Donald Trump’s approval rating has already fallen into historic territory for a second-term president.
According to CNN data analyst Harry Enten, the political damage may only be beginning.
Fresh polling from CNBC and The Washington Post places Trump’s net approval rating at minus 22—meaning significantly more Americans disapprove of his performance than approve.
At the same point in their second terms, Barack Obama stood at minus 8 and George W. Bush at minus 20.
That leaves Trump with what Enten described as the worst net approval rating this century for a president at this stage of a second term.
CNN host John Berman introduced the numbers with a warning.
“This doesn’t smell good,” he said.
The most alarming figure for Republicans came from independent voters, the group that often determines control of Congress in competitive elections.
Trump’s net approval among independents reportedly stood at minus 45.
That was eight points lower than Richard Nixon’s standing with independents at a comparable point in his presidency, according to Enten’s analysis.
“Donald John Trump,” Enten said, “the worst ever net approval rating with independents at this point in a second term.”
The number represents a serious threat to Republicans ahead of the November midterm elections.
Trump does not need to appear on the ballot to shape the outcome. Midterms frequently become referendums on the sitting president, with dissatisfied voters punishing congressional candidates from his party.
If independents are rejecting Trump by such a wide margin, vulnerable Republicans could face enormous pressure in suburban districts, swing states and closely divided Senate races.
But Enten pointed to another danger that could push Trump’s standing even lower:
Gas prices.
The war with Iran has shaken global energy markets and placed the Strait of Hormuz—one of the world’s most important oil routes—at the center of an expanding military confrontation.
Oil prices reportedly surged by more than 15% in a single week.
The national average price of gasoline recently returned to approximately $4 per gallon.
And according to the prediction market Kalshi, traders now believe prices could climb even higher.
The platform reportedly placed the probability of the national average reaching $4.10 per gallon at 84% on Monday.
Only one week earlier, on July 13, the estimated probability stood at 14%.
That extraordinary swing reflected how rapidly the economic outlook had deteriorated.
“If you thought Donald Trump’s numbers were bad, they may get worse when folks are seeing how much it costs to fill up a tank of gas,” Enten warned.
Prediction markets are not opinion polls or guarantees. Their probabilities reflect the positions of traders responding to available information and can change quickly.
But the movement highlighted growing expectations that the Iran conflict could hit Americans directly through higher fuel costs.
That is politically dangerous because gas prices are among the most visible economic measures in everyday life.
Consumers see them displayed in enormous numbers beside every road.
They watch the total rise each time they fill their cars.
Unlike complex economic indicators, fuel costs require no explanation.
A voter may never read inflation data or examine bond markets.
They know exactly what they paid at the pump last week.
Trump has repeatedly claimed that his administration is lowering prices for working families.
He has celebrated temporary grocery discounts, falling costs for selected products and corporate announcements as proof that inflation is retreating.
A sharp increase in gasoline prices would directly undermine that message.
It would also create ripple effects throughout the economy.
Higher fuel prices increase commuting costs.
They make shipping more expensive.
Businesses may pass transportation expenses on to customers through higher prices for food, clothing and household goods.
Air travel becomes more costly.
Families have less disposable income.
The result can be another round of public frustration over affordability—the issue voters already identify as one of their greatest concerns.
Trump’s political problem is that the price increase may be connected to a war his administration chose to expand.
The president initially described the Iran operation as a limited mission.
He later acknowledged that it had become a “far bigger job,” telling reporters that the United States was no longer merely stopping a specific capability but was now “ending it.”
The precise meaning of that objective remains unclear.
But markets have already begun pricing in the possibility of prolonged disruption.
Fighting near the Strait of Hormuz threatens a route that previously carried roughly one-fifth of the world’s crude oil.
Even if the waterway is not completely closed, attacks, insurance costs and military risk can drive energy prices upward.
That gives voters a direct connection between foreign policy and household expenses.
The war is no longer an event occurring only on distant maps.
It appears on the gas-station sign.
Trump’s supporters may argue that prices are being driven by Iranian aggression rather than American policy and that temporary economic pain is necessary to protect national security.
They may also point out that presidents do not directly control global oil markets.
Both points are valid.
Fuel prices depend on production, demand, refining capacity, seasonal factors and geopolitical risk.
But voters frequently hold presidents responsible for economic conditions regardless of how much control the White House actually possesses.
Trump used the same political logic against Joe Biden, repeatedly blaming him for gasoline and grocery costs.
That makes it difficult for him to argue now that rising prices are beyond presidential responsibility.
The collapse among independents suggests that Trump is already losing voters outside the MAGA base.
Those voters may not be committed Democrats.
They may disapprove of both parties.
But a minus-45 rating indicates profound dissatisfaction with the president’s performance.
Higher gas prices could turn that dissatisfaction into electoral punishment.
Republicans now face a difficult choice.
They can continue defending Trump’s war and economic claims, tying themselves more closely to an unpopular president.
Or they can create distance, risking attacks from Trump and anger from his loyal supporters.
Either strategy carries danger.
The president’s approval could recover if the conflict de-escalates, energy prices fall or voters begin feeling more optimistic about the economy.
Polls are snapshots, not election results.
But Enten’s analysis shows that Trump is beginning from an exceptionally weak position.
His overall net approval is worse than that of other modern second-term presidents at the same point.
His rating among independents has fallen below Nixon’s.
And the economic issue most capable of damaging a president quickly may be moving in the wrong direction.
Trump has survived scandals, investigations and political crises that would have destroyed other leaders.
But gasoline prices operate differently.
They do not require voters to follow complicated reporting.
They do not depend on partisan interpretation.
They confront people every time they pull into a station.
Trump’s approval rating is already at what Enten called a historic low.
If the prediction market is right and gasoline reaches $4.10 nationally, millions of Americans may receive a daily reminder of the war, the economy and the president they blame for both.
The political time bomb is ticking.
And Republicans may discover its explosion arrives in November.
