Washington DC — Democrats are seeking to capitalize on shifting campaign strategies as Republican-aligned groups scale back spending in several competitive U.S. House races ahead of the November 3 midterm elections. According to an Associated Press report published this week, the leading Republican House super PAC, Congressional Leadership Fund, has canceled planned spending in four congressional races while increasing investments in 16 others. A separate super PAC aligned with President Donald Trump has also reduced spending in a competitive district in the Las Vegas area.

The changes suggest that Republican campaign organizations are concentrating their resources on races they consider more winnable as they work to preserve the party’s narrow House majority. The spending changes cover several competitive districts across the country, including contests in the Midwest and on the East Coast. Republican campaign officials familiar with the plans told the AP that the decisions reflect shifting priorities during the final weeks of the campaign.

Meanwhile, Democrats are expanding their efforts to challenge Republican-held seats. Their House campaign committee is looking to raise additional money for advertising and has identified more districts as potential targets. Democratic strategists believe that forcing Republicans to defend a wider range of seats could stretch the opposition’s financial resources and create opportunities for unexpected victories.

The political environment has become challenging for Republicans amid voter dissatisfaction with economic conditions and President Trump’s approval ratings. Issues including household expenses, fuel prices and federal spending have become important themes in competitive races.

Republican strategists, however, argue that Democrats may be spreading their resources too widely by targeting districts where Trump won comfortably in the 2024 presidential election. The campaign spending decisions illustrate a familiar feature of U.S. elections: parties and outside political groups frequently move money between districts as polling, fundraising and assessments of candidates change.

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives are being contested in the 2026 midterm elections. Republicans are seeking to retain control, while Democrats need to win a net gain of seats to take the chamber. The outcome will determine how easily the White House can advance its legislative agenda during the remainder of Trump’s term. A change in control could also bring greater congressional scrutiny of the administration and alter negotiations over federal spending and domestic policy.

With Election Day approaching, campaign spending decisions are offering clues about which races political organizations consider most competitive. However, changes in advertising budgets alone do not determine the outcome, and the results will ultimately depend on voter turnout and support in individual districts.

Washington DC — Political tensions are growing within President Donald Trump’s team as Republicans struggle to strengthen their position ahead of the November 3 midterm elections, with disagreements emerging over campaign spending, electoral strategy and candidate selection.

According to a Reuters report published Saturday, Trump has increasingly questioned the performance of senior aides and political operatives as Republicans seek to retain control of Congress. The president has reportedly scrutinized campaign expenditures, criticized redistricting efforts and reconsidered decisions about which candidates to support.

Although Trump is not personally on the ballot, he has urged supporters to treat the election as if he were running, seeking to increase turnout among Republican voters. He has also stepped up his campaign appearances as the party confronts a challenging political environment.

One source of tension involves James Blair, who runs the Trump-aligned super political action committee MAGA Inc., and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. Reuters reported that Trump has expressed concerns about the handling of campaign funds, while disagreements have surfaced among members of the president’s political circle over responsibility for the party’s difficulties.

MAGA Inc. has spent approximately $200 million, according to public records cited by Reuters. However, the spending has not eliminated concerns about Republican performance in competitive races.

Economic pressures, particularly concerns about high prices and the cost of living, are creating additional challenges for Republican candidates. Dissatisfaction with the administration’s policies and the ongoing conflict with Iran has also contributed to a difficult political climate, Reuters reported.

Trump has backed several key campaign strategies, including redistricting initiatives and candidate choices. His reported criticism of those efforts has highlighted divisions over how the party should approach the final weeks of the campaign.

The November 3 midterm elections will determine control of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. The results will shape the administration’s ability to advance its legislative agenda during the remainder of Trump’s term.

Democrats are seeking to capitalize on voter dissatisfaction and competitive races, while Republicans are working to mobilize their supporters and defend vulnerable seats. The outcome remains uncertain, and the final weeks of campaigning are expected to be critical.

The growing tensions within the Republican operation underscore the stakes of the midterms, as party leaders face pressure to address economic concerns, improve campaign strategy and maintain unity ahead of Election Day.

Shibbir Ahmed, Wshington DC — President Donald Trump has reversed a plan to livestream a scheduled military execution, following bipartisan backlash over the proposal, according to a report by The Guardian.

