features microphones to detect emergency vehicle sirens—a nod to real-world operating challenges.

Tesla’s first robotaxi rides were confined to a small section of its hometown, Austin, with an employee present in each car to monitor operations.

The company selected a favorable group of early riders, including investors and social media influencers, some of whom live-streamed their experiences.

In one such video, Herbert Ong, who runs a Tesla fan account, expressed amazement at the vehicle’s speed and its autonomous parking ability.

Another user, posting under the handle @BLKMDL3 on X, said the ride felt “smoother than a human driver.”

Tesla investor Sawyer Merritt described the experience simply as “awesome.”

Tesla has indicated that it plans to expand robotaxi operations to cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Antonio.

Musk claims the company will have hundreds of thousands of fully autonomous Teslas on US roads by the end of 2026.

Why is the Robotaxi’s success important for Tesla and the TSLA stock?

The move into autonomous driving comes at a time when Tesla’s core car business is facing mounting pressure.

Despite generating $98 billion in revenue last year, three-quarters of which came from vehicle sales, the company is contending with increased competition and a dated lineup.

There’s also been political fallout due to Musk’s association with the Trump administration, which some buyers have criticized.

Against this backdrop, Tesla’s robotaxi ambitions represent more than just a new product—they are now central to the company’s long-term valuation and growth narrative.

“Robotaxis are critical to the Tesla investment case,” Tom Narayan, an analyst with RBC Capital Markets, said in a note.

Narayan estimates that roughly 60% of Tesla’s valuation is tied to its self-driving efforts.

He believes the technology could add between $5 trillion and $10 trillion to Tesla’s market capitalization, which currently stands around $1 trillion.

ARK Invest, led by Cathie Wood, has projected that autonomous ride-hailing could be a $951 billion revenue stream for Tesla by 2029, accounting for 90% of its earnings.

Analysts’ response to the Robotaxi and its future prospects

Despite the promise, investor sentiment remains divided.

“Tesla’s successful robotaxi launch in Austin, Texas on Sunday opens up its AI story,” Wedbush analysts say in a research note.

After trying out the service, they said the robotaxi was able to maneuver “masterfully” with patience and safety.

“These Robotaxis exceeded our expectations and offered a seamless and personalized travel experience that has lit the spark for autonomous driving,” they said, maintaining the brokerage’s outperform rating on Tesla with a target price at $500- a more than 55% upside to its current share price of $322.16.

However, some early Tesla bulls are growing wary.

Gary Black, a longtime supporter, recently disclosed that his Future Fund has sold its remaining Tesla shares, citing misalignment between the company’s lofty valuation and its actual vehicle sales.

He also doesn’t expect the robotaxi product to do much to boost the company’s value.

“I don’t see the upside at this point, but I see plenty of downside,” he said.

Skeptics point to the uncertain timeline and regulatory barriers involved in scaling the service.

“It could take years or decades,” said Philip Koopman, a computer-engineering professor at Carnegie Mellon University who specializes in autonomous vehicle safety.

Former Tesla president Jon McNeill, now on the board of General Motors, questioned the overall market potential.

“It’s hard to square how people are arriving at a $1 trillion opportunity,” he said, though he acknowledged the possibility of multiple players succeeding in the space.

Outlook for TSLA stock

Tesla shares remain volatile, currently trading at $322.16—nearly 170 times estimated 2025 earnings.

All of this points to one key takeaway: investors are betting that AI will become a major driver of Tesla’s future earnings.

“We view this autonomous [driving] chapter as one of the most important for [CEO Elon] Musk and Tesla in its history as a company,” wrote Wedbush analyst Dan Ives on Friday.

The AI future at Tesla is worth $1 trillion to the valuation alone over the next few years.

Ives is a Tesla bull, rating shares at Buy with a price target at a Street-high of $500.

On the other hand, Guggenheim analyst Ronald Jewsikow holds a sell rating and a $175 target, warning of risks like regulatory delays, steep capital needs, and the technological roadblocks to widespread deployment.

“Even with our more-balanced view….we still see a nearly $2 trillion enterprise value for robo-taxis in 2040,” adding that’s worth almost $100 a share, discounted back to today.

Jewsikow doesn’t add that into Tesla’s base valuation, however, because it’s a 2040 number and, of course, there are those risks.

Market technician Katie Stockton of Fairlead Strategies noted that Tesla shares have strong support around $300, with resistance at the $370 to $380 range.

A fall below $224 would be a more bearish signal. Stockton emphasized that these are technical indicators, not fundamental assessments of the company’s business.

A regulatory puzzle still unsolved

For Tesla, regulation remains a stubborn obstacle.

Autonomous vehicles are currently regulated by individual states and, in some cases, municipalities.

Musk has repeatedly urged the US government to implement federal-level rules, arguing that a patchwork of local laws hinders Tesla’s ability to scale the FSD software uniformly.

As things stand, each city or state expansion will require negotiation and approval, likely slowing down the aggressive growth timeline Musk envisions.

The post Tesla’s $4.20 robotaxi ride revives AI bull case, but analysts warn of long road ahead appeared first on Invezz