INTERNACIONAL
Fox News Poll: Views on the year ending are merriest since 2020
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
As 2025 winds down, voters’ outlook on the year ending has improved, not only compared to 2024, but also year-over-year since 2020. Almost half say this was a good year for them personally, even as fewer, around one-third, say it was good for the country, according to the latest Fox News survey released Friday. Though concerns persist, such as the future of the country and affording holiday gifts, the upward shift reflects a gradual rebound in optimism since the pandemic-era lows.
Nearly half of voters, 45%, say 2025 was a good year for them. That’s up from 40% last year, and the highest since 2019 when it was 47%. At the same time, 54% say this was a bad year for their family, up from 50% last year.
FOX NEWS POLL: VOTERS SOUND ALARM ON HEALTHCARE COSTS
A record-low – 23% said 2020 was a good year for their family. In fact, the 2020 pandemic was the first time in almost a decade that the question veered to the negative: from 2012 to 2019, voters felt more positive than negative.
While still largely net negative, views on how the country fared in 2025 are also rosier than in recent years. Thirty-five percent say it was a good year for the U.S., up from 28% last year. Two-thirds think it was a bad year for the country — a number that has held steady since 2022 and went as high as 78% in 2020.
FOX NEWS POLL: VOTERS SAY GO SLOW ON AI DEVELOPMENT — BUT DON’T KNOW WHO SHOULD STEER
Republicans (65% their family, 63%of the country) are more likely than Democrats (28%, 9%) and independents (39%, 28%) to be upbeat about 2025 and say it was a good year personally and nationally.
Positivity among Republicans (+31 points for their family, +44 points for the country) and independents (+6, +7) is up since 2024, while ratings have fallen for Democrats (-22, -33).
«Obviously, most of the shifts from 2024 to 2025 are due to how partisans have reacted to the change from a Democratic to a Republican administration,» says Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who helps conduct Fox News surveys with Democratic partner Chris Anderson. «It’s not so much that prices have changed or wages have moved, it’s that Republicans feel better with their guy in the White House and Democrats feel worse.»
Evaluations of 2025 are more favorable among men than women, college-educated voters than those without a degree, and households earning $50,000 or more than those with lower incomes.
Voters are divided, however, on the U.S.’s future: 48% are hopeful while 52% are not, yielding a net negative 4 points — a reversal from a +10 positive rating last year (55% hopeful, 45% not hopeful).
Still, these numbers are better than in 2021 (when the question was first asked), when 43% felt hopeful about what was next and 54% did not (-11 net negative rating).
Just as views of the past differ by political party, expectations about the future do, too. Three-quarters of Republicans feel hopeful about what’s ahead, while three-quarters of Democrats say they’re not. Independents are also negative, with about 6 in 10 lacking hopefulness.
And although Republicans felt good about 2025, optimism for the future is down 11 points compared to 86% last year, while Democratic and independent pessimism remains as high — or higher — than it was in 2024.
This is the reverse of four years ago, when about 6 in 10 Democrats were hopeful, while roughly 7 in 10 Republicans and 6 in 10 independents were not.
One more thing…
With the holiday season in full swing, so is shoppers’ anxiety as more than half are worried about how they will pay for gifts this year (52%) while slightly less than half are not (48%).
Concern is highest among moms (68%), voters under 30 (68%), Hispanic voters (66%), women without a college degree (64%), and households earning under $50,000 (62%).
Those financial pressures may help explain why most voters (81%) say it’s at least sometimes okay to re-gift something they were given: 62% feel it is sometimes okay, while 19% say it’s always acceptable. Some 19% think it’s never okay.
Acceptance of re-gifting has grown since 2013, when 73% said it was at least sometimes okay and one-quarter said it was never acceptable.
White women, voters under age 45, those with a graduate degree, parents, and Republicans are among those most likely to say re-gifting is acceptable today.
CLICK HERE FOR CROSSTABS AND TOPLINE
Conducted December 12-15, 2025, under the direction of Beacon Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R), this Fox News survey includes interviews with a sample of 1,001 registered voters randomly selected from a national voter file. Respondents spoke with live interviewers on landlines (116) and cellphones (630) or completed the survey online after receiving a text (255). Results based on the full sample have a margin of sampling error of ±3 percentage points. Sampling error for results among subgroups is higher. In addition to sampling error, question wording and order can influence results. Weights are generally applied to age, race, education, and area variables to ensure the demographics are representative of the registered voter population. Sources for developing weight targets include the most recent American Community Survey, Fox News Voter Analysis, and voter file data.
fox news poll,politics,economy,trending,family traditions,democratic party,republicans elections,independents,consumers
La Asamblea Legislativa de El Salvador aprobó hoy con 57 votos a favor y uno en contra una nueva prórroga de treinta días para la suspensión de garantías constitucionales bajo el Régimen de Excepción. Esta medida, en vigor desde marzo de 2022, fue presentada a consideración del pleno legislativo a fin de garantizar la seguridad, la integridad física y moral, así como la salud de la población salvadoreña, según la correspondencia oficial remitida al órgano legislativo.
