The Chicago Council on Global Affairs

10/01/2026 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 10/01/2026 07:47

Americans, Foreign Policy, and the 2026 Midterms

Results and analysis of the Council's 2026 annual survey of American views on foreign policy.

Americans are approaching the midterm elections on November 3 after 20 months of dizzying policy actions both at home and abroad since President Donald Trump took office for the second time. His administration has enacted sweeping changes to US immigration policies as well as cuts to government agencies, food assistance, and myriad other domestic programs. On the foreign policy side, the administration has combined economic pressure-higher tariffs against trading partners, reduced foreign aid, and demands for increased defense spending from US allies-with substantial military action abroad, most prominently in Iran.

On the surface, Americans rate foreign policy issues a lower priority in the runup to midterm voting than inflation and cost-of-living concerns. But the 2026 Chicago Council Survey, fielded July 10-21, 2026, finds that most Americans believe the Trump administration's foreign policy actions have negatively impacted America's global standing and hurt national and household economic conditions. The direct link perceived by the public between their household finances, the Iran war, and Trump's tariff regime helps elevate foreign policy issues for everyday Americans.

Americans Link Iran War and Tariffs to Higher Costs of Living at Home

Economic issues are front of mind for many Americans heading to the polls this November, and most people think their political leaders have not been paying enough attention to critical pocketbook issues. Pluralities across the political spectrum say inflation and the cost of living are most important to their votes (37% overall), followed by government corruption (19%) and control of Congress (19%).

Few Americans name the US-Iran war as their most important voting issue (2%), yet the war is a factor that has shaped the economic anxieties taking center stage in midterm decisions. And Americans seem well aware of the linkages between the two. According to Council polling, Americans broadly view the US-Iran war as bad for the cost of living in the country (86%), as well as the United States' international relations (72%), reputation abroad (72%), and national security (65%).

It's not just the Iran war that Americans associate with domestic problems. The second Trump administration's widespread tariffs are also deeply unpopular. In Chicago Council polls this year, large majorities of Americans have said that US tariffs on imports have been bad for the US economy (71%) and the cost of living at home (81%). Even Republican Party supporters think the tariffs have been bad for the cost of living (62%), along with overwhelming majorities of Democrats (94%) and Independents (86%). At the same time, Republicans say tariffs have been good for job creation (64%) and for the US economy (56%), especially those who identify with the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement (79% good for employment and 71% good for economy).

The public also believes the tariffs placed on imports specifically from China have negatively impacted the cost of living in the United States (76%) and the US economy (66%). And over the past two years, Americans have grown more supportive of pursuing cooperation with Beijing (57%, up from 40% in 2024) rather than actively limiting the growth of China's power.

Most Say Iran War Not Worth the Costs

When weighing the costs of the Iran war against the benefits, the majority of Americans think the war has not been worth fighting (68% vs. 31% worth fighting). Republicans alone express majority support for the war (63% say it is worth fighting). In sharp contrast, nine in 10 Democrats (91%) and three in four Independents (76%) believe it has not been worth the costs.

Aside from its negative economic impacts, the US war with Iran has not been viewed as a success on wider dimensions. Most Americans believe the war has negatively affected the United States' relationship with allies (72%), the country's reputation abroad (72%), and US national security (65%). A majority do, however, think US military action has degraded Iran's position in the Middle East (76%).

US Support for Israel Shaping Up to Be an Electoral Issue

Recent primary elections in key US states have helped to illuminate cracks in American support for Israel. When asked to rate their feelings toward Israel on a thermometer scale (where 100 is the warmest possible feeling), Americans provide an average rating of 44 out of 100, an all-time low in Chicago Council Surveys.

Favorable views have declined among Republicans (from 69 in 2022 to 62 today) and Independents (from 56 to 41). But attitudes have particularly sunk among self-described Democrats (from 52 in 2022 to just 30 today). Some of these declines are likely related to Israel's role in the Iran war, but the drop began earlier during Israeli military action in Gaza following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks.

In fact, a combined 56 percent of Americans now favor reducing (21%) or eliminating (35%) US military aid to Israel, an increase from just a third who said the same in 2014 (37%). This is also a sharply partisan issue. While Democrats (72%) and Independents (64%) think US military aid to Israel should be decreased or stopped altogether, Republicans continue to favor maintaining or increasing this support (68%).

Republicans Favor Increased Immigration Enforcement; Democrats Oppose Such Increases

The Trump administration came in especially focused on immigration policies, claiming it would execute the largest mass-deportation program in US history by granting wide operational authority to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It also created new barriers to legal immigration, even attempting to revoke birthright citizenship as a constitutional right.

