CNN
 — 

Several of the key voter groups that provided President Donald Trump’s most important electoral gains in November are recoiling from him as his term moves past the 100-day mark. But it remains unclear how much Democrats can benefit from these growing doubts.

In 2024, Trump improved his performance among some big voting blocs that have historically favored Democrats, including Latinos, younger men, non-White voters without a college degree, and, to some extent, Black men. Trump’s advances generated exuberant predictions from an array of right-leaning analysts that he had achieved a lasting realignment and cemented the GOP’s hold on voters of all races without a college degree.

But the flurry of polls 100 days into Trump’s second term suggests that cement has not hardened as much as some allies anticipated. Across multiple surveys, Trump’s overall job approval rating has fallen below his 2024 vote share with these key groups, and they are consistently giving him even lower marks for his handling of the economy, particularly inflation.

“The collapse that he’s experiencing — I think that’s the right word to phrase it — is broad-based and it’s deep,” said Mike Madrid, an expert on Latino voters and a longtime Republican consultant who has become a leading Trump critic in the party.

Few strategists in either party believe the cooling toward Trump means Democrats have erased their long-term problems with these voter groups, which have generally drifted toward the GOP since the end of Barack Obama’s presidency. But the rapid erosion of Trump’s standing with them does suggest that their movement toward him in 2024 was driven less by a durable rightward shift on cultural issues than by immediate discontent with their economic situation. And that means that rather than solidifying as part of the GOP coalition, many of these voters likely will remain up for grabs if Trump can’t improve their finances any more than President Joe Biden did.

“What we don’t see is an across-the-board realignment all up and down behind Trump’s agenda,” said Robert P. Jones, president and founder of the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute, or PRRI, which recently completed a large-scale survey of Americans’ attitudes on cultural issues.

Shadows of a realignment in 2024

Whether measured by Election Day surveys or precinct-level results, Trump’s improvement among voter groups that had not traditionally supported the GOP was arguably the biggest factor in his return to the White House.

Both the exit polls conducted by Edison Research for a consortium of media organizations including CNN and the AP VoteCast survey conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago found that Trump’s vote among White people was virtually identical from 2020 to 2024 and improved just modestly among voters older than 30.

But all data sources agreed that Trump made significant gains among groups that had been pillars of what was once called the “Obama coalition” and what I termed in 2008 “the coalition of the ascendant.”

The exit polls and VoteCast studies, for instance, both found that Trump in 2024 won around 45% of voters younger than 30, up from 36% in 2020. Both showed he gained much more among young men than among young women.

Likewise, both sources showed Trump crossing 40% support among Latinos, a modern high for the GOP, up from about one-third in 2020. The VoteCast study also found Trump doubling his vote among Black men to about 1 in 4. (The exit poll did not find meaningful improvement for him with them.)

The most attention after the election focused on Trump’s improvement among minority voters without a four-year college degree. The exit polls and AP VoteCast agreed that Trump carried almost exactly one-third of them, a big improvement over the roughly one-fourth of their votes he carried in 2020.

Since Trump’s first term, a growing number of center-right analysts in both parties have argued that Democrats were alienating working-class non-White voters by emphasizing culturally liberal and “woke” positions on issues such as transgender rights or the use of “Latinx” to describe Latinos. Many of these voices took Trump’s 2024 gains as proof that non-White voters without a college degree were now realigning away from Democrats toward the GOP, primarily around cultural issues, just as non-college-educated White voters did during the 1960s and 1970s.

“The Democrats really are no longer the party of the common man and woman,” Ruy Teixeira, a longtime Democratic analyst who has become a leading critic of the party, wrote immediately after the election. “This election has made this problem manifest in the starkest possible terms, as the Democratic coalition shattered into pieces.”

Republican pollster Patrick Ruffini, author of “Party of the People,” a book that perceptively analyzes the GOP’s growing strength among working-class minorities, summarized the results even more succinctly: “No word for it but … realignment,” he wrote on social media few weeks after the vote.