La propuesta, que previamente ha sido avalada de forma unánime por el Consejo de Ministros y expuesta por el Ministro de Seguridad Pública y Justicia, Héctor Gustavo Villatoro, tiene como objetivo mantener las condiciones de seguridad que han permitido la disminución de homicidios en el país. Desde su instauración, El Salvador ha prorrogado de forma continua las restricciones, actualmente limitadas a los derechos recogidos en los artículos 12 inciso 2º (derecho de defensa), 13 inciso 2º (plazo de detención administrativa) y 24 (inviolabilidad de la correspondencia) de la Constitución.
El fundamento jurídico de la medida reside en el artículo 30 de la Constitución de la República. Este artículo establece: “El plazo de suspensión de las garantías constitucionales no excederá de 30 días. Transcurrido este plazo podrá prolongarse la suspensión, por igual período y mediante nuevo decreto, si continúan las circunstancias que la motivaron”. La notificación agrega: “Si no se emite tal decreto, quedarán establecidas de pleno derecho las garantías suspendidas”.
La jurisprudencia de la Sala de lo Constitucional respalda la posición gubernamental. De acuerdo con la sentencia 21-2020AC, “es posible prolongar con la debida razonabilidad la suspensión de derechos fundamentales mediante un nuevo decreto de una duración que no exceda de esos mismos 30 días”. El fallo de la Sala también aclara que “del texto de esa frase del art. 30 Cn. no se infiere que la prolongación deba limitarse por una sola vez… la prórroga debe respetar el límite temporal máximo de vigencia del decreto de adopción del régimen de excepción, pero en modo alguno debe entenderse que las prórrogas sucesivas están prohibidas”.
En el plano internacional, el documento apunta que varios instrumentos de derechos humanos permiten a los estados, en caso de peligro público o emergencia que amenace la independencia o seguridad del Estado parte, adoptar disposiciones que, en la medida y por el tiempo estrictamente necesario, suspendan algunos derechos o garantías. Las autoridades salvadoreñas afirman que la medida no está dirigida a enfrentar la criminalidad común sino que se justifica, tal como se ha hecho en el país, para combatir un fenómeno criminal sin precedentes a nivel mundial.
Los resultados oficiales han sido calificados como un “logro sin precedentes en la disminución de la delincuencia, crimen organizado y terrorismo”. Según el informe presentado por el Ministro de Seguridad, “las medidas extraordinarias decretadas han tenido un exitoso resultado que ha supuesto la reducción histórica en los índices de homicidios y la captura de más de 91,300 terroristas”.
Durante la aprobación del Régimen, la diputada Elisa Rosales, de Nuevas Ideas, afirmó que gracias esto El Salvador ahora cuenta con 1,140 días sin homicidios e hizo el recuento de las estadísticas más recientes.
Según la parlamentaria, diciembre de 2025 finalizó con 26 días sin homicidios; mientras que enero de 2026 cerró con 27 días sin homicidios y en lo que va de febrero ya se registran 20 días sin vidas que lamentar debido a la violencia.
“Esto no sería posible sin la seguridad. Según datos más recientes somos líderes regionales en turismo”, agregó la diputada. “Esto habla que ahora en El Salvador los criminales ya no tienen cabida”, sentenció.
El principal argumento para extender el régimen es el riesgo de reorganización de las estructuras criminales: “Se han identificado y capturado sujetos con intención de reorganización de las pandillas, quienes replican sus modos delictivos, y a quienes se les ha decomisado armas de fuego, drogas y otro tipo de objetos vinculados al tráfico ilícito”. Además, se resalta que “en viviendas se están realizando procedimientos para la eliminación de marcas o distintivos corporales alusivos a pandillas”, lo que demuestra intentos de ocultamiento y evasión que requieren vigilancia constante.
El documento aprobado reitera que la prórroga se decreta “en beneficio del derecho a la vida, la seguridad física y la propiedad de los salvadoreños”.
corresponsal:Desde San Salvador, El Salvador
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
It goes against the very instincts of some of the most powerful officials in the U.S.: get all dressed up, appear before a national TV audience, but sit there like statues without betraying any words or emotion.
For members of the Supreme Court, enduring the annual State of the Union address is a civic exercise in poker-faced discretion. As recent history has shown, that has not always been easy.
Tuesday’s speech by President Donald Trump will be watched closely not only for what is said, but also for who will be there in person to hear it — especially an undetermined number of justices with front-row seats.