Compared to public opinion in advance of the 2024 presidential election, far fewer Americans consider immigration a critical threat to the country (35%, down from 50% in 2024). Today, just 29 percent of Independents and a record-low 10 percent of Democrats view large-scale migration as a threat. Yet Republicans still consider immigration the top threat facing the country (67% critical threat, tied with 68% who name the Iran war), consistent with their opinion over the past three decades.

Reflecting this difference, Republicans and Democrats diverge sharply on federal immigration enforcement funding. Two-thirds of Democrats (68%) favor cutting the immigration enforcement budget, as do a plurality of Independents (44%)-but just 7 percent of Republicans agree. Instead, six in 10 Republicans (61%) favor expanding federal spending on immigration enforcement (vs. 23% of Independents and 10% of Democrats).

Despite the Chaos, Majorities Still Want to Engage with the World

Overall, six in 10 Americans continue to say the United States should play an active part in world affairs (58%), similar to views over the last four years. But there have been some partisan shifts. For the first time since 2012, GOP supporters are equally likely as Democrats to favor an active US global role. This increase among Republicans (63%, up from 59% in 2025) and decrease among Democrats (60%, down from 67%)-with Independents (52%) staying consistent-most likely reflect partisan assessments of the Trump administration and its policies.

Beyond diverging views toward the administration's specific policies on Iran, trade, and immigration, there are also some clear differences in how Republicans and Democrats would like the United States to operate on the world stage. Two-thirds of Americans (65%)-including 79 percent of Democrats and 67 percent of Independents-prefer the United States share global leadership with other countries. But Republicans are nearly as likely to say the United States should share leadership (49%) as say it should be the dominant leader (45%), reflecting a significant unilateralist trend among these partisans.

Conclusion

It is usually difficult for policymakers and political leaders to tangibly demonstrate to everyday citizens how foreign policy impacts their daily lives. Former US President Joe Biden even attempted a strategy to do just that with his administration's "Foreign Policy for the Middle Class." When foreign policy is working in a way that improves, or at least stabilizes, households' standard of living, Americans often don't see behind the scenes. For example, some might not consider how trade relationships could help maintain or lower costs for consumer goods and fuel prices or how the tenor of US relations with allies could affect US national and international security.

By upending some of this stability, the Trump administration's policies may have brought this connection into sharper focus. Most Americans think the administration's current economic and military decisions have put the country in a worse place. Majorities also believe the war with Iran has hurt US relations with allies, the US global reputation, and US national security. And many Americans seem to think the United States has lost some of its soft power: They would prefer that their country be admired by the rest of the world, but instead more say the United States is currently more feared than admired.

While most Americans across party lines oppose withdrawing from global involvement and want the United States to actively participate, an active role in the world means different things to different groups of Americans. For example, partisans diverge on whether it is best for the United States to share global leadership or play a dominant leadership role. Similarly, the public views international trade as good for the United States, but many also favor some protectionist policies to safeguard US jobs. And on immigration, there are enormous partisan divisions on how great a threat it poses and whether Trump's policies have gone too far.

In short, the differences among Americans' US foreign policy preferences seem to be linked to the perceived costs and consequences of various approaches to US foreign policy. With economic factors weighing heavily on midterms voters' minds, these tradeoffs are inextricably linked to many of the country's foreign policy decisions over the past year, particularly US tariff policy and the war in Iran.

Read the full report.

