Despite deportations and visa denials, Indians stand by Donald Trump

Indians continue to hold a relatively high opinion of U.S. President Donald Trump and his ability to handle immigration policies, even though confidence in his leadership has declined sharply or remained low among people of other countries. This strong support comes despite incidents of forced deportations of Indians and a rise in visa denials for Indian students. Pew Survey data also shows that a smaller share of Indians considers him 'dangerous' or 'arrogant' compared to those of other countries.
In the survey conducted between February and April, only 27% of Indians said that they had 'no confidence' in Mr. Trump to handle the country's immigration policies. This is the third lowest share among the 24 countries surveyed (Chart 1). Notably, 29% of Indians declined to offer an opinion on this issue — the highest such share by a wide margin. The remaining 45% expressed confidence in Mr. Trump's handling of immigration policies.
Chart 1 shows the % of respondents who have confidence/no confidence in Trump to handle immigration policy
The opinions in India were recorded in the same month as well as in the months following the deportation of about 1,000 Indians by the U.S. In fact, in February, the first month of Mr. Trump's presidency, U.S. visas issued to Indian students declined by 30%. This drop was much steeper than what was recorded for Chinese, Vietnamese, or Japanese students. In the survey, 59% of Japanese respondents expressed no confidence in Mr. Trump's ability to handle immigration policies, while 87% of Mexicans believed so.
More recently, the Trump administration paused the scheduling of new visa interviews globally and expanded its vetting of foreign students' social media accounts. The U.S. government also terminated or revoked the visas of more than 1,000 international students — many of them Indians.
In the survey, 53% of Indians expressed confidence in Mr. Trump's ability of handling climate change issues. This was the third highest share among the 24 countries surveyed, behind Kenyans and Nigerians (Chart 2). This answer came a month after Mr. Trump signed an executive order to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement.
Chart 2 shows the % of respondents who have confidence/no confidence in Trump to handle climate change
Only 34% of Indians described Mr. Trump as 'arrogant' — the second lowest share among the 24 countries surveyed, and well below the 24-country median of 80% (Chart 3). Similarly, only 36% of Indians considered him 'dangerous'. This was again the second lowest share; the median was 65%. Half the Indian respondents said Mr. Trump is 'able to understand complex problems'. This was among the highest shares across the countries surveyed. The share of Indians who described him as 'honest' was 50% — the third highest share after Nigerians and Kenyans; the median was 28%.
Chart 3 shows the % who say Trump is...
Over 90% of people in Canada, Australia, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Spain considered Mr. Trump 'arrogant' and over 70% of them said he was 'dangerous'. In Sweden, only 19% of people said that he understands complex problems and only 20% in Germany said that he is honest.
Also, 52% of Indians have confidence in Mr. Trump of doing the right thing in world affairs. This is the fourth highest share behind Israelis, Nigerians, and Kenyans. Just 23% of Indians said they have no confidence in Mr. Trump to do the right thing; this is the second lowest share behind Nigerians (Chart 4).
Chart 4 shows the % of respondents who have confidence/no confidence in Trump to do the right thing regarding world affairs
In the Netherlands and France, only 22% of the respondents said they had confidence in Mr. Trump's ability to do the right thing. In Sweden and Mexico, over 85% of respondents said they had no confidence in him to do the right thing.
Source: Pew Research Center
vignesh.r@thehindu.co.in
Also Read: Impacts of the U.S.' crackdown on foreign-born students : Data