The decision followed criticism of the proposed broadcast, which raised concerns about publicly televising an execution carried out by the military. The report said the Pentagon had planned to livestream the scheduled firing-squad execution of Nidal Hasan.

The controversy drew attention to the administration’s approach to military justice and the public presentation of capital punishment. The proposed livestream prompted objections from both sides of the political aisle, adding pressure for the plan to be reconsidered.

The report also said Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth remained aligned, despite the reversal of the livestream plan. The decision changes how the execution would be presented to the public, but does not, by itself, establish that the execution has been canceled. Further official clarification would be needed regarding the execution’s status and any revised arrangements.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A federal judge has extended an order preventing President Donald Trump’s administration from barring journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico from accessing the White House, delivering a significant legal setback to the administration in its ongoing dispute with the news media.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly issued a preliminary injunction on October 13, ruling that the three news organizations are likely to succeed in their claims that the administration violated constitutional protections for freedom of speech and due process by revoking their reporters’ White House press credentials. The decision allows the journalists to retain access to the White House grounds while the lawsuit proceeds, unless an appeals court intervenes.

The legal dispute began in September, when Trump announced that journalists from the three outlets would be barred from the White House. The news organizations challenged the decision in court, arguing that the restrictions were imposed in retaliation for their reporting and violated their First Amendment rights.

The administration has defended its authority to manage White House press access, citing concerns about media reporting and national security. However, Judge Kelly found that the evidence presented raised serious constitutional concerns about the decision to revoke the journalists’ credentials.

The judge’s ruling builds on an earlier emergency order issued on September 24, which temporarily restored access for the affected reporters. The latest injunction extends those protections for the duration of the legal proceedings, subject to further court action.

The case has become a significant test of the relationship between the White House and the news organizations responsible for reporting on the president and his administration. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech and the press. The lawsuit raises questions about whether government officials can restrict journalists’ access to official institutions in response to unfavorable reporting.

The ruling does not prevent the government from imposing legitimate security requirements or establishing reasonable rules for press access. Instead, it addresses the legal concerns surrounding the specific decision to revoke the credentials of journalists from the three organizations. The case also highlights the importance of due process, which limits the government’s ability to take certain actions without appropriate legal justification.

The preliminary injunction will remain in effect while the lawsuit continues, unless it is modified or overturned by a higher court. The final outcome could have broader implications for how future administrations regulate journalists’ access to the White House.

For news organizations and press freedom advocates, the dispute is about more than access to briefings or government buildings. It concerns the ability of journalists to scrutinize public officials without facing restrictions based on the content or tone of their reporting.

The White House media-access dispute is part of a broader national debate over presidential authority, government transparency and the constitutional protections afforded to the American press. The case is expected to remain closely watched by journalists, constitutional law experts and civil liberties advocates as the legal proceedings move forward.

WASHINGTON DC — The White House has asked U.S. Ambassador to Greece Kimberly Guilfoyle to resign following allegations of improper conduct involving a political donor and questions about her behavior during her diplomatic tenure. Guilfoyle subsequently resigned on Tuesday, October 13, according to the Associated Press. White House Press Secretary Katie Zacharia announced the administration’s decision during a briefing on Tuesday, saying Guilfoyle had been a valued member of the team and wishing her well.

The move followed several days of growing scrutiny over allegations that Guilfoyle sought financial assistance from a supporter of President Donald Trump before her Senate confirmation hearing. President Trump had indicated a day earlier that he was considering dismissing Guilfoyle, telling reporters that the administration was unhappy with the situation.

The controversy centers on allegations reported by The Wall Street Journal that Guilfoyle asked businessman and Trump supporter Eric Deters to pay approximately $100,000 toward her American Express bill in July 2025, shortly before her Senate confirmation hearing.

According to reports, Deters said Guilfoyle sought the payment while discussing his desire for access to senior Trump administration officials. The allegations raised questions about whether money was being sought in connection with political influence. Deters characterized the request as a potential pay-to-play arrangement. However, the allegations have not been established as proven wrongdoing.

Guilfoyle’s lawyers have denied that she engaged in improper conduct. They have argued that the money she sought was payment for previously arranged speaking engagements and public appearances that had not been paid for before her nomination as ambassador. The competing accounts have intensified scrutiny of the circumstances surrounding the alleged transaction.

The financial allegations are part of a broader set of reports concerning Guilfoyle’s conduct before and during her time in Athens. The Wall Street Journal has reported allegations involving gifts and services, interactions with Greek officials, and possible efforts to use her diplomatic position to advance particular interests.

