Steven Kull is Program Director of the Program for Public Consultation,
Large bipartisan majorities favor proposals that would prohibit the sale of U.S. real estate and oil reserves to entities linked to foreign adversaries, including China and Russia. Three-quarters (73 percent) support a prohibition on the sale of property, including farmland; while 72 percent support a prohibition on selling oil from U.S. oil reserves, according to an in-depth study by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy.
Concerns among Members of Congress over the economic relations of the U.S. with its adversaries, particularly China, have been on the rise. This has been caused in part by increasing purchases of U.S. agricultural land by Chinese companies; as well as the sale of U.S. oil reserves to Chinese energy companies. Members of Congress and state legislatures have introduced legislation to address this issue. Rep. Gallagher, the Chairman of the House select committee on China, recently put forward a bipartisan bill which would give federal officials greater authority to block companies affiliated with foreign adversaries from acquiring certain U.S. lands, particularly those near sensitive sites (e.g. military bases, telecommunication infrastructure.)
The public consultation survey of 2,625 registered voters ensured that respondents understood the issues by first providing a short briefing on the proposals and having them evaluate arguments for and against. The content was reviewed by expert proponents and opponents of the proposals to ensure that the briefing was accurate and balanced and that the arguments presented were the strongest ones being made.
Currently, the federal government reviews sales of major businesses, technologies and land near military sites to foreign entities, and blocks them if they are deemed a national security risk. One proposal would expand this authority to cover sales of all land and real estate, and require the sale be blocked if the purchaser is determined to be linked to a foreign adversary, whether or not it directly poses a national security risk ( H.R. 212). This is favored by 73 percent (Republicans 84 percent, Democrats 64 percent, independents 69 percent).
The other proposal focused specifically on blocking sales of farmland to foreign entities if the sale is determined to be a national security risk ( S. 138). Support for this proposal is even higher at 80 percent (Republicans 84 percent, Democrats 78 percent, independents 77 percent).
All of the arguments in favor of these proposals were found convincing by a bipartisan majority, including the arguments that: control of property could give adversaries an inroad to influence our politics (87 percent convincing); this is a smart foreign policy move to give U.S. leverage over China (80 percent); and adversaries’ purchase of farmland is a risk to our food security (88 percent).
The arguments against were found convincing by less than half, including the arguments that this will: lead to discrimination against ordinary Chinese individuals and businesses in the U.S. (41 percent, though 54 percent of Democrats found it convincing); worsen already tense relations with our adversaries (40 percent); and hurt foreign investment in the U.S. (35 percent).
The second part of the survey was on a proposal to prohibit the sale of oil from the U.S.’ Strategic Petroleum Reserve to any company affiliated with a foreign adversary, most of which are owned or controlled by their national government ( H.R.293, H.R. 21, S. 283). A bipartisan majority of nearly three-quarters (72%) were in favor of prohibiting such sales (Republicans 82 percent, Democrats 65 percent, independents 66 percent).
“Historically, Americans tend to support limiting economic relations with adversaries,” commented Steven Kull, director of PPC.
The sample was large enough to enable analysis of attitudes in very Republican and very Democratic districts based on Cook PVI ratings. In all cases, very large majorities favored the ban on land and real estate purchases (very red 79 percent to very blue 62 percent) and the ban on oil reserve purchases (very red 75 percent to very blue 60 percent).
Though there was strong support for limiting economic engagement with China, among other adversaries, only one in three said they saw China as an enemy (34 percent), with large partisan differences (Republicans 53 percent, Democrats 19 percent). Rather, a majority (59 percent) saw China as a competitor, while just seven percent saw it as a partner. These perceptions relate to support for these new restrictions. Nearly nine-in-ten of those who view China as an enemy favored the property and oil reserve restrictions (89 percent and 88 percent, respectively), with support dropping to around two-thirds among those who said competitor (68 percent and 65 percent), and below half among those who said partner (43 percent and 47 percent).
The survey was fielded online May 19-30, 2023 with a probability-based national sample of 2,625 registered voters provided by Nielsen Scarborough from its larger sample, which is recruited by telephone and mail from a random sample of households. There is a margin of error of +/- 1.9 percent.
Questionnaire with Frequencies
Slides with Findings
Try the Policymaking Simulation
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.