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Indian Express

27 minutes ago

• Indian Express

Dealing with China: Lessons from Galwan clash, five years on

Just over five years ago, the Galwan clash between India and China saw 20 Indian and four Chinese soldiers killed. This year is also the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the two countries. The bilateral relationship has been full of surprises and turmoil. It appears that India and China, two of the largest countries, economies and militaries, who share a disputed and unresolved border, do not understand each other. The violent clash of June 2020 was the first such incident since 1975. Peace was maintained on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) for almost four decades with the help of confidence-building mechanisms (CBMs). These were achieved after long and painstaking discussions, primarily to avoid any violence on the LAC. However, in the words of Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, 'So there was a clash, and a number of troops died on either side, and that has since, in a sense, overshadowed the relationship. So until we can restore peace and tranquillity on the border and ensure the agreements signed up to are adhered to, it's obviously difficult to carry on with the rest of the relationship'. But can India trust China to adhere to any agreements now? The long freeze between the neighbours after the 1962 war was revisited in 1988 with the 'normalisation' of ties and efforts were put in place to avoid a similar challenge. During Rajiv Gandhi's visit that year to Beijing, Deng Xiaoping said, 'We have both made mistakes and we can learn from each other. Why can't we share our experiences, our successes and failures? There is much we can achieve together. We can achieve nothing by being antagonists'. There was positive momentum after the visit and both sides engaged in an increased economic relationship (bilateral trade stands at around $118 billion). There was a lot of talk about cooperation. However, what has continued to be the driving factor is mistrust. Since 1988, there have been multiple stand-offs at the border, the most intense being in Doklam in 2017 — both armies stood eye to eye for 73 intense days. What complicates the situation further is that both countries are nuclear powerhouses and have advanced militaries. And both are vying to grow their global influence. The Galwan clash underscored the fragility of the relationship. It took almost four-and-a-half years and multiple rounds of bilateral talks at various levels to achieve a breakthrough. In October 2024, it was announced that India and China have agreed on patrolling rights in the Ladakh region. Foreign Vikram Misri said: 'Agreement has been arrived at on patrolling arrangements along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the India-China border areas, leading to disengagement and a resolution of the issues that had arisen in these areas in 2020 and we will be taking the next steps on this.' However, it appears that disengagement will be a long process. China appears keen to discuss restarting the people-to-people and economic engagement. After Galwan, India banned several Chinese apps and stopped major Chinese investments and direct flights. After the thaw, China has been keen to restart direct flights. It has issued around 85,000 visas and has resumed the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra for Indians. On the other hand, India has continued to reiterate that no significant developments can be achieved if the border issue is unresolved. Galwan is a major recent reminder of what the border is capable of doing. It can push the countries as well as the region into uncertainty. India has continued to focus on building capabilities in the border region and developing infrastructure that can help in the proper management and movement of troops and equipment. The most prominent of these is the all-weather Sela Tunnel in Arunachal Pradesh. Even after years of positive statements and shows of bonhomie, the neighbours appear to be just talking at each other. The talks of people-to-people interaction by China and the fact that India continues to reiterate the centrality of the border for a genuine stable relationship to exist shows the gap in perception and understanding. This gap needs to be bridged sooner rather than later. For Beijing, when it comes to its relations with New Delhi, it is economic dynamics that matter. New Delhi, however, should not forget the lessons from Galwan and ignore the fragility of diplomatic measures, which can clearly be ignored and trampled by China. The writer is associate professor, OP Jindal Global University