This year’s appearances are especially of interest, coming four days after a 6-3 majority of the court struck down the president’s sweeping tariffs, in a sweeping setback to his economic agenda.
Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett and retired Justice Anthony Kennedy attend President Donald Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on March 4, 2025. (Win McNamee/Pool via Reuters)
Trump lashed out sharply at the court, especially the six members who voted against him, including two he appointed to the bench — Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.
The president said he was «ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for the country.»
At least one member of the bench, Justice Samuel Alito, has previously stated he will likely no longer go — after lingering, dramatic criticism leveled at a court ruling by Obama in his 2010 address.
But one or more justices have almost always attended the annual speech to Congress and the nation in recent decades. Court members are not required by law to be there, but custom has dictated their appearance, mostly for show. They are a key, if low-key, part of the pageantry, and are compelled to sit politely and stoically, amid the often high-spirited partisan rhetoric and response of the event.
There is no word yet from the high court on who will appear. Invitations are sent to each chamber, and the justices have individual discretion over whether to go.
Those who do traditionally wear their judicial robes, are escorted into the House as a group, and take prominent seats up front.
Retired justices usually get asked as well, minus the robes. They are joined by other officers of the court, such as the marshal and clerk.
WATCH: TOP 5 MOST MEMORABLE MOMENTS IN AMERICAN STATE OF THE UNION HISTORY
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elana Kagan, along with former Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy, have been regular attendees over the years.
Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett and retired Justice Anthony Kennedy attend President Donald Trump’s speech to a joint session of Congress, March 4, 2025. (Reuters/Evelyn Hockstein)
But the ceremony put the justices in a highly uncomfortable position in 2010.
Democrats cheered President Barack Obama when he dressed down high court conservatives for its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, issued a week earlier, which removed legal barriers preventing corporations and unions from spending unlimited sums on federal elections.
«With all due deference to the separation of powers,» Obama said, «the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.»
Alito, sitting just feet away in the audience, shook his head and mouthed words interpreted as «not true,» referring to the line about «foreign corporations,» court sources later confirmed.
Alito’s five fellow justices in attendance showed no emotion.
He had been a regular at previous addresses, but months after the incident, Alito told an audience in New York that he felt «like the proverbial potted plant» and would not be attending in the near future. In fact, the year after the presidential dress-down, Alito was in Hawaii at a law school symposium.
Justices pose for an official group portrait at the Supreme Court building on Capitol Hill on Oct. 7, 2022, following the addition of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: TRUMP’S STATE OF THE UNION BECOMES POLITICAL BOXING MATCH AS DEMOCRATS BOYCOTT
The now 75-year-old justice also, with a smile, noted that his colleagues «who are more disciplined, refrain from manifesting any emotion or opinion whatsoever.»
Roberts labeled the political atmosphere at the 2010 address «very troubling.»
The head of the federal judiciary has said partisan rhetoric and gestures aimed at the court left him questioning whether his colleagues should continue to attend.
During that 2010 address, members of Congress sat just behind the justices, many applauding loudly when Obama made his remarks about the court’s election spending case, especially Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
«It does cause me to think whether or not it makes sense for us to be there» Roberts said weeks after the controversy. «To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I’m not sure why we’re there.»
Then-White House press secretary Robert Gibbs responded quickly at the time with an indirect attack on Roberts, saying «the only thing troubling» was the Citizens United ruling itself.
Regardless, Roberts has never missed a State of the Union as chief justice.
THOMAS RIPS SUPREME COURT TARIFFS RULING, SAYS MAJORITY ‘ERRS’ ON CONSTITUTION
That included 2021 with President Joe Biden’s address to a joint session of Congress that was limited in attendance because of the pandemic. The sparse, widely-separated crowd included Roberts, a few Cabinet officers and a smattering of congressional members, all wearing masks.
Some justices were regular no-shows at the State of the Union, including John Paul Stevens, who stepped down from the court months after the 2010 State of the Union.
Roberts’ predecessor, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, also rarely appeared in person, once because he considered a painting class more preferable.
Justice Clarence Thomas called it «very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there.» He went to Obama’s first annual address in 2009, but has not been back since.
«There’s a lot that you don’t hear on TV,» he once said, «the catcalls, the whooping, hollering and under-the breath comments.»
Another more vocal no-go was the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who compared the televised State of the Union to «cheerleading sessions.»
President Donald Trump talks to Chief Justice John Roberts on the day of his speech to a joint session of Congress, at the U.S. Capitol, March 4, 2025. (Reuters/Kevin Lamarque)
«I don’t know at what point that happened, but it has happened, and now you go and sit there like bumps on a log while applause lines cause one half of the Congress to leap up while [another line] causes the other half to leap up,» he once said. «It is a juvenile spectacle. And I resent being called upon to give it dignity.»
