The poll shows about 6 in 10 say they want any increase in the debt limit to be coupled with agreed-upon terms for reducing the federal budget deficit. At the same time, Americans are more likely to disapprove than approve of how President Joe Biden and congressional negotiators on both sides of the aisle are handling negotiations. Still, slightly more approve of Bidens handling of the situation than of congressional Republicans.

The new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows 27% say they approve of Biden and 26% say the same about congressional Democrats, while 22% approve of congressional Republicans. Close to half disapprove of each.

Sixty-six year-old Robert Hutchins says he somewhat approves of how House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Republicans in Congress are handling negotiations.

At least hes trying to do something, the Republican from Milton, Delaware, said of McCarthys leadership over his conference. The Democrats want to spend more money and they dont want any limit to it.

Hutchins said he doesnt have any confidence whatsoever in Biden and doesnt believe in abolishing the debt ceiling, as it serves as a constant reminder of the nations debt load, which currently stands at $31.4 trillion.

Otherwise, you just think you have an unlimited credit card and you can spend whatever you want, he said.

Overall, about 2 in 10 U.S. adults say they are following negotiations over raising the debt limit extremely or very closely, and about 4 in 10 are following somewhat closely. Similarly, about 2 in 10 say they understand the situation very well and about 4 in 10 say they understand it somewhat well.

Still, a clear majority 63% say they think negotiations over the debt limit should be coupled with terms to reduce the budget deficit. Nineteen percent say the debt limit should be raised without conditions and 16% say it should not be raised at all. Overall, the adults who say they understand the debate best are especially likely to say the debt limit should be increased without conditions 37% say so, compared with 50% who say it should be tied to terms about reducing the budget deficit.

A default would likely spell catastrophe for the U.S. economy, with spillover throughout the globe, and would prompt a probable recession.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned this week that a national default would destroy jobs and businesses, and leave millions of families who rely on federal government payments to likely go unpaid, including Social Security beneficiaries, veterans and military families.

An AP-NORC poll conducted earlier this year also shows little consensus on cuts that would make a dent in the deficit: While most Americans said the government spends too much overall, majorities favored increased spending on popular and expensive programs including Medicare and Social Security.

Similar percentages of Republicans and Democrats say they are following and understanding negotiations, and concern about the economy if the U.S. defaults is widely bipartisan. But about a third of Democrats say the national debt limit should be increased without conditions, while just 6% of Republicans say the same.

Twenty-three percent of Republicans but just 7% of Democrats say the national debt limit should not be increased under any circumstances.

Aaron Loessberg-Zahl, a 33-year-old Democrat from San Jose, California, said the debt ceiling should be raised without conditions, and called the statutory limit on borrowing arbitrary.

Congress already controls the purse strings, they approve the annual budgets for our government, Loessberg-Zahl said, and I think thats plenty of control over the spending.

He called the debate over whether and how to raise the debt ceiling not productive and said he approves of the presidents handling of negotiations.

Loessberg-Zahl said, My belief is that those people probably dont understand the full ramifications of what would happen if the country were to default.

With hopes for a breakthrough as soon as this weekend, President Joe Biden and McCarthy tapped their top representatives to work out a deal after talks with a larger contingent stalled.

Upbeat, McCarthy said it was important to have an agreement in principle by the weekend if they hope to get to a House vote next week. That would leave enough time for the Senate to act, too, ahead of a deadline as soon as June 1.

Everyones working hard, McCarthy told CNN and others at the Capitol.

The White House team also appeared upbeat as they entered the building, but declined comments and departed two hours later. They were expected to be back at it on Friday and into the weekend.

This does not have to be a crisis, Vice President Kamala Harris said during a virtual meeting of community leaders on Thursday.

A default could trigger a recession, stop military paychecks and raise interest rates for years to come, Harris said. America must pay our bills, just like you and your family and other hardworking Americans do every single day.

All sides are racing devise a budget-cutting deal that Democrats and Republicans can live with, the price to be paid as McCarthys newly empowered House Republicans try to extract steep spending reductions. Those cuts would be in exchange for GOP votes to raise the debt limit, which is now $31 trillion, and keep paying the nations already-due bills.

Biden and McCarthy have mostly cooled what had been heated rhetoric over the Republican demands. The president said he would be checking on talks as he is abroad for the next several days at the Group of Seven summit in Japan. Biden cut short the rest of his trip to Papua New Guinea and Australia so he could return early to Washington.

Im confident that well get the agreement on the budget and America will not default, Biden said Wednesday before he departed.

Behind closed doors are the key personnel who could cut a sweeping budget deal. Steve Ricchetti, Bidens longtime aide who is now counselor to the president, along with Office of Management and Budget Director Shalanda Young and legislative affairs director Louisa Terrell are representing the administration. McCarthy himself said he planned to stop by some of the talks, and has tasked Rep. Garret Graves, R-La., who is a close ally, for the Republicans. Another Republican, Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, the chairman of the Financial Services team, newly joined Thursday.