Just over 100 days into Trump’s second term, the picture, at the least, looks much more fluid.

The swarm of national polls marking Trump’s 100 days shows his job approval rating among young people, Latinos and Black Americans falling below — often well below — his 2024 vote shares. His ratings on the economy with those groups are even weaker. And while Trump still receives decent grades from Hispanic and young people for his handling of the border, ratings of his overall approach to immigration have consistently fallen into negative territory with them as well.

Trump’s position has equally eroded among the group whose shift toward him last year attracted the most attention: the large number of minority Americans without a four-year college degree. His approval rating among those blue-collar racial minorities stands at just 29% in the latest CNN/SRSS poll, according to results provided by the CNN polling unit. (The latest New York Times/Siena, Pew Research Center and Washington Post/ABC/Ipsos surveys produced nearly identical results among that group.)

Just 27% of non-college-educated people of color approved of Trump’s economic performance in the CNN survey, and two-thirds of them thought he was “going too far” in his deportation agenda. Nearly 3 in 4 of them in the Washington Post survey said Trump does not respect the rule of law, and just 1 in 6 in the New York Times/Siena poll agreed with his assertion that he should be allowed to send US citizens to a prison in El Salvador.

Coming so soon in 2025, this broad dissatisfaction is casting a retrospective shadow over what happened in 2024. Madrid says the recoil from Trump, particularly among Latinos, makes clear that the movement toward him in 2024 was based mostly on economic factors rather than affinity for his cultural and racial views. “This is just another brick in the wall of the argument that this (Latino voter) is an economic voter,” Madrid said.

Jones similarly thinks the quick distancing from Trump strengthens the argument that his 2024 gains among minority and younger voters were driven more by the economy than by a cultural realignment. In PRRI’s recent national survey, Hispanic, Black and Gen Z adults were all much less likely than Trump’s core constituency of White voters without a four-year college degree to agree with foundational MAGA beliefs, such as that Whites and Christians are the real victims of discrimination or that “immigrants are invading our country and replacing our cultural and ethnic background.”

“There’s a real danger that Trump is overreaching on the cultural issues,” Jones said.

Republican former Rep. Carlos Curbelo likewise believes Trump may be pushing his Latino supporters too far with the sweep of his deportation agenda, especially while they remain stressed about the economy. “Democrats were wrong to believe that Hispanic voters would never prioritize border security and the deportation of the undocumented,” Curbelo wrote in an email. “(But) the current Administration is wrong if they think Hispanic voters will perform like MAGA base voters on immigration enforcement matters.”

Ray Serrano, national director of research and policy at LULAC, a Hispanic advocacy organization, sees Trump’s decline in terms that are even more absolute. “If there was a flirtation with possibly moving to the Trump side, to the Republican side, it’s moving away now,” Serrano said during a recent conference call that Latino advocacy groups held to release a national survey from a bipartisan polling team about Trump’s first 100 days. The disappointed response to Trump’s return, he argued, could signal “the rise and immediate fall of the Trump Latino Democrat.”

It may be as premature, though, to dismiss Trump’s inroads among these traditionally Democratic groups as it was to declare them proof of a durable realignment. All the 100-days surveys provide evidence that many of these voters, though disappointed in Trump’s first days, have not shut the door on him.

Republican pollster Daron Shaw, for instance, said the survey conducted for Latino advocacy groups by a bipartisan polling team found that both Trump’s job approval and support for some of his most controversial initiatives, such as deporting people without hearings or ending diversity initiatives, remained much stronger among men younger than 40 than any other group of Latinos.

And, as Jones pointed out, some of Trump’s conservative cultural views continue to resonate with minority voters, especially men. Big majorities of Latino men and women and Black men, for instance, agreed in the PRRI poll that transgender people should be required to use the bathroom of their gender at birth; a substantial minority of each group also agreed with the conservative perspective that society is better off when men and women accept traditional gender roles.