Guilfoyle’s legal representatives have disputed allegations of wrongdoing. The reported claims remain subject to scrutiny and should not be treated as established findings. Reports also indicated that the State Department’s Office of Inspector General was examining aspects of the matter. The precise scope and status of any formal investigation were not immediately clear.

Guilfoyle’s departure marks a significant development for a political ally of Trump who previously worked as a television personality and prosecutor. She was also formerly engaged to Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son.

Her appointment as ambassador to Greece placed her in a strategically important diplomatic role. Greece is a NATO member and a key U.S. partner in the Eastern Mediterranean, with military facilities and maritime security cooperation that are important to American regional interests.

The ambassador’s departure comes at a time when Washington continues to prioritize security cooperation, energy partnerships and regional stability with its European allies. The White House has not publicly detailed all the considerations behind its decision beyond confirming that Guilfoyle was asked to resign.

The case has renewed attention on ethical standards for public officials, financial relationships with political donors and the importance of maintaining public confidence in diplomatic appointments.

Shibbir Ahmed, Washington DC — US President Donald Trump is weighing whether the United States should join Saudi Arabia in military strikes against Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthi movement, as a series of missile and drone attacks on Saudi territory intensifies concerns about a wider Middle East conflict.

Trump said on Saturday, October 10, that Washington was evaluating whether to participate in Saudi strikes against the Houthis following attacks on King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh and other Saudi targets. As of Monday, no US decision to launch direct strikes against the group had been confirmed in the reporting available.

The escalating confrontation presents a growing challenge for Washington and Riyadh, which are seeking to counter Houthi military advances near the strategically important Red Sea shipping corridor while protecting Saudi airports, military facilities and energy infrastructure.

Trump’s comments followed renewed Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia, including a deadly strike targeting Riyadh’s airport complex. Asked whether the United States might join Saudi military operations, Trump said Washington would consider the possibility and make a decision after reviewing the latest developments. The administration’s next steps could have significant implications for the conflict. Direct American strikes would expand Washington’s military role in Yemen at a time when the United States is already involved in a broader confrontation with Iran.

For now, the distinction between considering military intervention and authorizing an attack remains important. No confirmed announcement of new US strikes against the Houthis had emerged in the reporting reviewed for this article.

Saudi Arabia has faced an intensifying campaign of missile and drone attacks attributed to the Houthis, who have claimed responsibility for strikes against Saudi airports and other infrastructure. The attacks have disrupted aviation operations and heightened concerns about the vulnerability of critical civilian facilities. A deadly strike on Riyadh’s King Khalid International Airport has prompted Saudi authorities to investigate how the country’s air-defense systems failed to prevent the attack.

Saudi Arabia has also conducted airstrikes against Houthi positions in Yemen, including reported operations in al-Jawf province. Despite the Saudi-led campaign, the Houthis have continued to threaten Saudi infrastructure. The repeated attacks have increased pressure on the Saudi government to strengthen its defenses and seek additional military support from its international partners.

The conflict is closely linked to the struggle for control and security along Yemen’s Red Sea coastline, particularly near the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. The narrow waterway connects the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and serves as an important passage for international shipping, including commercial goods and energy supplies moving between Europe and Asia.

Saudi Arabia has supported Yemeni government-aligned forces seeking to reverse recent Houthi advances near the shipping corridor. The Saudi-led coalition has provided air support as its partners attempt to regain territory. However, military gains have been uneven, and the Houthis continue to pose a threat to shipping and regional infrastructure. A broader confrontation could increase risks for commercial vessels, raise shipping and insurance costs, and place additional pressure on global energy markets.

Saudi Arabia’s renewed involvement in Yemen’s civil war reflects concerns that Houthi advances could strengthen the group’s ability to threaten the kingdom and important regional trade routes. Riyadh must balance the need to protect its territory against the risks of a prolonged military campaign. Continued airstrikes could weaken Houthi capabilities, but they may also provoke additional retaliation against airports, oil facilities and other strategic targets.

The Associated Press has reported that Saudi authorities are examining the failure of air defenses to stop the deadly attack on Riyadh airport. The incident has intensified questions about the kingdom’s ability to defend its infrastructure against coordinated missile and drone attacks. The possibility of expanded American assistance has therefore become an important issue for Saudi security planners.