A White House official said Bruce Reed, the deputy chief of staff, is traveling with the president to keep in contact and keep Biden informed.

Weve got a lot more work to do, McHenry said after Thursdays session.

At stake is federal spending over the next several years as Republicans use the debt ceiling vote, a routine exercise thats typically done in a bipartisan way to raise the borrowing capacity and pay the nations bills, as a way to push their budgeting priorities.

The contours of a deal that includes some cuts, rescinding unused COVID-19 money and a framework to discuss new permitting rules to more quickly develop energy projects are taking shape, but the details remain daunting.

McCarthys Republicans want to roll back spending to fiscal 2022 levels and cap annual increases at just 1% over the next decade sparing Defense and Veterans accounts in what Democrats say would be devastating cuts inflicting hardship on many Americans.

The Republicans know their proposal would only make a dent in the nations growing debt load, but they argue that spending cuts need to start somewhere to get a handle on what they say are unsustainable annual deficits.

Democrats are resisting, and negotiators are eyeing budget caps for the next several years as an alternative to limits that would extend for a decade.

Notably absent from the negotiating room are they congressional appropriators the House and Senate chairwomen who run the Appropriations Committees, which actually put the spending plans in place. Its clear that Democratic appropriators and perhaps even some Republicans would almost certainly balk at the levels of cuts being considered.

Showing the pressure McCarthy faces from his right flank, the conservative House Freedom Caucus said in statement there should be no further discussion until the Senate approves the House-passed Republican bill.

With the Senate in Democratic control, thats highly unlikely. And Biden already said he would veto it.

One area all sides seem more likely to agree on would be the Republican proposal to claw back some $30 billion in unspent COVID-19 funds now that the federal government has declared an official end to the pandemic emergency.

Republicans also want to attach their policy priorities to any deal, and those are a harder sell.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Thursday the Republican proposal for tougher work requirements on recipients of government aide is a nonstarter. Period. Full stop.

Jeffries noted that many House Republicans themselves, including McCarthy, voted against enhanced work requirements for food stamp recipients in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program just a few years ago.

This is hostage taking, Jeffries said. They are trying to extract ransom notes in order to avoid a default.

But Biden opened the door to some work extra requirements for non-health care programs like Medicaid, and the discussions over food stamps and cash assistance programs are ongoing.

On changes for permitting, Republicans are eager to undo the National Environmental Policy Act, called NEPA, to allow energy projects to be approved and developed more quickly, without years of delays from challenges and lawsuits.

Bidens own climate adviser John Podesta met this week with some House Democrats as the administration, too, seeks changes that would more quickly unleash clean energy projects and upgrade transmission lines to fight climate change.

But the two sides remain far apart over the size and scope of the permitting reforms, with several prominent lawmakers, including Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., having their own proposals. Its unclear if the negotiators will be able to reach a final agreement on the permitting provisions or simply arrive at a framework that could lead to future discussions between the White House and Congress.

Time is short ahead of the deadline as soon as June 1 to raise the debt limit and avoid what economists warn would be a devastating default, the first of its kind, tearing across the economy.

McCarthy has vowed to abide by House rules that require 72 hours notice before voting on any bill, meaning an agreement is needed this weekend if the House wants to vote before it leaves at the end of next week for the Memorial Day recess.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told senators Thursday, as they prepared to depart for their own weeklong recess, said they need to be ready to return with 24 hours notice to vote, if needed. More likely, the Senate would be expected to start voting when it returns after Memorial Day.

Democrats in the House and Senate are engaging in other strategies, including trying to force a vote to raise the debt limit without the spending cuts Republicans demand. Progressives are also pushing Biden to invoke the 14th amendment to raise the debt ceiling, something the president has signaled hes not yet inclined to do.

__

Associated Press writers Kevin Freking, Chris Megerian, Stephen Groves and Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington and White House Correspondent Zeke Miller in Hiroshima contributed to this report.

With this proxy fight, Mr. Icahn aligned himself with Lina Khan and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which has ruled against the $7.1 billion deal. The Grail acquisition is one where Mr. Icahn has made one of his rare mistakes and, perhaps without realizing it, has taken sides with Ms. Khan in her bid to rewrite antitrust law. Other investors have been more supportive, calling the Grail acquisition a natural extension  of Illuminas technology and deeming it worth pursuing.

Its Ms. Khan and the FTC that Mr. Icahn should be targeting, not Illumina and its leadership. Instead of forcing the company to spend resources to respond to his proxy battle, Mr. Icahn could lend his resounding voice to the growing recognition that Ms. Khans view of anti-trust law is misguided.