Even on the economy, the polls show some room for Trump, with many of his new voters saying it is too soon to render a verdict on his impact. The latest CNN poll was typical: Half of minority adults without college degrees said Trump has done nothing to address the nation’s problems, compared with only about 1 in 5 who said his agenda was already helping. But slightly more than another 1 in 4 of them said his agenda could generate benefits in time. That suggests he could recover among blue-collar non-White voters if they see progress on their biggest concerns, principally inflation.

John Della Volpe, who directs the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics’ youth poll, agreed that Trump’s attraction for younger voters has been frayed, not severed. “A lot of the newer Trump voters could say they disapprove of him, and they are unsure of his policies, but they are telling me they are giving him some time,” said Della Volpe, who also advised a super PAC in 2024 that tried to rally young voters for Vice President Kamala Harris.

Della Volpe says younger voters’ uncertainty about Trump hasn’t erased their doubts about Democrats. Though the Harvard survey has recorded sharp declines in support for Trump’s economic management just since January, Della Volpe said, “it doesn’t mean Democrats at this stage are a viable alternative.”

Madrid likewise thinks it would be a mistake for Democrats to assume the discontent with Trump has solved their own problems with Latinos and other blue-collar minority voters. He correctly notes that Democrats’ performance among Latinos rebounded in the 2018 midterm elections relative to 2016, only to resume their decline in the 2020 presidential election and continue downward in 2024.

The party could likewise run better among Latinos in 2026 than in 2024, Madrid says, solely because the less frequent, often younger, Latino voters most drawn to Trump tend not to turn out as much in midterm elections. But unless Democrats develop a more convincing economic message, he says, those less-reliable voters could easily prefer the GOP again when they return in larger numbers in 2028. “The lesson that Democrats failed to learn in 2018 could come back and haunt them in this election cycle: Winning just by being against something does not cement or build the coalition,” Madrid said.

Trump so far has clearly failed to consolidate, much less extend, the beachhead he established last year with younger and non-White voters. His sweeping tariffs, by raising their daily costs, seem likely to weaken his position with them.

But in the battle for these voters’ long-term allegiance, Democrats would be dangerously complacent to conclude the tide has already turned. Young people and blue-collar minorities, especially the men in each group, now look less like reliable voters for either party than a volatile swing constituency that could tip future presidential contests based on which side they believe can best deliver for their bottom line.

Rome
CNN
 — 

Pope Leo XIV stepped out onto the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica to thunderous applause and an electric atmosphere, to deliver his first Sunday blessing and an address calling for peace in Ukraine and Gaza.

The last time he stood on the same velvet-draped ledge, the fragrant scent of white smoke was still hanging in the air and looks of shock permeated the crowd. Just days ago, the election of a US-born pope seemed almost impossible.

But those gathered in St. Peter’s Square on Sunday knew exactly what to expect – a pontiff who was born in Chicago, shaped in Peru and well-experienced in Vatican leadership.

“Let us take up the invitation that Pope Francis left us in his Message for today: the invitation to welcome and accompany young people,” Leo said Sunday from the balcony, speaking in fluent Italian. “And let us ask our heavenly Father to assist us in living in service to one another.”

“In today’s dramatic scenario of a third world war being fought piecemeal, as Pope Francis said, I too turn to the world’s leaders with an ever timely appeal: never again war!,” he said.

Pope Leo called for peace in Ukraine, as well as a ceasefire in Gaza and the release of hostages. He also called for humanitarian aid to be provided “to the exhausted population” in Gaza.

“I welcomed the announcement of the ceasefire between India and Pakistan and I hope that through negotiations we can reach a lasting agreement,” he added.

He delivered a “message of peace” and led the faithful crowd in the Regina Caeli (“Queen of Heaven”) prayer for the first time, surprising those gathered by singing part of the prayer.

The prayer is one of four Marian antiphons, or prayers to the Virgin Mary, which is said throughout the Easter season.

The city of Rome said 150,000 people were expected to gather in St. Peter’s Square for the prayer and significant law enforcement resources are deployed, but an official estimate of the crowd has yet to be announced.

