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
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports
Top image credit: A large oil tanker transits the Strait of Hormuz. (Shutterstock/ Clare Louise Jackson)

Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports

QiOSK

Hours after the U.S. and Israel launched a campaign of airstrikes across Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is warning vessels in the Persian Gulf via radio that “no ship is allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz,” according to a report from Reuters.

The news suggests that Iran is ready to pull out all the stops in its response to the U.S.-Israeli barrage, which President Donald Trump says is aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. A full shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz would cause an international crisis given that 20% of the world’s oil passes through the narrow channel. Financial analysts estimate that even one day of a full blockade could cause global oil prices to double from $66 per barrel to more than $120.

keep readingShow less
Ro Khanna Jon Fetterman
Top photo credit: Ro Khanna (creative commons/WebSummitt ) and Jon Fetterman (shutterstock/EB Photos)

Fury and fanboys: US, world leaders react to US-Israeli war on Iran

QiOSK

The reactions are already coming in following the early morning attacks on Iran by U.S. and Israeli forces in what is being called "Operation Epic Fury." The reports are fluid, but as President Trump announced on his Truth Social, the U.S. is taking aim at Iran's military and senior leadership and hopes to raze both so that the Iranian people can take over. "When we are finished the government is yours to take. Your hour of freedom is at hand."

For some, like U.S. Senator Jon Fetterman, a Democrat who represents the people of Pennsylvania, this is the greatest thing to happen since the last time the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran in June. "President Trump has been willing to do what’s right and necessary to produce real peace in the region. God bless the United States, our great military, and Israel."

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.