TRUMP REVEALS HIS ‘NEW HERO’ SUPREME COURT JUSTICE AFTER TARIFFS RULING
He last attended the event in 1997, but did attend a special joint session of Congress after the 9/11 terror attacks in 2001, with four other justices.
Scalia, a generally verbose and animated jurist, said bluntly: «You just sit there, looking stupid.»
Even remarks touching on supposedly nonpartisan topics like patriotism, war veterans and puppy dogs leave the justices in a quandary: should they applaud, should they stand and applaud or do neither? The protocols are never clear, and the public might view the court members as aloof or uncaring if they offer no reaction during, say, a salute to Martin Luther King Jr.’s memory, when everyone else is shown engaging in bipartisan applause in the chamber.
One «extra-court-ricular» event that is a must-attend for the Supreme Court is the presidential inauguration. All nine members were at last year’s public swearing-in for Trump to a second four-year term. Roberts and Kavanaugh had official duties to administer the oaths of office to the president and vice president, respectively, but the other seven justices only had to sit there, again quietly, in the Capitol Rotunda.
Breyer is the one justice who might be called a «regular» at the State of the Union, going to nearly all of them since joining the court in 1994, including one in his retirement.
He missed President Bill Clinton’s last annual address in 2000 because of the flu. That year, no justices were in attendance.
Many believe the justices have to go to such events, that it is just another unwanted chore of office. Not so, Breyer told us in 2005. «People attend if they wish to attend. I do wish to attend, so I go.»
KAVANAUGH RIPS SUPREME COURT MAJORITY’S ‘ILLOGICAL’ LINE ON TARIFFS
President Donald Trump is set to deliver his fourth State of the Union address of his presidency on Feb. 24, 2026. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Here’s a list of Supreme Court members attending recent State of the Union or equivalent Joint Session of Congress addresses in recent years, based on Fox News research and congressional records. Names are listed by seniority:
– 2025: John Roberts, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Anthony Kennedy (retired)
– 2024: Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Kennedy (retired)
– 2023: Roberts, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson, Kennedy, Stephen Breyer (retired)
– 2022: Roberts, Breyer, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett
– 2021: Roberts (limited speech attendance because of pandemic)
– 2020: Roberts, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
– 2019: Roberts, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
– 2018: Roberts, Breyer, Kagan, Gorsuch
– 2017: Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
– 2016: Roberts, Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
– 2015: Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
– 2014: Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan
– 2013: Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
– 2012: Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan
– 2011: Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
– 2010: Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sotomayor
– 2009: Roberts, Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito
– 2008: Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Alito
– 2007: Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Alito
– 2006: Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Alito
– 2005: Breyer
– 2004: Breyer
– 2003: Breyer
– 2002: Kennedy, Breyer
– 2001: Breyer
– 2000: None
– 1999: Sandra Day O’Connor, Kennedy, David Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer
– 1998: William Rehnquist, O’Connor, Souter, Thomas, Breyer
– 1997: Antonin Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Byron White (retired)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
– 1996: Rehnquist, O’Connor, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer
– 1995: Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, Harry Blackmun (retired)
Related Article
supreme court,state of the union,donald trump
INTERNACIONAL
España: ¿Cuál es el verdadero alcance de los documentos que el gobierno de Pedro Sánchez va a desclasificar sobre el intento de golpe del 23F?
Mencio, discípulo de Confucio: “Si amás a las personas y se muestran hostiles, examiná tu amor”
Fernando Marull analizó la economía real: créditos, salarios y el precio de vivir en la Argentina
El partido que cambió la historia de Messi y Argentina: ‘Fuimos a jugar con miedo’
La Asamblea Legislativa aprueba nueva prórroga del Régimen de Excepción en El Salvador
Milei cambia el temario del Senado y quiere ser el primer presidente en aprobar el acuerdo con la Unión Europea
Otra provincia se suma al boom de emisiones de deuda: se colocaron u$s7.800 millones desde octubre
Villarruel cuestionó la apertura de importaciones: «Sin industria, se pasa a depender de China»
“Ahora es la hora de jugarse”: el mensaje de Patricia Bullrich a los empresarios tras aprobarse la reforma laboral
Según un especialista, el precio de la carne se mantendrá alto “entre dos y tres años”
Cómo será el tratamiento de la reforma laboral en el Senado, luego de haber obtenido la media sanción en Diputados
ECONOMIA3 días agoSegún un especialista, el precio de la carne se mantendrá alto “entre dos y tres años”
- POLITICA3 días ago
Cómo será el tratamiento de la reforma laboral en el Senado, luego de haber obtenido la media sanción en Diputados
- ECONOMIA3 días ago
¿Me pueden pagar el sueldo con botellas de vino o Bitcoin?: la letra chica de la reforma laboral