Amid the escalation, Iran has offered to facilitate dialogue between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said on Monday that Tehran remained willing to help facilitate discussions between the parties. The offer presents a potential diplomatic avenue even as the conflict intensifies. Iran has longstanding ties with the Houthi movement, while Saudi Arabia views the group’s military activities as a direct security threat. Whether Tehran can help produce a meaningful reduction in violence remains uncertain. No agreement to halt the attacks was confirmed in the reporting available on Monday.

The United Arab Emirates has called for renewed cooperation among Gulf countries on regional security and defense following the attacks on Saudi Arabia. UAE presidential adviser Anwar Gargash warned that attacks against the kingdom threaten the security of the wider Gulf region.

The appeal reflects concerns that individual countries may struggle to counter increasingly sophisticated missile and drone threats without closer regional coordination. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have previously cooperated in Yemen, although they have also supported different factions within the broader anti-Houthi coalition. If Washington authorizes direct strikes against the Houthis, the decision could reshape the military and diplomatic dynamics of the conflict. Potential consequences include

American involvement could increase pressure on Houthi forces but also trigger retaliation against US or allied interests. Further escalation could endanger vessels operating near the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and surrounding waters. Continued attacks on Saudi facilities could affect confidence in regional energy security. Regional governments may face increased pressure to negotiate a halt to attacks before the conflict expands further.

The actual consequences would depend on the scope of any US operation, the response from the Houthis and Iran, and whether diplomatic channels remain open. The immediate focus is on whether Trump authorizes direct US military action, whether Saudi Arabia can improve its defenses against incoming attacks, and whether Iran’s offer to mediate leads to substantive negotiations.

Saudi Arabia faces continued security threats, while the United States must weigh the potential benefits of military intervention against the possibility of a broader and more difficult conflict.

For now, Washington’s position remains under consideration rather than a confirmed decision to launch strikes. The coming days could prove significant for regional security, the future of Yemen’s conflict and the safety of one of the world’s most important maritime trade corridors.

Shibbir Ahmed, Washington DC — U.S. President Donald Trump has claimed he should have received the Nobel Peace Prize, calling the award “forever discredited” after former International Criminal Court judge Navi Pillay was named this year’s laureate. In a Truth Social post Friday following a rally in Syracuse, New York, Trump repeated his claim that he had “settled eight Wars” and said he was close to resolving two more conflicts involving Iran and Russia’s war against Ukraine.

“The United States of America, represented by me, as your President, should have received the Nobel Peace Prize, but didn’t,” Trump wrote. He also criticized Norway over the decision and questioned Pillay’s qualifications, accusing her of being hostile toward Israel.

Pillay, a South African jurist, previously served as a judge at the International Criminal Court and as the United Nations high commissioner for human rights. She also chaired a UN commission that concluded Israel had committed genocide in Gaza, a finding strongly rejected by the Israeli government.

Trump argued that international organizations had played no role in the conflicts he says he helped resolve. Pillay previously joked that she might share the prize with Trump after learning of the award.

Last year, Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado presented Trump with her Nobel Peace Prize medal. However, the Norwegian Nobel Committee clarified that presenting the physical medal does not transfer the award or laureate status to another person. The committee has emphasized that the Nobel Peace Prize remains officially linked to the individual or organization selected by the committee.

Shibbir Ahmed, Washington DC — The United States has announced new sanctions-related measures against the International Criminal Court (ICC), with President Donald Trump’s administration warning that it will continue efforts to restrict the court’s activities unless its concerns are addressed.

In a statement explaining the decision, the administration said the measures were intended to protect American citizens, military personnel, and political leaders from what it considers the ICC’s unlawful assertion of jurisdiction over US nationals.

The administration emphasized that the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the ICC, and rejects the court’s authority to prosecute Americans. It specifically cited concerns involving US servicemembers, Border Patrol agents, and elected officials responsible for national security.

According to the statement, Washington intends to prohibit certain transactions with the court and restrict its access to resources. The administration also warned that it could expand its efforts to dismantle the institution if the ICC and its member states fail to address American concerns.

The administration said it had given the court and its member states more than a year to respond to its demands. It argued that neither the court nor its member states had taken sufficient steps to resolve the dispute.

