A new Chicago Council on Global Affairs poll finds that 63% of Americans support continued aid to Ukraine in its war against the Russian invasion, while 53% overall say it’s been “worth the cost.” Some 45% say it has not been worth the cost.
The new numbers represent a slight dip — 65% supported aid in November last year (down from 72% in July 2022). The biggest decline is coming from Republicans — no surprise there. According to the poll, 50% of Americans who identify as Republican support continued arms aid to Ukraine, a drop of 18 points since July last year, and a full 30 points from the beginning of the war in February 2022.
Meanwhile, Democratic support has remained steady at 77%, down just two points from July 2022.
On the issue of whether the support is “worth the cost,” the numbers are partisan mirror opposites. For Republicans, 38% say U.S. weapons support has been worth it, while 61% say no. For Democrats, 69% say yes, 29% say no.
Interestingly, strong majorities still say NATO (and consequently, U.S. troops) should get directly involved if a NATO country is attacked. According to the poll, roughly 64% say they would favor sending U.S. troops to fight if Russia attacked a NATO ally like Germany; while 57% said they would support the same if Russia attacked allies like Latvia or Lithuania.
As an alliance, by the way, NATO still enjoys a healthy support from both parties, with 77% saying the U.S. should maintain its support and commitment, only down from 81% last July.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is the Editorial Director of Responsible Statecraft.
Ukraine, Kiev - October 12, 2022 3 soldiers of the foreign legion in Ukraine pay homage to one of their killed in action. A small flag with the name of the dead soldier is planted in the main square. (Jose Hernandez Camera 51/Shutterstock)
Ukraine, Kiev - October 12, 2022 3 soldiers of the foreign legion in Ukraine pay homage to one of their killed in action. A small flag with the name of the dead soldier is planted in the main square. (Jose Hernandez Camera 51/Shutterstock)
New Gallup polling indicates that, for the first time, a minority of Americans — only 46% — are sympathetic toward Israelis. The percentage is the lowest recorded in Gallup’s 25 years of tracking the issue via its annual World Affairs Survey.
While the polling shows that Americans are more sympathetic toward Israelis over Palestinians overall (46% vs. 33%), U.S. adults are reporting they are more sympathetic toward Palestinians, up 6% from last year.
Americans’ views are largely split by political affiliation, according to Gallup. Republicans remain broadly supportive of Israelis, with 75% sympathizing with them over the Palestinians. Democrats, meanwhile, now side with Palestinians over Israelis by an almost 3-to-1 ratio (59% vs. 21%).
And a majority of Americans support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, though Democrats (76%) and Independents (53%) support the idea more than Republicans do (41%).
Americans’ increased Palestinian sympathies follow an extended Israeli war on the Gaza strip, that has killed more than 48,000 Palestinians and wounded 110,000 others, though bodies are still being recovered from the rubble.
Previous polling suggests Americans’ changing attitudes toward the Israel-Palestine issue can impact election results. Indeed, a mid-January YouGov pollbacked by the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) Policy Project indicated the Biden administration's Gaza policy was a top reason 2020 Biden voters stayed home in 2024, costing then Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris critical votes.
The cease-fire agreement on the Gaza Strip is on the verge of dissolving, for reasons that were predictable when the agreement was reached in January.
To follow an initial six-week phase, which has just concluded, the agreement envisioned second and third phases that would see the additional release of hostages by both sides, Israeli military withdrawals from the Strip, and a reconstruction plan. But those parts of the agreement were mere outlines or statements of objectives, with further negotiations needed to resolve all the details.
As addressed in Responsible Statecraft when the agreement was announced, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has strong personal and political reasons to keep Israel at war, including his need to maintain a coalition with extreme right-wingers in his government whose policy on Gaza is to eliminate all Palestinians from the Strip.
Netanyahu thus has had incentives to sabotage the cease-fire agreement before its implementation could proceed to a permanent cessation of hostilities.
Such sabotage is well under way. Israel has frequently violated the cease-fire throughout phase one with air and ground attacks that have inflicted casualties. With Hamas not taking the bait of responding with full-scale hostilities, Netanyahu is now trying to junk the entire second and third phases of the agreement and replace it with something more to Israel’s liking. Instead of negotiating the details of phase two, as required by the agreement, Netanyahu is pushing a formula that includes a 50-day cease-fire, by the end of which all the Israeli hostages would be released.
