Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_739759855-scaled

Poll: Two in five Americans believe direct conflict with China likely

Survey from Ipsos/Reuters shows respondents split on questions surrounding Taiwan.

Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

More than 40 percent of Americans believe it is likely that the United States will have a direct military confrontation with China within the next five years, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll on perceptions of U.S. relations with other countries, released on Thursday. 

The two-day poll, which was conducted online earlier this week, also shows that a strong majority of Americans think Washington needs to do more to prepare for military threats from China.

However, Americans are more divided on questions of aiding Taiwan, with half of respondents wanting to provide Taiwan with the military resources to help deter an attack from China. A slight plurality opposes the deployment of U.S. troops to defend Taiwan from such an attack. 

Overall, 75 percent of respondents had an unfavorable view of China, including 32 percent who said that they had a “very unfavorable” view. The negative perceptions of China presented in this survey track with other recent polling trends which indicate that Americans’ views toward Beijing are at record lows. 

The negative numbers may suggest that the constant framing of China as a rival, increased fear mongering among members of Congress, the media, and the Pentagon, and predictions on the likelihood of a great power war in the near-term — have affected public opinion regarding the threat that China poses. 

In general, Republican respondents had more hawkish views toward China than their Democratic counterparts. Republicans predict that the U.S.-China relationship will continue to deteriorate in the next half-decade, with only 14 percent agreeing that the “relationship will become more friendly in the next 5 years,” and 58 percent saying that “direct military conflict between the U.S. and China” was likely over that same time period. Those numbers were 32 percent and 36 percent for Democrats, respectively. 

Similarly, when asked to rank how much of a threat various countries posed to the United States on a scale of one to five, with 1 meaning “no threat” and 5 representing an “imminent threat” nearly half of Republican respondents called China an “imminent threat,” compared to 28 percent of Democrats. For both parties, a plurality of those surveyed chose “imminent threat.” 

Republicans were also more likely than Democrats to support increasing military budgets to confront China. Twenty-eight percent of Republicans supported raising taxes as a way to spend more on the military, 51 percent were in favor on diverting spending on other programs as a way to further fund the military, and 72 said that they were more likely to support a presidential candidate in 2024 who believed that “the U.S. should increase military spending to defend against possible threats from China.” Democrats were less likely to agree with any of these suggestions. 

These GOP responses mirror the hawkish rhetoric around Beijing on the campaign trail. “In recent months, Republican White House hopefuls have attacked China daily, with each candidate trying to show voters that they are best positioned to take on America's geopolitical foe,” Michael Martina and Jason Lange write in Reuters. “Former President Donald Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley have all called for the United States to end permanent normal trade relations with China, which would limit economic ties between the countries.” 

However, when it comes to one of the primary flashpoints in U.S.-China relations, Democrats were more willing to defend Taiwan than were Republicans. Fifty-six percent of Democrats supported providing Taiwan with military equipment, compared to just under half of Republicans. When it comes to committing American troops to defend the island, a slight plurality of Democrats were in favor (43 percent supported to 40 percent opposed), while a plurality of GOP respondents were opposed (35 percent in favor, 48 opposed). 

Though a slight plurality of overall respondents opposed military intervention in Taiwan, there have been signs in recent years that the public is increasingly open to defending Taiwan militarily. Washington has long-stated a position of “strategic ambiguity” toward Taiwan, though that has become murkier with President Biden’s repeated claims that the U.S. would go to war if China attacked Taiwan. Other administration officials have maintained that policy toward Taiwan remains unchanged.


(By andriano.cz/shutterstock)
google cta
Asia-Pacific
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.