Modern large-scale public opinion polls on foreign policy are relatively rare, but recent Gallup data suggests that Americans’ top priorities do not fully align with President Donald Trump’s international goals, although citizens are increasingly cautious about how they will achieve them. Regardless of their party affiliation, Americans consider preventing terrorism and nuclear proliferation, securing US energy supplies, and promoting favourable trade policies to be key tasks. In contrast, values-based priorities, such as humanitarian aid, democracy-building and economic development of other countries, are at the bottom of the list.
Representatives of both parties have relegated these issues to the bottom of the list, although Democrats have shown greater support for such initiatives than Republicans. A small majority of Americans (58%) support protecting the security of allies in general, and 50% support protecting Ukraine in particular. Regarding the methods of securing US interests, about 60% of Americans approve of actions through multilateral channels such as the UN and NATO. However, there is a clear partisan split here: about 9 out of 10 Democrats support cooperation with the UN and NATO, while only 4 out of 10 Republicans do.
Even some of Trump’s most controversial decisions, such as freezing humanitarian aid or attempts to weaken USAID, have not been a tipping point that has shaped public opinion against him. Although two-thirds of Americans believe that cutting USAID could lead to deaths or humanitarian crises in other countries, almost half of those surveyed also say that Trump’s decision would allow these funds to be used for domestic needs or to reduce the national deficit.
At the same time, most Americans do not want to see a complete cessation of humanitarian aid, even among those who believe that the US spends too much on it. Interestingly, Americans often overestimate the amount of money their government allocates to such programmes. This data reflects a long-standing trend: Concerned about domestic issues such as dilapidated infrastructure or the homelessness crisis, Americans are increasingly sceptical about spending abroad instead of investing at home.
While most Americans support multilateralism and alliances, the president’s disregard for these principles resonates with his MAGA base and Republican voters. In addition to the latest polls, it is worth noting that Americans’ perceptions of threats and opportunities are changing. The overwhelming majority considers China a threat or an enemy. At the same time, demographic shifts are gradually turning Americans’ attention away from Europe. Younger generations, starting with millennials, are more likely to have an immigrant parent, making them the most multicultural in US history. They are less tied to Europe and more focused on the East and South as the arena of international problems and solutions. (Note: Latinos are the fastest growing demographic group, accounting for about 20% of the US population).
This distance from Europe, which is increasingly reflected in the socio-demographic profile of Americans, is also evident in the current administration. Trump’s foreign policy team has limited experience with Europe, but is arguably the most competent in Latin America.
Few incentives for dissent
At present, there is little incentive for the Republican Party to challenge Trump’s foreign policy, and Democratic voices on international issues are unable to change the political landscape. The president’s actions do not contradict public opinion – his stated goals, especially in the economy, energy and, to a lesser extent, the fight against terrorism, are in line with what is important to Americans.
While most Americans support multilateralism and alliances, Trump’s disdain for them is supported by his MAGA and Republican constituency. As the president sets the country’s foreign policy direction, his party gives him carte blanche, and Trump is no exception. In other words, there is no reason to expect significant and influential dissent at this stage. And if he were to face a public challenge, Trump has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to use the threat of primaries for dissidents who may be funded by, for example, Elon Musk.
Even if some Republicans in Congress have cautiously expressed support for funding Ukraine’s military actions, the electoral risks and political cost of openly opposing Trump or their constituents are often too high for all but a few of the most prominent Republicans.
The next important electoral moment will come in the 2026 midterm elections. If voters get tired of the Republican Party’s policies, they will have a chance to return at least partial control of Congress, as well as governorships and other state and local governments to the Democrats. However, foreign policy is unlikely to be a determining factor for voters. Instead, their thinking will focus on key electoral issues, such as the economy and inflation. A future Democratic majority in Congress will give the opposition more power to influence foreign policy (through control of the budget and the ability to authorise or demand foreign policy actions, such as sanctions), but the president will still have a powerful voice from the rostrum.
Author : Marianna Nyzhnia
