Global Chaos Ignited Under Biden-Harris: WW3 Fears Surge as Election Nears

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

60% : Trump also maintained a strong military presence to dissuade North Korea and China from expanding their militaristic ambitions.
47% : While under Trump, a "maximum pressure" sanctions campaign crippled Iran's ability to finance proxy terror groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, the Biden-Harris administration's diplomatic overtures -- including efforts to renew the nuclear deal and a more lenient stance on enforcing oil sanctions -- have allowed additional revenues to flow to Tehran, enabling it to continue funding terror through its regional proxies.
47% : In her role as "Border Czar," Harris has been blamed for the administration's failure to enforce immigration laws, which critics argue has compromised national security and led to preventable crimes.
41% : Under Trump, the U.S. took a much harder stance on China through tariffs and aggressive diplomacy.
21% : Trump has argued that if Harris wins, she would prolong the Russia-Ukraine war and continue funneling billions of U.S. tax dollars into Ukraine, warning that her inaction could lead to "millions" of deaths and potentially a global conflict.
20% : While the Biden-Harris administration's approach has been seen as "emboldening America's enemies," Trump is credited with maintaining global stability through strength and clear red lines.
11% : The war shocked the region, with critics pointing to the Biden-Harris team's failure to maintain the hardline pressure Trump applied to Tehran.
10% : The decision to delist the Houthis as an FTO was seen as part of the Biden-Harris administration's broader attempt to revive the failed Obama-era Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), which has been widely criticized for empowering Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism worldwide.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.