The latest action was taken under Section 1(a)(ii)(A) of Executive Order 14203, issued by President Trump on February 6, 2025. The US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control also announced related measures and general licenses permitting certain transactions involving the court. <Cite refs={[“turn378094search0″,”turn378094search1”]}/>

Despite the sanctions, the administration said it remained open to a diplomatic solution. It called on countries that are parties to the ICC to engage in discussions aimed at addressing Washington’s objections, warning that additional measures could follow if negotiations fail.

The ICC, based in The Hague, Netherlands, prosecutes individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression under the conditions established by its founding treaty.

The United States has long opposed the court’s jurisdiction over American nationals, arguing that the country has not consented to the Rome Statute. The dispute has intensified amid broader disagreements over the court’s investigations and legal actions involving US interests and allies.

The ICC has previously condemned US sanctions targeting its judges and officials, describing such measures as threats to judicial independence and the international rule of law. The court has maintained that it will continue carrying out its mandate to pursue accountability for serious international crimes and provide justice for victims. <Cite refs={[“turn378094search4″,”turn378094news8”]}/>

The latest US measures are expected to further strain relations between Washington and countries supporting the ICC, while raising renewed questions about the court’s financial operations, international cooperation, and the limits of its jurisdiction.

Shibbir Ahmed, Washington DC — US President Donald Trump has announced that the United States will not launch new military attacks on Iran before the November 3 midterm elections, citing what he described as productive discussions with Tehran. The announcement signals a temporary pause in the prospect of renewed US strikes as diplomatic efforts continue amid a prolonged regional conflict.

Trump made the announcement on Thursday, October 8, through a social media post, saying his administration was engaged in productive discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran. His remarks come as the conflict continues to affect regional security, energy markets and international shipping routes.

The decision provides a clearer indication of Washington’s immediate military intentions, although it does not establish whether a longer-term agreement with Iran is within reach. Trump has previously left open the possibility of renewed military action after the elections.

Trump’s announcement follows weeks of uncertainty over whether Washington would resume military operations against Iran. The president has indicated that diplomatic engagement remains an option, even as his administration maintains pressure on Tehran.

In his statement, Trump said discussions with Iranian officials were productive and ruled out attacks before the midterm elections. However, the announcement did not confirm that a comprehensive peace agreement had been reached or that the two governments had resolved their central disagreements.

The United States and Iran have exchanged proposals aimed at ending the conflict and addressing regional security concerns. Negotiations have also involved the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway for global oil shipments. The immediate challenge for diplomats will be to turn discussions into concrete commitments that can reduce hostilities and restore confidence in regional stability.

Although Trump has ruled out attacks before November 3, broader security concerns remain. Washington has continued to apply economic pressure on Iran, while military deployments and regional tensions have underscored the uncertainty surrounding the conflict.

The announcement should not be interpreted as confirmation that military action has been permanently ruled out. Trump has previously suggested that further escalation could remain an option after the elections, depending on developments. Iran’s response, the progress of negotiations and the actions of other regional actors will likely influence the next phase of the crisis.

For neighboring countries and US allies, the immediate priority remains preventing further escalation and protecting civilian infrastructure, maritime traffic and commercial aviation.

Energy markets responded to Trump’s comments as investors reassessed the likelihood of an immediate escalation. Oil prices declined on Friday following the announcement. Brent crude fell by $1.70 to $102.58 per barrel, while US West Texas Intermediate crude dropped by $1.08 to $90.41 per barrel in the reported trading session.

The movement reflects the sensitivity of global energy markets to developments involving Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. Any disruption to shipping through the waterway could affect crude supplies, transportation costs and energy prices internationally.

Nevertheless, a single announcement does not eliminate the risks facing oil markets. The duration of any price relief will depend on whether diplomatic progress continues and whether shipping and energy infrastructure remain secure.

The US midterm elections will determine control of Congress and are a significant political test for the Trump administration. Foreign policy, military spending, inflation and fuel prices have all become important considerations in the domestic political environment.

Trump’s announcement establishes a stated limit on military action before election day. However, the president has not ruled out all future military options, and the precise relationship between the electoral timetable and subsequent security decisions remains uncertain.

The administration must also weigh diplomatic objectives against the potential consequences of renewed conflict, including risks to US personnel, regional partners and the global economy. Attention will now turn to whether Washington and Tehran can make tangible progress in negotiations before the election deadline.

President Donald Trump’s decision not to launch attacks on Iran before the November 3 midterm elections marks an important development in US foreign policy and the wider Middle East crisis. His reference to productive discussions offers a potential opening for diplomacy, while the market reaction demonstrates the economic importance of developments involving Iran.

