Follow us on social

google cta
Some-of-the-african-american-men-of-the-369th-15th-new-york-who-won-the-croix-812191-1024

Polls: Black Americans less inclined to support Ukraine if it leads to US war

Surveys signal a wider resistance to interventionism, which is not surprising given the history of sacrifice, and cost to communities.

Analysis | Washington Politics
google cta
google cta

As surveys of American public opinion show strong support for the Ukrainian and Taiwanese people overall, it is worth noting that in these polls, African Americans reflect much more resistance to potential military engagement than other racial groups.

A December poll conducted by the Chicago Council revealed that roughly 3 in 10 Americans would support sending military forces to support Ukraine and Taiwan (this is actually down from April). In contrast, a September 2022 poll conducted by my organization, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, composed entirely of African Americans, revealed that only two in ten respondents supported sending U.S. military forces to support Ukraine or Taiwan. 

This jibes with earlier surveys. For example, in an April 2022 Quinnipiac University Poll, African Americans were much less inclined to show support for the U.S. doing “more to support Ukraine, even if it means increasing the risk of the United States getting into a war with Russia.” Only 11 percent of African American voters were willing to risk war with Moscow, compared to 22 percent of White voters and 17 percent of Hispanics voters who felt the same way.

An August 2022 poll conducted by the data analytics firm YouGov reported that 28 percent of African American respondents think “the U.S. should help protect Taiwan militarily from China.” This finding is significantly lower than White Americans (46 percent) and respondents whom the survey classified as “other” (48 percent). Hispanic respondents (29 percent) were the only other racial group that held similar sentiments to African Americans. 

One of the major benefits of these segmented surveys is that they allow for data analysis pinpointing differences that might go unnoticed in polls that normally combine racial groups. The Carnegie survey reveals that war support is weakest among several demographics: lower income Blacks, generational African Americans (individuals with residence in the U.S. for more than three generations), women, and Democrats. 

Households that reported an income less than $50,000 annually (492 respondents) reported support for Ukraine and Taiwan by 17 percent and 16 percent, respectively. In comparison, households with an income of more than $80,000 annually (156 respondents) supported sending troops to Ukraine and Taiwan by 26 percent and 25 percent, respectively.

Respondents who resided in the U.S. for more than three generations (865 respondents) reported support for sending troops to both Ukraine and Taiwan at 17 percent. In comparison, foreign born respondents (120 respondents) reported support for Ukraine and Taiwan by 30 percent and 25 percent. Men (534 respondents) reported support for sending troops to Ukraine and Taiwan by 24 percent and 25 percent, whereas women (604 respondents) reported sending troops to both regions by 18 percent and  to 15 percent. 

Political affiliation is perhaps the most notable metric. African Americans who identify as Democrat support sending troops to Ukraine and Taiwan by 22 percent and 20 percent. However, Republican respondents support sending troops to Ukraine or Taiwan by 38 percent and 44 percent. 

Interestingly, we are at an inflection point in the posturing of our nation’s major political parties on foreign policy. There is a shift in how the American left and right thinks about U.S. military engagement. Democratic party leadership has shown solidarity with the Ukrainian cause and has flirted with the idea of defending Taiwan militarily in the event of a Chinese invasion on several occasions. This is reflected in most polls of Americans who identify as Democrats, including in the December Chicago Council survey where they were more willing to send troops to defend Ukraine than their Republican counterparts by nearly 10 percentage points.  

However, the Carnegie poll data reveal that the Democratic party’s new modus operandi is not translating to rank-and-file African American voters. 

These findings in war support differences are not novel. Well before trillions of dollars were spent and hundreds of thousands of innocent lives were lost in America's Global War on Terror, a 2003 Gallup poll revealed that African American support for the invasion of Iraq was less than half that of the White population. A decade removed from that conflict, and as the nation seemingly recommits itself to a new set of conflicts, African Americans’ appetite for war remains small. 

