Follow us on social

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

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)
Asia-Pacific
Daniel Noboa, Xi Jinping
Top photo credit: Beijing, China.- In the photos, Chinese President Xi Jinping (right) and his Ecuadorian counterpart, Daniel Noboa (left), during a meeting in the Great Hall of the People, the venue for the main protocol events of the Chinese government on June 26, 2025 (Isaac Castillo/Pool / Latin America News Agency via Reuters Connect)

Why Ecuador went straight to China for relief

Latin America

Marco Rubio is visiting Mexico and Ecuador this week, his third visit as Secretary of State to Latin America.

While his sojourn in Mexico is likely to grab the most headlines given all the attention the Trump administration has devoted to immigration and Mexican drug cartels, the one to Ecuador is primarily designed to “counter malign extra continental actors,” according to a State Department press release.The reference appears to be China, an increasingly important trading and investment partner for Ecuador.

keep readingShow less
US Capitol
Top image credit: Lucky-photographer via shutterstock.com

Why does peace cost a trillion dollars?

Washington Politics

As Congress returns from its summer recess, Washington’s attention is turning towards a possible government shutdown.

While much of the focus will be on a showdown between Senate Democrats and Donald Trump, a subplot is brewing as the House and Senate, led by Republicans but supported by far too many Democrats, fight over how big the Pentagon’s budget should be. The House voted to give Trump his requested trillion dollar budget, while the Senate is demanding $22 billion more.

keep readingShow less
Yemen Ahmed al-Rahawi
Top image credit: Funeral in Sana a for senior Houthi officials killed in Israeli strikes Honor guard hold up a portraits of Houthi government s the Prime Minister Ahmed al-Rahawi and other officials killed in Israeli airstrikes on Thursday, during a funeral ceremony at the Shaab Mosque in Sanaa, Yemen, 01 September 2025. IMAGO/ via REUTERS

Israel playing with fire in Yemen

Middle East

“The war has entered a new phase,” declared Mohammed al-Bukhaiti, a senior official in Yemen’s Ansar Allah movement, after Israeli jets streaked across the Arabian Peninsula to kill the group’s prime minister and a swathe of his cabinet in Yemen’s capital, Sana’a.

The senior official from Ansar Allah, the movement commonly known as the Houthis, was not wrong. The strike, which Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz promised was “just the beginning,” signaled a fundamental shift in the cartography of a two-year war of attrition between the region’s most technologically advanced military and its most resilient guerrilla force.

The retaliation was swift, if militarily ineffective: missiles launched towards Israel disintegrated over Saudi Arabia. Internally, a paranoid crackdown ensued on perceived spies. Houthi security forces stormed the offices of the World Food Programme and UNICEF, detaining at least 11 U.N. personnel in a sweep immediately condemned by the U.N. Secretary General.

The catalyst for this confrontation was the war in Gaza, unleashed by Hamas’s October 7 attacks on Israel, which provided the Houthis with the ideological fuel and political opportunity to transform themselves. Seizing the mantle of Palestinian solidarity — a cause their leader, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, frames as a “sacrifice in the cause of God Almighty ” — they graduated from a menacing regional actor into a global disruptor, launching missiles toward Israel just weeks after Hamas’s attacks and holding one of the world’s most vital shipping lanes hostage.

The chessboard was dangerously rearranged in May, when the Trump administration, eager for an off-ramp from a costly and ineffective air campaign, brokered a surprise truce with the Houthis. Mediated by Oman, the deal was simple: the U.S. would stop bombing Houthi targets, and the Houthis would stop attacking American ships. President Trump, in his characteristic style, claimed the Houthis had “capitulated” while also praising their “bravery.”

keep readingShow less

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.