With no provision in Netanyahu’s proposal for either an Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza or a permanent cessation of hostilities, the formula is an obvious non-starter for Hamas. It would be giving up its remaining bargaining chips for nothing in return. Hamas described Netanyahu’s proposal as “a blatant attempt to renege on the agreement and evade negotiations for its second phase.”
Meanwhile, other Israeli violations of the January agreement continue. Last week Israel indicated that it will not withdraw its forces, as stipulated in the agreement, from the Philadelphi corridor, an area along the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt. This week Israel began blocking all humanitarian aid from entering the Gaza Strip.
The incentives for Netanyahu to resume Israel’s assault on Gaza rather than see an agreement through to lasting peace are at least as strong now as they were in mid-January. The biggest factor in this equation is the Trump administration’s deference to Israeli preferences, as reflected in Netanyahu’s smiling face after hearing that President Trump is just as much in favor of complete ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip as the extremists in Netanyahu’s government are.
And those extremists are as gung-ho as ever about resuming the devastating assault on the residents of the Gaza Strip after first starving them and cutting off their supplies of water and electricity.
The most likely near-term scenario for the Gaza Strip is thus a resumption of the Israeli military assault. Such a resumption will have no more chance of achieving the declared Israeli objective of “destroying Hamas” than the earlier 15 months of devastation did.
As for the suffering civilian population of Gaza, notwithstanding any resentment against Hamas for its decision to launch the October 2023 attack on Israel, those civilians have been given no attractive alternative to continued resistance. Whoever might someday enjoy Trump’s vision of a “Riviera of the Middle East” in Gaza, it will not be the Palestinians who currently live there. They would instead face squalor in exile, and even then would not be safe from more Israeli attacks.
The original January agreement, notwithstanding all its weaknesses, represented the best that international diplomacy could produce at the time for immediate management of the Gaza tragedy. The fact that the accord was reached only after many weeks of mediation and negotiation shows that it was the most that could be squeezed from the parties — including from Hamas, despite the battering it had taken during more than a year of war.
The United States has the leverage, especially given its voluminous military aid to Israel, to create incentives for the agreement to remain in force and for serious negotiations on phases two and three to occur. Clearly the Trump administration is not using that leverage. In fact, Netanyahu says that his alternative formula for a temporary cease-fire with no permanent end of hostilities and no Israeli withdrawal was a framework proposed by Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witcoff — the same Steve Witcoff who had been given credit for brokering the original January agreement.
In addition to implications for the suffering people of Gaza, this turn by the administration has implications for U.S. credibility. For the United States to help destroy an agreement that the same U.S. administration — and even the same U.S. envoy — had helped to negotiate will amplify foreign doubts, already present because of the administration’s similar reversals regarding international trade, about the ability and willingness of the United States to abide by its commitments.
If alternatives to the January agreement on Gaza are to be considered, certainly one should look at what the Arab states are doing. The Arabs have had some challenges getting their collective act together, mainly because of different attitudes toward Hamas and political Islamism generally, but at a just-concluded summit meeting in Cairo they endorsed an Egyptian plan that addresses reconstruction and temporary administration of the Gaza Strip.
Egypt’s proposal calls for a technocratic, nonpartisan Palestinian committee to administer the Strip during a six-month transition. Hamas welcomed the proposal, a posture consistent with earlier indications that the group is not anxious to keep administering Gaza itself, even if it will continue to resist unilateral disarmament of its military capability. Israel rejected the proposal, consistent with its opposition to anything that hints at a path toward Palestinian self-governance.
The Trump administration brushed aside the Egyptian proposal and reiterated its support for Trump’s Riviera-in-Gaza idea. The White House spokesman also repeated the administration’s bizarre line that because “Gaza is currently uninhabitable,” this somehow is a reason to support the policies of the state that made Gaza uninhabitable.
The White House confirmed this week that the administration has held secret talks with Hamas, in a contact that evidently focused on release of hostages and especially American hostages. The fact that the U.S. official involved was the special representative for hostage affairs rather than Witcoff implies such an agenda. There is no indication that the broader administration position changed, with President Trump issuing a bellicose statement threatening Hamas and saying that he is “sending Israel everything it needs to finish the job” in Gaza.