The square was booming with music ahead of Leo’s address, as hundreds of musicians from around the world marched into St. Peter’s Square for a Jubilee of Bands, playing classic songs from their home countries and even pop songs like Village People’s 1978 hit “YMCA.”

As he finished his address, loud shouts of “viva il papa,” or “long live the pope,” were heard among the tens of thousands of people.

Pope Leo is indicated on Saturday that his papacy will follow closely in the footsteps of the late Pope Francis, setting out a vision for a church led be a missionary focus, courageous dialogue with the contemporary world and “loving care for the least and the rejected.”

Leo is expected to lean in a more progressive way on social issues like migration and poverty but fall more in line with moderates on moral issues of Catholic doctrine.

In his first meeting with cardinals on Saturday, the new pontiff said that he chose his papal name to continue down the path of Pope Leo XIII, who addressed “the social question in the context of the first great industrial revolution.” Leo XIII, who was pope from 1878 to 1903, had a strong emphasis on workers’ rights and Catholic social doctrine.

Leo XIV also used his first weekend as pontiff to visit the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, where he prayed at the tomb of Francis.

He also traveled to an Augustinian sanctuary just outside Rome, the Madonna del Buon Consiglio (Mother of Good Counsel), in Genazzano, Italy.

Leo is the first pontiff from the Augustinian order, which places an emphasis on service work and building community. He spent more than a decade leading the Augustinians as the prior general, giving him experience of heading an order spread across the world.

Even larger crowds are expected to fill St. Peter’s Square during Pope Leo’s installation Mass, which will take place on Sunday, May 18.

CNN’s Sharon Braithwaite and Christopher Lamb contributed to this report.

CNN
 — 

They are considered one of the world’s most dangerous, and indiscriminate, weapons. Yet five European countries have turned their backs on an international treaty on the use of landmines, citing the growing threat from Moscow.

Finland, Poland, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania – which all border Russia – have made moves to pull out of the Ottawa Treaty, the agreement that bans the use of anti-personnel landmines, which are designed to kill or maim if stepped on.

The developments have alarmed campaigners, who see the reintroduction of the weapons – which have killed or disfigured tens of thousands of civilians around the world and can contaminate an area for decades after a conflict ends – as a concerning regression.

The treaty, which also bans the weapons’ production and stockpiling, was signed in 1997, and was one of a series of agreements negotiated after the Cold War to encourage global disarmament. Since then, it has been credited with significantly reducing the harm from landmines.

Responding to Finland’s decision to leave the agreement, human rights NGO Amnesty International warned that the Nordic nation was endangering civilian lives, describing it as a “disturbing step backwards.”

The decision “goes against decades of progress on eliminating the production, transfer and use of inherently indiscriminate weapons,” the NGO warned.

At the start of this year, the pact had 165 member states. But major powers, including Russia, China, India, Pakistan and the United States, never signed up to it.

In a joint statement in March, Poland and the three Baltic states announced their withdrawal, arguing for a rethink on which weapons are – and which ones are not – acceptable in the face of Russia’s aggression.

The countries said they needed to provide their armed forces with greater “flexibility and freedom of choice,” to help them bolster the defense of NATO’s eastern flank.

The following month, in April, Latvia became the first country to formally withdraw from the treaty after its parliament strongly backed the proposal, meaning that after a grace period of six months, Riga would be able to start amassing landmines again.

Also that month, Finland unveiled plans to join Latvia. Explaining the decision, Finland’s Prime Minister Petteri Orpo told journalists that Russia poses a long-term danger to the whole of Europe. “Withdrawing from the Ottawa Convention will give us the possibility to prepare for the changes in the security environment in a more versatile way,” he said.

The announcements come as U.S. President Donald Trump has doubled down on efforts to wrap up the war in Ukraine, which has stoked fears in neighboring states that Moscow could re-arm and target them instead.

Keir Giles, a senior consulting fellow of the Russia and Eurasia program at the thinktank Chatham House and author of the book “Who will Defend Europe?,” believes that if and when Russia’s grinding conflict in Ukraine does come to an end by whatever means, Moscow will be readying itself for its next target.