However, the announcement is not a peace agreement, and major security questions remain unresolved. The coming weeks will be critical in determining whether negotiations can produce lasting progress or whether the risk of renewed confrontation will persist beyond the election.

Shibbir Ahmed, Washington DC — President Donald Trump’s approval rating remains at a record low in the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll, with 32% of Americans approving of his job performance and 65% disapproving as the country approaches the November midterm elections. The nationwide poll, conducted online from Sept. 30 through Oct. 5 among 4,506 U.S. adults, found Trump’s overall approval unchanged from the previous survey. The result matches the lowest approval rating recorded for Trump in the Reuters/Ipsos polling series. The poll has a margin of error of approximately two percentage points.

The findings come as voters continue to identify the cost of living and inflation as major concerns, while the administration faces political pressure over the economic effects of high energy prices and the ongoing war with Iran.

The poll found particularly low approval among Hispanic Americans. Only 24% of Hispanic respondents said they approved of Trump’s performance, the lowest level recorded for him among Hispanic voters in either of his presidential terms, according to Reuters.

The decline is notable because Hispanic voters were an important part of Trump’s coalition in the 2024 presidential election. Reuters reported that Trump received nearly half of the Hispanic vote in 2024, compared with roughly one-third in 2020. The latest findings indicate that Trump’s standing among this group has weakened considerably during his current term.

Economic issues are playing a central role in voters’ views of the administration. The Reuters/Ipsos survey found that the cost of living was the leading issue for Americans as they considered the upcoming congressional elections. Rising gasoline and diesel prices have added to concerns about household expenses.

The administration has taken several steps aimed at addressing fuel prices. On Oct. 5, Trump signed an executive order expanding access to tax-exempt diesel fuel as prices remained elevated. Reuters reported that diesel prices had reached approximately $6.50 a gallon in September. The administration has linked the energy-price pressures to disruptions caused by the war with Iran and other international supply pressures.

The Ipsos survey also measured voters’ preferences for the November 3 congressional elections. Among registered voters, 44% said they planned to support Democratic candidates, compared with 37% who said they planned to support Republican candidates. Among independent voters, Democrats held a 37%-21% advantage in the survey, while 28% of independent voters remained undecided.

Among Hispanic registered voters, 52% said they planned to support Democratic candidates, compared with 26% who said they planned to support Republicans. These figures describe the preferences of respondents at the time of the survey and do not determine the eventual election results.

Trump continues to retain substantial support within his own party, although previous Reuters/Ipsos polling has shown a decline in Republican approval.

An earlier September Reuters/Ipsos survey found that 73% of Republicans approved of Trump’s overall job performance, down from 86% in January. Republican ratings of Trump’s handling of the U.S. economy and the cost of living also declined in that survey.

The latest poll comes as Republican candidates campaign across the country ahead of the midterm elections, with economic conditions and the administration’s foreign-policy decisions becoming central campaign issues.

The latest Reuters/Ipsos findings also showed changes among older voters, a group that has historically been important in midterm elections.

Republicans held only a narrow advantage among voters aged 50 and older in the latest survey, according to Reuters. Among voters younger than 50, Democrats had a larger lead. Independent voters remained an important group because a substantial share had not decided which party they would support.

The latest polling comes amid controversy over government-funded television advertisements featuring Trump. A separate Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted during the same period found that 86% of Americans considered the use of taxpayer money for election-related television advertisements featuring the president or members of his administration inappropriate. The figure included 80% of Republicans.

The administration has said the advertisements are educational and patriotic rather than campaign material. Critics, including lawmakers from both parties, have questioned whether taxpayer funds are being used for political purposes.

With the Nov. 3 congressional elections approaching, the poll provides a snapshot of public opinion at a particularly active stage of the campaign.  Trump is not personally on the ballot, but his approval rating and the administration’s policies have become important factors in the national political environment.

Republicans currently control the White House and both chambers of Congress, making the midterm elections significant for the legislative agenda during the remaining years of Trump’s current term.

The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll shows that Americans remain focused heavily on economic pressures, particularly the cost of living, while Trump’s overall approval remains at the lowest level recorded in the Ipsos series.

The survey represents public opinion during the six-day period in which it was conducted; attitudes can change as economic conditions, international events and the election campaign develop.