Related Event

Oct
1
Nam Y. Huh / AP
Hybrid EVENT
John Lapinski, Dina Smeltz, and Asma Khalid unpack what the results of the 2026 Chicago Council survey tell us about Americans' foreign policy priorities heading into the midterms. Register Now
About the Authors
Managing Director & Chair, Public Opinion and Foreign Policy, Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Dina Smeltz, a polling expert, has more than 25 years of experience designing and fielding international social and political surveys. Prior to joining the Council to lead its annual survey of American attitudes on US foreign policy, she served in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the US State Department's Office of Research from 1992 to 2008.
Director, Public Opinion and Foreign Policy, Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Craig Kafura is the director of public opinion and foreign policy at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, a Security Fellow with the Truman National Security Project, and a Pacific Forum Young Leader. At the Council, he coordinates work on public opinion and foreign policy and is a regular contributor to the public opinion and foreign policy blog Running Numbers.
Research Associate, Public Opinion and Foreign Policy, Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Lama El Baz joined the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in 2023 and currently serves as the research associate for public opinion and foreign policy. She is passionate about public opinion research, data analytics, and the regional affairs of the Middle East and North Africa.
Caroline Bach
Intern
Caroline Bach joined the Council in June 2026 as an intern on the public opinion and foreign policy team.
Foreign Policy Advisory Board
Senior Nonresident Fellow, Public Opinion and Foreign Policy, Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Joshua Busby is a professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas in Austin. He is also a senior nonresident fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
Claire Tow Professor of Political Science, Barnard College; Senior Nonresident Fellow, Eurasia Affairs, Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Alexander Cooley is the Claire Tow Professor of Political Science at Barnard College and former director of Columbia University's Harriman Institute for the Study of Russia, Eurasia, and Eastern Europe. His research focuses on sovereignty, governance, and political development in post-Communist states, especially in Central Asia and the Caucasus. He joined the Chicago Council as a senior nonresident fellow on Eurasia affairs in 2025.
Senior Nonresident Fellow, Public Opinion and Foreign Policy, Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Daniel W. Drezner is a senior nonresident fellow of public opinion and foreign policy at the Council. He's currently a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and the author of "Spoiler Alerts" at The Washington Post.
Heather Hurlburt
Associate Fellow, US and the Americas Program, Chatham House
Heather Hurlburt has spent her career bridging the gap between international affairs and American politics and is an Associate Fellow in the US and the Americas Program at Chatham House. From 2022 to 2024, she served as chief of staff to US Trade Representative Katherine Tai, overseeing strategy and management for the agency carrying out President Biden's worker-centered trade policy.
Senior Nonresident Fellow, Public Opinion and Foreign Policy, Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Bruce W. Jentleson is a senior nonresident fellow of public opinion and foreign policy at the Council and a professor of public policy and political science at Duke University. He's served in a number of US foreign policy positions, including senior advisor to the State Department Policy Planning Director, and a senior foreign policy advisor to the 2000 Al Gore presidential campaign, among others.
James M. Lindsay
Mary and David Boies Distinguished Senior Fellow in US Foreign Policy and Director of Fellowship Affairs, Council on Foreign Relations
James M. Lindsay, the Mary and David Boies distinguished senior fellow in US foreign policy and director of Fellowship Affairs at the Council on Foreign Relations, focuses on US national security policy, the US foreign policymaking process, and the domestic politics of US foreign policy.
ST Lee Professor of US-Asia Relations, Harvard Kennedy School
Rana Mitter is ST Lee Chair in US-Asia Relations at Harvard Kennedy School. He is the author of "China's Good War: How World War II is Shaping a New Nationalism" (2020) and "Forgotten Ally: China's World War II" (2013), and he regularly comments on China in media and at international forums.
Professor of Political Science and Director, Chicago Project on Security & Threats, University of Chicago
Robert Pape is a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, specializing in national and international security affairs. He directs the Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism and focuses on air power, political violence, terrorism, and US national security policy.
Senior Nonresident Fellow, Foreign Policy and Public Opinion, Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Paul Poast is an associate professor of political science at the University of Chicago. In addition to being a senior nonresident fellow on foreign policy and public opinion at the Council, he's also a foreign affairs columnist for World Politics Review. His research, funded by the National Science Foundation, has received numerous awards and recognitions-notably the Walter Isard Award and the Lepgold Prize.
Senior Director, Future Frontlines and Planetary Politics, New America
Candace Rondeaux is the senior director for New America's Future Frontlines program on next generation security issues, as well as the Planetary Politics initiative, which seeks solutions to the challenges posed by digitization and decarbonization.
Elizabeth Saunders
Professor of Political Science, Columbia University
Elizabeth Saunders is a professor of political science at Columbia University, in addition to serving as director of the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies.
Kori Schake
Senior Fellow and Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute
Kori Schake is a senior fellow and the director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Before joining AEI, she was the deputy director-general of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. She is the author of five books, including her most recent, "The State and the Soldier: A History of Civil-Military Relations in the United States" (2025).
Senior Nonresident Fellow, Public Opinion and Foreign Policy, Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Jordan Tama is a senior nonresident fellow of public opinion and foreign policy at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. He's a professor in the Department of Foreign Policy and Global Security at American University and a principal at Bridging the Gap.
President & Chief Executive Officer, Chicago Council on Global Affairs
Dr. Leslie Vinjamuri joined the Council in 2025 as the president and chief executive officer, after previously serving as director of the US and the Americas program at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, known as Chatham House, in London. She is Professor of Practice in International Studies and Diplomacy at SOAS University of London.

Media Inquiries

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs published this content on October 01, 2026, and is solely responsible for the information contained herein. Distributed via Public Technologies (PUBT), unedited and unaltered, on October 01, 2026 at 13:47 UTC. If you believe the information included in the content is inaccurate or outdated and requires editing or removal, please contact us at [email protected]