NDTV

28 minutes ago

• NDTV

What Is 'Doomsday Plane' Spotted In US Skies Amid Iran-Israel Conflict

New Delhi: As tensions continue to flare between Israel and Iran, and Washington ponders over potential military action against the Islamic Republic, one of the US' most secretive aircraft quietly entered the skies above the US capital. On the night of June 17, the E-4B Nightwatch — a hardened airborne command centre built to keep America's top defence and security officials operational during a nuclear crisis — made a flight to Joint Base Andrews. Known as the 'doomsday plane,' the aircraft was spotted by flight trackers taking an unusually circuitous route to Washington, triggering speculation about its timing and purpose. What is the E-4B Nightwatch? The E-4B Nightwatch is a militarised version of the Boeing 747-200. It was repurposed by the US military into a flying war room. It is formally known as the National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC) and is designed to function as a mobile command post during a nuclear conflict or national catastrophe. When ground-based communication or leadership infrastructure is compromised, the E-4B helps top American officials to continue coordinating operations from the sky. It functions as an airborne command centre, enabling the President, Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff to maintain command, control and communication capabilities during times of national emergency. Why is it called the 'doomsday plane'? The aircraft is built to withstand nuclear blasts, electromagnetic pulses (EMPs) and other extreme disruptions. It is often described as the 'flying Pentagon' because of its ability to operate as a command-and-control centre even in the event of full-scale war. The E-4B has an unrefuelled endurance of 12 hours, but with mid-air refuelling, it is known to have remained airborne for as long as 35.4 hours, according to a report in The New York Post. Is its recent flight a cause of concern? E-4B flights are not uncommon. They are conducted regularly to maintain operational readiness — this particular sortie stood out. As per data from flight tracking site FlightRadar, the aircraft departed Bossier City, Louisiana, shortly before 6 pm, local time, on June 17 and touched down in Maryland around 10 pm, The New York Times reported. What drew attention was the flight path, which curved along the eastern coastline and looped over Virginia and North Carolina before heading to Maryland. Even more unusual was the callsign — instead of the routine ORDER6, the aircraft used ORDER01. E-4B flight amid geopolitical tensions? The flight coincided with an escalation in the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict. US President Donald Trump has demanded Iran's 'unconditional surrender' as the conflict continues to escalate, according to AP. Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a warning to the US, threatening 'irreparable damage' if it directly intervened. FlightRadar data showed two Iranian government aircraft departed the country's airspace on Wednesday for Oman. It fuelled speculation that Iranian officials might be evacuating amid rising tensions, or that urgent diplomatic talks were being arranged in Muscat, Oman's capital, reported The New York Post. How many E-4B aircraft are there? The United States Air Force operates four E-4Bs, all as part of the 1st Airborne Command and Control Squadron. At any given time, at least one aircraft is on high alert and ready for immediate deployment.

Time of India

29 minutes ago

• Time of India

Israel-Iran Conflict: How another Middle East War is ripping MAGA apart - will Trump coalition survive?