Of course, there will be some individuals that lean on reductionist stereotypes to rationalize weaker support for war among African Americans. To be clear, history has shown that during military conflicts of the 20th Century — World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam — millions of African Americans nobly served in these conflicts, committed to the idea of  American democracy and national service. But at the conclusion of these bloody conflicts, many Black veterans returned home to racial violence, denial of their veteran benefits, and struggling communities that seemed left behind after they were no longer needed to sacrifice.

That was the past. And yet, the present is not all that different. The Black community is still disproportionately affected by disparities in income, healthcare, and education. Their communities — think Flint, Michigan and Jackson, Mississippi — are plagued by environmental racism. The George Floyd protests of 2020 were a painful reminder that racial fissures still exist in our nation. 

African Americans, especially Black men, are currently overrepresented in the U.S. Military compared to their proportion of the civilian population. Given the history and today’s domestic concerns, Carnegie’s survey data should be understood as a calculation by African Americans of what another commitment to war would mean in terms of the economic and social costs to their communities. 

Pundits on both ends of the political spectrum have asked the critical question: How does U.S. foreign policy impact the American people? The surveys above are but a glimpse into how African Americans — a population that has proudly served in every U.S. Military conflict — feel about serious foreign policy decisions that could affect their lives and communities, perhaps disproportionately.

Whether or not Washington elites appreciate American public opinion on world affairs, remains unclear. We can at least hope the foreign policy establishment and current administration weigh the opinions of the African American public — which overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party and serve in the Armed forces — and ask themselves how a Great Power conflict will impact rank and file Americans, many of whom will have to fight in that war.  


Some of the [African American] men of the 369th (15th New York). Who won the Croix de Guerre for gallantry in action in World War I. 1918. (U.S National Archives)
google cta
Analysis | Washington Politics
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi
Top photo credit: Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi 首相官邸 (Cabinet Public Affairs Office)

Takaichi 101: How to torpedo relations with China in a month

Asia-Pacific

On November 7, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi stated that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could undoubtedly be “a situation that threatens Japan’s survival,” thereby implying that Tokyo could respond by dispatching Self-Defense Forces.

This statement triggered the worst crisis in Sino-Japanese relations in over a decade because it reflected a transformation in Japan’s security policy discourse, defense posture, and U.S.-Japan defense cooperation in recent years. Understanding this transformation requires dissecting the context as well as content of Takaichi’s parliamentary remarks.

keep readingShow less
Starmer, Macron, Merz G7
Top photo credit: Prime Minister Keir Starmer meets Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and António Costa, President of the European Council at the G7 world leaders summit in Kananaskis, June 15, 2025. Picture by Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street

The Europeans pushing the NATO poison pill

Europe

The recent flurry of diplomatic activity surrounding Ukraine has revealed a stark transatlantic divide. While high level American and Ukrainian officials have been negotiating the U.S. peace plan in Geneva, European powers have been scrambling to influence a process from which they risk being sidelined.

While Europe has to be eventually involved in a settlement of the biggest war on its territory after World War II, so far it’s been acting more like a spoiler than a constructive player.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig
Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Saudi leans in hard to get UAE out of Sudan civil war

Middle East

As Saudi Arabia’s powerful crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), swept through Washington last week, the agenda was predictably packed with deals: a trillion-dollar investment pledge, access to advanced F-35 fighter jets, and coveted American AI technology dominated the headlines. Yet tucked within these transactions was a significant development for the civil war in Sudan.

Speaking at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum President Donald Trump said that Sudan “was not on my charts,” viewing the conflict as “just something that was crazy and out of control” until the Saudi leader pressed the issue. “His majesty would like me to do something very powerful having to do with Sudan,” Trump recounted, adding that MBS framed it as an opportunity for greatness.

The crown prince’s intervention highlights a crucial new reality that the path to peace, or continued war, in Sudan now runs even more directly through the escalating rivalry between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The fate of Sudan is being forged in the Gulf, and its future will be decided by which side has more sway in Trump’s White House.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.