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.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

(By andriano.cz/shutterstock)
google cta
Asia-Pacific
Is Greenland next? Denmark says, not so fast.
President Donald J. Trump participates in a pull-aside meeting with the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Denmark Mette Frederiksen during the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 70th anniversary meeting Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2019, in Watford, Hertfordshire outside London. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

Is Greenland next? Denmark says, not so fast.

North America

The Trump administration dramatically escalated its campaign to control Greenland in 2025. When President Trump first proposed buying Greenland in 2019, the world largely laughed it off. Now, the laughter has died down, and the mood has shifted from mockery to disbelief and anxiety.

Indeed, following Trump's military strike on Venezuela, analysts now warn that Trump's threats against Greenland should be taken seriously — especially after Katie Miller, wife of Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, posted a U.S. flag-draped map of Greenland captioned "SOON" just hours after American forces seized Nicolas Maduro.

keep readingShow less
Trump White House
Top photo credit: President Donald Trump Speaks During Roundtable With Business Leaders in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Washington, DC on December 10, 2025 (Shutterstock/Lucas Parker)

When Trump's big Venezuela oil grab runs smack into reality

Latin America

Within hours of U.S. military strikes on Venezuela and the capture of its leader, Nicolas Maduro, President Trump proclaimed that “very large United States oil companies would go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, and start making money for the country.”

Indeed, at no point during this exercise has there been any attempt to deny that control of Venezuela’s oil (or “our oil” as Trump once described it) is a major force motivating administration actions.

keep readingShow less
us military
Top photo credit: Shutterstock/PRESSLAB

Team America is back! And keeping with history, has no real plan

Latin America

The successful seizure and removal of President Nicolas Maduro from Venezuela demonstrates Washington’s readiness to use every means at its disposal — including military power — to stave off any diminishment of U.S. national influence in its bid to manage the dissolution of the celebrated postwar, liberal order.

For the moment, the rules-based order (meaning whatever rules Washington wants to impose) persists in the Western Hemisphere. As President Donald Trump noted, “We can do it again. Nobody can stop us. There’s nobody with the capability that we have.”

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.