As war clouds gather over Tehran, the 'America First' coalition fractures—from Carlson's outrage to Cruz's crusade, with Vice President JD Vance echoing the commander-in-chief's every word. The MAGA Movement Promised No More Wars—Now It's on the Brink of One Donald Trump didn't just win the 2024 election—he crushed it with a promise to rebuild America without stumbling into another foreign disaster. 'No more stupid wars' became doctrine. His base connected with this pledge, proud that he hadn't launched any new wars. But now, deep into 2025, that legacy is under pressure. In June, Israel struck Iran's nuclear facilities—and Trump responded by warning Iran's leaders to surrender 'unconditionally,' advising Tehran's civilians to evacuate, and boasting that the U.S. had 'total control of the skies.' The MAGA movement—defined by its distrust of foreign entanglements—is experiencing an identity crisis. The coalition that brought Trump back to power is now split, torn between instincts that fueled his rise. The Anti-War Wing: Carlson, Bannon, Greene, Gaetz—and the MAGA Grassroots Tucker Carlson: MAGA's Foreign Policy Firewall Carlson has emerged as the vocal anti-war leader within MAGA circles. He warned that war with Iran could end Trump's presidency. During a dramatic on-camera exchange with Senator Ted Cruz, he challenged his hawkish views by questioning basic facts about Iran—its population, its sectarian landscape—and called out what he sees as dangerous ignorance dressed up as resolve. To Carlson, this is Iraq 2.0. And allowing MAGA to shift toward intervention is nothing short of a betrayal. Tucker and Ted Cruz Get Into Heated Debate on AIPAC and Foreign Influence Steve Bannon: The Loyal Dissenter Bannon warned that a war with Iran could destroy the MAGA coalition. Yet he tempered the warning with neutrality, noting that even dissenting voices would ultimately fall in line behind Trump. His message: the base doesn't want war, but Trump remains the centre of gravity. Marjorie Taylor Greene: Culture Warrior, Peace Advocate Greene has remained firm in her opposition to escalation. She's made it clear that another conflict in the Middle East would betray the MAGA movement's core promise: to put America first—at home, not in yet another desert war. Matt Gaetz: The Populist Sceptic Gaetz has voiced deep scepticism over renewed interventionism, warning that MAGA should not fall for recycled Bush-era framing. He's dismissed hawkish rhetoric and cautioned that any move toward war must have a clearly defined exit strategy and real American interests at stake. His message is clear: military might is not a substitute for strategic clarity. The War Caucus: Cruz, Rubio, Levin, Hannity—Old Doctrine, New Labels Ted Cruz: Confident, But Clueless? Cruz maintained a hawkish stance in public appearances, even as he fumbled through basic facts about Iran. He's called Iran a threat and said the U.S. must act if necessary. His slip—confusing Israeli actions with American ones—highlighted the extent to which some MAGA hawks are ready for conflict, regardless of the details. Marco Rubio: From Miami to Mossad Now serving as Secretary of State, Rubio has become the administration's leading voice for a hardline Iran policy. He insists that Iran must be denied not just weapons, but even enrichment capacity. His doctrine is simple: Iran cannot even come close to the nuclear threshold. Mark Levin and Sean Hannity: Reagan-era Revivalists Both Levin and Hannity have called for strong action. Levin has floated the idea of regime change. Hannity has embraced the logic of preemptive strikes. They represent the older, more muscular conservatism that sees war not as a failure—but as assertion of American strength. JD Vance: The Loyal Lieutenant, Not the Peacemaker Vice President JD Vance, once the populist realist, now speaks with tight discipline. He hasn't condemned the hawks. He hasn't echoed the doves. He simply follows the President's lead—repeating Trump's lines, offering no deviation, and avoiding ideological entanglement. Vance is not acting as a bridge between factions. He's acting as a megaphone for Trump. His silence is strategic. His discipline is total with the belief that if he holds on long enough, he's a shoo-in to the be Trump's successor. Trump's Game: Maximum Pressure, Minimum Commitment—So Far Trump has long weaponised ambiguity. He's sent American forces into visible alert, named Iranian leaders, threatened air superiority—and yet, he hasn't fired a shot. This is vintage Trump: threatening force without deploying it, posturing without committing. But the longer this game stretches, the more pressure mounts. Hawks want action. The base wants peace. And Trump, ever the tactician, wants both. MAGA's Iraq Flashback: The Ghost That Haunts Them Still The language is all too familiar. Talks of WMDs. Warning of rogue regimes. Accusations of appeasement. MAGA was born in rebellion against this rhetoric. Trump won hearts by denouncing the Iraq War as a historic failure. Now, those ghosts are back. And the question is whether the movement has truly changed—or merely changed labels. The 2025 Test: Can MAGA Survive a Middle East War? Trump's current coalition—rooted in working-class values, suburban nationalism, and youth anti-establishment sentiment—says no to foreign adventures. Most polls show his base is wary of intervention. But a gamble remains: if Trump escalates, that coalition could fracture. The internal pressure is mounting. MAGA's future depends on whether it keeps its promise—or betrays the fierce anti-war impulse that helped redefine American politics in 2025. The Real War Is Inside MAGA This is more than a foreign policy debate—it's an ideological showdown. Anti-war bloc: Carlson, Bannon, Greene, Gaetz—warning against another Iraq, urging focus at home. War caucus: Cruz, Rubio, Levin, Hannity—championing confrontation and regime change. Intercepted by: JD Vance—standing in lockstep with Trump, no deviation. At the centre: Trump—wielding threats and uncertainties while testing the elasticity of a fractured coalition. A strike on Iran may win a skirmish—but MAGA's soul hangs in the balance. The real question now isn't just 'should we go to war?'—it's 'can MAGA survive it?'