Mr. Icahn concedes Illumina is a great company, even though he is trying to get the CEO fired for buying Grail, the maker of a blood test that can detect more than 50 different types of cancer with few false positives.

Ive been following this case for professional and personal reasons. A cancer survivor and advisor to CEOs, I am alive only because of the early detection of my cancer and because I benefitted from cutting-edge technology in my treatment. I know first-hand the life-and-death difference these innovations represent. 

There are published accounts of doctors using Grails test to detect pancreatic cancer at an early stage, operating to remove the tumor, and patients returning to their normal lives. Doctors almost never find pancreatic cancer early. We all know family and friends who have died of this awful disease because we never find it until it has spread to other parts of the body and it is too late to stop. At scale, Grail is projected to save hundreds of thousands of lives.

In this era of FTC overreach, the Illumina-Grail transaction would likely have merited little regulatory scrutiny. Ms. Khan, who was nominated to make big structural change[s] by reviving antitrust enforcement, according to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, has tried to unwind the deal even though there is no U.S. law or legal precedent to justify barring this vertical transaction.  

The FTCs decision has created regulatory uncertainty, contributing to the drop in Illuminas stock, which, in turn, has enticed Mr. Icahn to buy a stake of about 1.5%  in a typical activist play. 

Meanwhile, Mr. Icahns activism has distracted from the most problematic issue here: the FTCs attempts to use novel legal theories and tactics to sink a transaction.

The FTCs behavior, in this case, should concern every company with acquisition plans in the U.S. and Europe, given the great lengths Ms. Khan and the FTC have gone to partner with European regulators to smother this deal in its cradle.

Consider these undeniable facts: FOIA requests have uncovered a flurry of communications between the FTC and European antitrust regulators, which were followed by the European Commission (EC) pursuing a novel theory of jurisdictionand the FTC withdrawing its own federal lawsuit to stop the deal. 

Under the EUs own laws, any EC review of the acquisition should be barred because Grail has an insufficient nexus with the EU. The EU is relying on a novel interpretation of the EU Merger Regulation for its jurisdiction and that interpretation is being challenged in the EUs highest court. In fact, as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce noted recently, the EU is trying out this new and dramatically expanded application of the regulations against Illumina for the first time, even though, both companies were headquartered outside the European Union and the proposed transaction did not [otherwise] meet the thresholds of EU Merger Regulation.

Because no one else makes a multi-cancer early detection blood test like Grails, the regulators quest to control this space is misguided. There is no other multi-cancer early detection test on the market in the U.S. and although a cancer detection test is available in parts of Europe, it tests for only a handful of cancers and uses a different technology that doesnt rely on Illuminas sequencing.

The EC is making up new rules to regulate companies operating in nascent markets alongside non-existent competitors who have yet to develop any products and might never do so. By implication, that means there isnt a merger transaction anywhere in the world that the EC cant extend a long arm in to block if the ECs action regarding Illumina stands.  

Why did the EU get involved? The FTC knows that U.S. courts likely would look askance at its speculative case against Illumina. When, after endless agency-manufactured delays, the FTC finally tried the case before one of its own in-house judges, the judge sided with Illumina, even though FTC judges almost always find for the home team.

In fact, this was the first time ever that an FTC judge decided against the agency in a merger case, finding that combining the companies was not anti-competitive and that the FTC had failed to prove its case.  So, enlist European regulators to help further your grand design.

Its pretty clear that Illumina is a pawn in the FTCs grander scheme. Its real objective is to set a precedent now by grinding down a smaller life sciences company so it can apply that precedent to large tech company mergers later. That is as unwise as it is unconscionable, injuring Illumina and all of its shareholders, including Mr. Icahn, in pursuit of structural changes in antitrust enforcement.

With his activist play, Mr. Icahn has unwittingly played into Ms. Khans hands. Illumina must now fight on two fronts, but Illumina and Mr. Icahn should unite against their common foes: the FTC and Ms. Khan.

Mark S. Herr is a lawyer and former regulator who has advised CEOs and other corporate leaders for the past two decades.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

More must-read commentary published by Fortune:

They argued in a legal complaint filed late Wednesday in federal court in Missoula that the law is an unconstitutional violation of free speech rights.

They also say the state doesnt have authority over matters of national security. Gov. Greg Gianforte signed the bill into law Wednesday and said it would protect Montana residents private data and personal information from being harvested by the Chinese government.

The ban is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2024.

We expected a legal challenge and are fully prepared to defend the law, said Emily Flower, spokeswoman for the Montana Department of Justice.

TikTok has argued that the law infringes on peoples First Amendment rights and is unlawful.

Some lawmakers, the FBI and officials at other agencies are concerned the video-sharing app, owned by ByteDance, could be used to allow the Chinese government to access information on U.S. citizens or push pro-Beijing misinformation that could influence the public. TikTok says none of this has ever happened.