Although the Egyptian proposal deserves attention for dealing with the immediate situation, calls for the Arabs to come up with their own ideas are somewhat strange given that the Arab League produced more than two decades ago a peace proposal that offers peace and full recognition of Israel by all Arab states if Israel ends its occupation of Palestinian territories and accepts a Palestinian state.
That proposal is still on the table.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: Mar 4, 2025; Wyandotte, MI, USA; Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., rehearses the Democratic response to President Donald Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday, March 4, 2025, in Wyandotte, Mich. Mandatory Credit: Paul Sancya-Pool via Imagn Images
In 2024, the Democratic Party ran a campaign that explicitly embraced Washington’s tired national security orthodoxy. Presidential nominee Kamala Harris campaigned alongside hawkish former GOP Congresswoman Liz Cheney and welcomed the endorsement of her father, Dick.
Meanwhile, the campaign refused to distance itself from the Biden administration’s unconditional support for Israel’s war on Gaza or its failed Ukraine policy. The party’s platform attacked Donald Trump, who, during his first term, brought the country to the brink of war with Iran, as being too soft on the Islamic Republic. The strategy ultimately proved ineffective.
Less than two months into Trump’s second presidency, the Democrats have apparently not learned any lessons.
There was certainly no discernible shift in party messaging to be found in Sen. Elissa Slotkin’s (D-Mich.) response to the president’s address to Congress on Tuesday. The recently-elected senator — herself a CIA veteran and an alum of the Bush and Obama administrations — delivered a speech full of nostalgia for past Republican presidents and doubled down on criticism of Trump’s supposed abandonment of American exceptionalism and global leadership.
“President Trump loves to promise ‘peace through strength.’ That's actually a line he stole from Ronald Reagan. But let me tell you, after the spectacle that just took place in the Oval Office last week, Reagan must be rolling over in his grave,” she said, referring to Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance’s explosive meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky. “As a Cold War kid, I'm thankful it was Reagan and not Trump in office in the 1980s. Trump would have lost us the Cold War.”
The president’s own speech was relatively light on foreign policy. Certainly there was space to criticize his continued push for aggressive unilateral actions in Greenland, Mexico, and the Panama Canal. But the Democratic respondent instead focused on his worldview, which she made a point of noting was a break with the two presidents under whom she served. “Donald Trump's actions suggest that, in his heart, he doesn't believe we are an exceptional nation,” said Slotkin. “He clearly doesn't think we should lead the world.”
The fact of the matter is that this Democratic rhetoric is increasingly unpopular, particularly among younger voters. Only 39% of Gen Xers and 43% of millennials agree with the belief that the United States is the greatest country in the world, according to a 2022 survey, compared to a majority of respondents from older generations. CNN polling recently found voters approved far more of Trump’s approach to Ukraine (+2% net approval) — the primary target of Slotkin’s rebuttal — than Biden’s in late 2024 (-22%). On the flip side, the more militaristic aspects of Trump’s foreign policy proposal, such as his repeated pledges to “take over” the Panama Canal, Greenland, Canada, or the Gaza Strip, poll in the negatives.
Trump mostly ignored the Middle East in his roughly 100-minute address. Some Democrats noticed, but rather than note that he shied away from defending his plan to forcibly remove Gazans from their homes, Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) expressed his disappointment that Trump “did not express support for Israel.”
Trump’s foreign policy approach continues to be bombastic, inconsistent, and reckless at times. His administration is notably breaking diplomatic taboos by speaking directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and, as the White House confirmed on Wednesday, with Hamas officials. But the same day that that story broke, Trump directly threatened not only Hamas, but the “People of Gaza” that he will provide Israel with the necessary weapons to “finish the job” and that there “WILL BE HELL TO PAY LATER” if the remainder of the hostages in Gaza are not released immediately.
As the Quincy Institute’s Trita Parsi argued in the first weeks of the Trump presidency, the Democratic Party is running the risk of becoming the party of war. If Tuesday’s response is any indication, the Democratic message remains stale, anchored in outdated foreign policy orthodoxy. The party risks falling into that trap, becoming the party of war rather than one offering a fresh approach to America's role in the world.
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.