One year into Democratic control of the U.S. government, adults under age 40 have a decidedly negative view of the current and future states of the nation, regardless of party and race, according to a new survey.
Two-third of respondents, who include millennials and Generation Z, have a pessimistic view of the future of the United States, according to polling by Civiqs for the Alliance for Youth Organizing. That includes 62 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Republicans and 70 percent of independents. Only 13 percent said they were optimistic.
Sixty-eight percent of white respondents said they were pessimistic, slightly higher than Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (67 percent), Latinos (63) and Black people (60).
A significant portion of the negativity aligns with a belief that the federal government is not addressing issues important to the under-40 crowd.
More than 90 percent of young Americans are either frustrated (56 percent) or angry (37 percent) with politicians in Washington. More Democrats are frustrated, while Republicans are mostly angry, with independents nearly evenly divided.
Almost half of all respondents (48 percent), including 59 percent of independents, said the Biden administration is not working on “policies that positively impact your life.” Only 5 percent said leaders in Washington, D.C., are focused on young people and students, although 40 percent said there’s no difference among the age groups.
But three-quarters of all respondents, slightly more than half of Republicans, said politicians in D.C., are focused on wealthy people.
(Young Americans are somewhat more positive about state and local governments. Approximately one-quarter said they are “satisfied,” with only slight variations by party and race.)
“If politicians in D.C. don’t change course and start delivering on the issues that young people care about most — health care, student loan debt, climate change, and more — they risk losing the trust and support of this crucial voting bloc,” said Carmel Pryor, senior director of communications for the Alliance for Youth Organizing.
When asked to name the their top three policies for elected officials to address, respondents most often said:
- Increase taxes on corporations and the wealthy (30 percent).
- Transition to 100% clean and renewable energy (25 percent).
- Replace private insurance with Medicare for All (23 percent).
- Restore protections against racial voter discrimination (21 percent).
- Cancel student loan debt (20 percent).
The pollsters also asked about their top two priorities for voting and elections. Nearly one half of respondents prioritized ending partisan gerrymandering (47 percent) and 39 percent selected stopping voter suppression/protecting voters from racial discrimination.
“Political leaders must engage and win the trust of GenZ and millennial voters — particularly youth of color — because young people are crucial to the path to victory for any candidate running this year,” said the group’s executive director, Dakota Hall.
But respondents put much of the responsibility for getting more out of politicians on themselves. One-third said the best method is for more young people to run for office with another 22 percent saying they need to increase voter turnout among the age cohort. Republicans were a bit of an outlier. While they agreed that running for office is the best method, 18 percent countered that politicians are already doing enough for young people. Just 9 percent said to focus on turnout.
In 2020, 57 percent of citizens ages 18-34 cast a ballot, an 8-point increase from 2016 and the biggest jump of any age group.
With control of the House and Senate up for grabs this November, young voters could have a significant say in which party controls the agenda on Capitol Hill.
Data-based rankings produced by the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, housed within Tufts University’s Tisch College, shows which Senate races can be most impacted by the youth vote.
Pennsylvania tops the Youth Electoral Significance Index, given its above average youth voter registration and turnout rates. According to the CIRCLE, President Biden garnered 127,000 more votes among the youth than Donald Trump in a race decided by fewer than 35,000 ballots.
The remaining top 10 Senate races are in: Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, New Hampshire, Nevada, Florida, Ohio, Colorado.ci
The survey, conducted Jan. 2-6, polled 1,936 people ages 17-39.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Pinnacle Bank Expo Center on the Nebraska State Fairgrounds on October 05, 2026 in Grand Island, Nebraska.
The President Invited Iran to Bomb My Home
I was driving home to San Diego from Los Angeles on Monday night when I heard that the President of the United States had offered both cities up to Iran as bomb targets. At a rally in Nebraska, defending his war, Trump told the crowd, “let [Iran] take out Los Angeles, let ‘em take out San Diego.” It was, he said, “a very small price to pay.”
I was coming from a Bernie Sanders rally for Proposition 40, the one-time tax on California billionaires that would send 90% of its revenue to healthcare. We desperately need it to pass because, in order to give tax breaks to billionaires, Trump signed a law that will strip health coverage from 10 million Americans; this tax will make sure we can still cover Californians. Call me crazy, but I think taxing billionaires one time so we can make sure kids in California get to see a doctor is a very small price to pay. I also think that even if Trump were joking, it is indefensible to make jokes about the potential destruction of so many lives. Human life is never a small price to pay. Human life is priceless.
Plus, the reality is: here in San Diego, we’re already paying the price for Trump’s actions, and it’s not small at all. He has gutted FEMA, tried to kill climate resiliency programs, and destroyed public health standards, while his signature law is set to cut off health insurance and food support for hundreds of thousands of San Diegans. Like plenty of American cities, San Diego is already busy finding local solutions to respond to the problems this president has recklessly created.
