The election results last week discredited the idea that Donald Trump’s domestic policies are popular. His presidency is not delivering on reducing the cost of living, he is antagonizing U.S. residents in cities with his immigration raids in ways that people largely find cruel, and his intimidation tactics and corrupt dealings have angered the electorate as well.
Foreign policy is not a subject likely to come up in mayoral and gubernatorial races. Here we have to turn to nationwide polling to understand what Americans really think about Trump’s tactics in foreign affairs, from vaporizing fishing boats in the Caribbean and Pacific, to overt threats to Venezuela, to the fragile not-quite-a-cease-fire taking hold in the Middle East. There have been moments of belligerence (like airstrikes in Iran) and moments of diplomacy (even where it has failed, as in Ukraine). Trump seems as motivated by winning a Peace Prize as anything (so much so that the international soccer body FIFA apparently invented one for him), yet also wants to establish dominance over foreign countries.
The Institute for Global Affairs (where Prospect alum Jonathan Guyer is the program director) has helpfully produced such a poll, conducted by YouGov, annually for the past eight years. The latest edition was released last week, and it reveals much of the same polarization that characterizes U.S. views on domestic affairs. Republicans call Trump “tough,” “intelligent,” and a “peacemaker” when asked to describe his conduct; Democrats call him “destructive,” “erratic,” and “reckless.”
Overall, Americans are not pleased with Trump’s foreign-policy performance: 50 percent grade him as “poor” against 37 percent as “good,” and on a range of foreign-policy topics, he is only above water on stopping “international drug trafficking.” He’s significantly underwater on China relations, the war in Ukraine, Iran’s nuclear program, relations with U.S. allies, and standing in the world.
What’s interesting in the poll are the topics that could yield some rare bipartisan cooperation. Growing numbers of Republicans (between one-fifth and one-quarter) are dissatisfied with Trump’s handling of international trade in general and China in particular. Half of the Republicans surveyed oppose unilateral acts of military force without congressional approval, a shocking number given the question but a strong basis for bipartisan pushback against potential imperial adventures abroad. (Nearly all Democrats, 94 percent, oppose unauthorized military force.) Only 17 percent of Republicans support regime change in Iran.
And while only 18 percent of Republicans want to decrease military spending, the vast majority of them (66 percent) want to maintain it at current levels, putting them at odds with their own party, which just topped off the Pentagon budget with an extra $150 billion in July’s Big Beautiful Bill. Just 16 percent of Republicans want to increase the military budget.
There is also a major topline increase in next year’s military budget, as a letter from Taxpayers for Common Sense and other advocacy groups points out. The White House sought a 13 percent increase and Congress added $32 billion on top of that. If Republican voters actually knew this, they would be overwhelmingly aligned against it. And overall, 48 percent of those surveyed in the Institute for Global Affairs poll think America spends too much on the military, while just 13 percent says too little. Forty percent believe America should decrease military spending, an increase from previous years.
So while it’s clear, as IGA says, that there is “little consensus on America’s power and purpose” among the citizenry today, there are sparks of potential consensus, or at least potential majorities, that are playing out in politics. That could yield a strong coalition against interventionism and toward greater restraint.
We’ve seen a few congressional Republicans tentatively step out on these matters, but not nearly in comparable proportion to the party’s rank and file. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has spoken out against the “extrajudicial killings” of alleged drug traffickers. To this day, we don’t know the identities of those killed without due process by U.S. drones, nor do we have any evidence of their relationship to the drug trade. Yet when Democrats forced a War Powers Act resolution on these boat strikes, only Paul and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) broke with Trump; 51 Senate Republicans voted against the effort to stop the activity.
This rejection of a War Powers vote breaks with the clear voice of the American people. In the IGA poll, 74 percent of the public opposes use of military force without congressional authorization. On the boat strikes in particular, there is mixed support, with 44 percent in favor of “military action against drug cartels in Latin America, without authorization or cooperation from those countries’ governments,” and 42 percent opposition. (That falls largely along party lines.)
Almost nobody wants to increase military presence abroad in any part of the world in the poll, and larger numbers would endorse decreasing that presence by around a 2-to-1 margin. Even Republicans are mostly split on this question.
Keep in mind that these numbers occur in a political environment where foreign-policy issues are often pushed to the side (with the possible exception of the genocide in Gaza; half of all Democrats surveyed use that term to describe Israel’s actions, and half of Gen Z respondents would not support the U.S. coming to Israel’s aid in the event of attack). Almost no anti-war voices exist in any mainstream media outlet. Nonetheless, Democrats, independents, and a surprising number of Republicans are questioning the ideas that the national-security establishment has spoon-fed the public from high perches for years.
That doesn’t mean that this is at root a pacifist country. Republicans put “military strength” among the top foreign-policy goals, while Democrats list “standing by U.S. allies.” Both stances could commit U.S. forces abroad. Democrats are more Wilsonian in their view, and want to promote democracy abroad, while Republicans are Jacksonian, seeking protection from foreign adversaries. Jeffersonianism in both parties, seeking refuge in domestic priorities and showing skepticism of foreign entanglements, is smaller.
Overall, people are dissatisfied with Trump’s foreign policy and are looking for a new path. They’re going to struggle to find one articulated. But there are policies and perspectives that can be elevated now that would have clear backing from the people.