“Nobody is in any doubt that Russia is looking for further means of achieving its objective in Europe,” Giles told CNN.

For Giles, the military benefits of using landmines are clear. The underground explosives, he said, can slow an invasion, either by redirecting oncoming troops to areas that are easier to defend, or by holding them up as they attempt to breach the mined areas.

They can be particularly beneficial for countries looking to defend themselves against an army with greater manpower. “They are a highly effective tool for augmenting the defensive forces of a country that’s going to be outnumbered,” he said.

He believes the five countries leaving the treaty have looked at the effectiveness of the weapons, including their use in Russia’s war on Ukraine, in deterring invading forces.

However, he stressed that the Western countries wouldn’t use landmines in the same way as Moscow’s forces, saying there were “very different design philosophies” in the manufacturing of mines and cluster munitions between countries that aren’t concerned with civilian casualties or may willingly try to cause them, and those that are trying to avoid them.

In Ukraine, extensive Russian minefields laid along Ukraine’s southern front lines significantly slowed a summer counteroffensive launched by Ukraine in 2023.

Ukraine is deemed by the United Nations to be the most heavily mined country in the world. In its most recent projections, Ukraine’s government estimates that Moscow’s forces have littered 174,000 square kilometers (65,637 square miles) of Ukraine’s territory with landmines and explosive remnants.

This means Ukrainian civilians, particularly those who have returned to areas previously on the front lines of the fighting, are faced with an ever-present risk of death.

“The large-scale contamination of land by explosive ordnance has created an ‘invisible threat’ in people’s minds,” Humanity & Inclusion, an international charity helping those affected by poverty, conflict, and disaster, warned in a February report on the use of landmines in Ukraine. “As a result, people’s movements are extremely reduced or restricted, they can no longer cultivate their land and their social, economic, or professional activities are hindered.”

According to findings from Human Rights Watch published in 2023, Ukraine has also used antipersonnel landmines during the conflict and has received them from the US, despite Kyiv being a signatory of the 1997 ban.

In comparison, Finland, Poland and the Baltic nations say they would remain committed to their humanitarian principles when using the explosives, despite withdrawing from the ban.

When announcing its plans to leave the Ottawa Treaty, Helsinki stressed it would use the weapons in a humane manner, with the country’s president Alexander Stubb writing on X, “Finland is committed to its international obligations on the responsible use of mines.”

While the responsible use of landmines is a complex issue, measures to reduce civilian harm can include making precise records of minefields and their locations, educating communities to their dangers and the clearance or neutralization of the weapons once the conflict is over.

Despite such pledges of responsibility, the move away from the Ottawa Treaty has left campaigners horrified.

Landmines have killed or maimed tens of thousands of civilians across the world and continue to cause harm. In its 2024 report, the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor found that at least 5,757 people were killed and wounded by mines and explosive remnants of war across the globe in 2023, with civilians making up 84% of that number.

Alma Taslidžan, from Bosnia, was displaced from her homeland during the war of the early 90s, only to return with her family to a country laced with landmines – a contamination issue she says plagues the country to this day.

Now working for disability charity Humanity & Inclusion, she described the five countries’ decision to pull out of the treaty as “absolute nonsense” and “the most horrible thing that could happen in the life of a treaty.”

She told CNN that the arguments for banning landmines have not changed since the Ottawa Treaty was formed in the 1990s. “Once it’s in the ground, it’s a danger. It cannot distinguish between the foot of a civilian and the foot of a child and the foot of a soldier.”

She continued, “We are surprised that such advanced militaries like the Finnish, like the Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians, would consider putting this hugely indiscriminate weapon in their military strategy, and what is worse, putting it in their land.”

Yet, for some, the new, precarious security reality that Europe is facing means that previous red lines are now up for discussion.

This is the case for Giles, who sees the latest developments as a recognition from these countries that treaties on landmines were “an act of idealism which has proven to be over-optimistic by developments in the world since then.”