Not to mention, at least 19 American service members have been killed in this war already. Human rights monitors have documented more than 3,600 dead in Iran by April alone. Here at home, gas is sitting just pennies below its all-time record. Taxpayers have already spent more than $45 billion on the war, while Trump’s oil and gas portfolio has grown by roughly $15.5 million this year alone. Of course anything is a “small price” to someone paying free.99 for this war, and profiting from it. Meanwhile, We the People are paying twice: first for the war, and then for the consequences of that war. But now he wants San Diego to pay a third time, flippantly offering us up to Iran.
It is worth noticing which cities he thought to name. Were San Diego and Los Angeles strategically chosen to signify something to his audience, or were they simply the first cities that came to mind as expendable places? Either way, the effect is to normalize—-and to gauge a crowd’s reaction to–the idea of massive violence in major California cities, suitable targets because of their perceived liberal lean. So what if Iran needs to bomb a little bit of America before the war can be over? Who cares, says Trump, if they target Los Angeles and San Diego?
By the way, why didn’t he offer up San Francisco, the free-love hippie-town MAGA loves to hate (and also my birthplace)? Could it be because that’s where the tech titans live? The same ones who joined Trump for Xi Jinping’s state dinner, a guest list worth a combined $2.4 trillion?
San Diego may have fewer billionaires, but it is home to more than 115,000 active-duty service members and 230,000 veterans. One in six active-duty sailors–in the entire Navy–is stationed here. So is one in four Marines. You cannot throw a rock in this county without hitting a military family: brats and spouses and veterans are among us. I got out of the Navy last year after ten years, and eight of those were here in San Diego. When Trump says “let ‘em take out San Diego,” he’s talking about the backbone of the United States military. He’s also talking about the people fighting his war.
San Diego has not been watching this war from the sidelines. Today, the USS Abraham Lincoln returns to North Island after an almost yearlong deployment to the Middle East that featured food shortages, broken toilets, and mold in the showers after 286 days at sea without a single port call. Eight sailors in the Lincoln’s strike group attempted suicide, but in August, when a reporter asked whether the deployment had gone on too long, Trump said “not nearly long enough.” Now he has told a crowd in Nebraska that we should let Iran take out the city those sailors call home. These are sociopathic sentiments.
Last week at Quantico, Pete Hegseth closed his address to the force by telling them, “President Trump has your back and so do I.” To the contrary, President Trump has put one of the biggest military towns in the country forward as a target for our adversaries. With friends like these, the “domestic” in “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” starts to sound a lot less hypothetical.
San Diego is home to Naval Air Station North Island, Naval Base San Diego, Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, the Point Loma submarine base, Camp Pendleton, and Miramar (and I have been permanently stationed at or trained at all of them). If Iran bombed San Diego and Los Angeles, aside from the devastating loss of life, it would cripple an immense share of our national security readiness.
And for what, exactly? Trump says the war is “essentially almost over with.” This is the same man who claimed in June 2025 that Iran’s nuclear program had been “obliterated,” then launched a war over it anyway on February 28. More than seven months later, he wants us to believe two things at once: that we’ve basically won, and that we might need to sacrifice an American city or two to finish winning. If the war is almost over, why does anybody need to take out San Diego?
I wonder if Trump’s endorsed candidate for California’s 48th District here in San Diego County will respond to these remarks. He recently said “no pain, no gain,” when referring to the gas prices San Diegans are paying. Jim Desmond, would you apply that same mindset if we were bombed? Or do you have the moral courage to stand up for the people you’re running to represent?
Last November, six Democratic members of Congress, all veterans, including Senator Mark Kelly, recorded a video reminding troops of their duty to disobey unlawful orders, restating the law that says so. Trump called it “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH,” and then his Justice Department went looking for an indictment, which a grand jury refused. The president treated reading the law out loud to the troops as a capital offense, but then he himself invited a foreign enemy to destroy two American cities, possibly as a punchline. Is anyone calling the latter sedition? Who is demanding accountability?
Calling our lives a small price to pay affirms a moral bankruptcy, as well as an obvious dereliction of duty to the office he holds. While we can’t impeach him or invoke the 25th Amendment ourselves, we must stop being so quiet about what we’re paying already. We can make our voices heard by calling our representatives, writing op-eds, knocking doors, phone banking, and voting in defiance of the man who threatens the safety of our city. Ballots are already arriving in mailboxes. Vote, and vote yes on 40 (and no on 41 and 42).
Trump has been harming our cities for a while, but now he is inviting our military adversaries to join him in the harm. If we have any self-respect as Americans, we must not tolerate our leaders disregarding the dignity of lives in this way. We must fight for our home.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.