Kull is Program Director of the Program for Public Consultation.
A bipartisan majority of seven-in-ten voters favor the U.S. continuing to provide significant military aid to Ukraine to help in their ongoing war with Russia, according to an in-depth study by the Program for Public Consultation together with the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy.
Continuing to provide military aid to Ukraine, including military equipment, ammunition, training and intelligence, was favored by 69%, including 55% of Republicans, 87% of Democrats and 58% of independents. The sample was large enough to enable analysis of attitudes in very Republican and very Democratic districts based on Cook PVI ratings. In both very red and very blue congressional districts, equally large majorities (71%) favored continuing military aid.
The public consultation survey of 2,445 registered voters ensured that respondents understood the issues by first providing a briefing on the history of Ukraine-Russia relations, the events and circumstances leading up to the 2022 invasion, and the current state of the war. They were presented several proposals in detail, and evaluated arguments for and against each before making their final recommendation. The content was reviewed by experts from each side of the debates, to ensure that the briefing was accurate and balanced and that the arguments presented were the strongest ones being made.
Ukraine’s stance has been that it will not start negotiations until Russia first commits to withdraw all its forces from Ukraine. Some Members of Congress and foreign policy leaders have proposed that the U.S. pressure Ukraine to start peace negotiations without this precondition.
When informed about the situation and asked whether the U.S. should “encourage” Ukraine to enter into negotiations, “whether or not Russia first commits to withdraw from all of Ukraine,” 56% said the U.S. should not, including 68% of Democrats and 53% of Independents, but less than half of Republicans (47%).
Recently the Biden administration shifted its position on US fighter jets, allowing NATO allies to send U.S.-made jets to Ukraine, with the U.S. training Ukrainian pilots to operate these jets. A bipartisan majority of 73% approved of this move, including 63% of Republicans, 86% of Democrats, and 64% of independents.
Respondents evaluated arguments for and against continuing military aid, the full text of which can be found in the Questionnaire. The strongest argument was that the U.S. has a duty to help counter Russia’s violation of international law by assisting Ukraine, which was found convincing by 83% (Republicans 76%, Democrats 92%, independents 78%). Close behind was the argument that it is important for U.S. security that Russia does not gain a foothold in Europe, because if they attack a NATO member it would trigger an all-out war (78% convincing, Republicans 70%, Democrats 88%, independents 73%).
The arguments against were found convincing by approximately half of respondents. Majorities of Republicans found them convincing but less than the majorities of Republicans that found the pro arguments convincing. The argument that U.S. involvement risks escalation to nuclear conflict with Russia was found convincing by 46% (Republicans 55%, Democrats 33%, independents 58%). The argument that Europe is perfectly capable of handling the problem itself and that this conflict isn’t going to collapse the world order was found convincing by 52% (Republicans 63%, Democrats 36%, independents 63%).
“Overwhelming bipartisan majorities of Americans agree that it is critical for the U.S. to help uphold the international law against cross-border aggression, even in the face of the risk of escalating to nuclear war,” commented Steven Kull, director of PPC. “While Republicans and independents are responsive to the arguments that the Europeans should take care of the problem, and that the nuclear risks are high, in the end they come out in favor of U.S. involvement.”
Respondents were also asked about the U.S. providing humanitarian aid, including food, shelter and funds for critical infrastructure repair. A bipartisan eight-in-ten were in favor, including 92% of Democrats, 72% of Republicans and 73% of independents.
The survey was fielded online June 15-28, 2023 with a probability-based national sample of 2,445 registered voters provided by Nielsen Scarborough from its larger sample, which is recruited by telephone and mail from a random sample of households. The margin of error is +/- 2%.
The full report can be found here.
U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One on August 14, 2026 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Trump is traveling to Long Island to tour law enforcement facilities in Nassau County and rally support for local Republican candidates ahead of the upcoming midterm elections
Travel Far Enough, You Meet Yourself
Is it possible that our President has simply not traveled enough?
Born and raised in Queens and attending Fordham University in the Bronx, Donald Trump has no record of traveling outside New York until he was over 20, when he transferred to a college in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania. Were his formative years amiss, then, in his learning about other places and other people?
Is his view akin to the famous New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg, an illustration of the United States with New York City as the epicenter of the country and the Hudson River the border of the known world? We can now at least add Washington, D.C., and Mar-a-Lago to the map of “the realm.”
Our President has now traveled some, but what we recommend is another kind of travel. Not a state-sponsored trip or a venture to scout locations for future Trump Towers. This would be a genuine travel experience, enriching and eye-opening, showcasing other cultures and ways of living.
It will extend far beyond viewing military parades, hobnobbing with such “understanding” world leaders as Kim Jong Un, or taking tea with the King.
WHERE, then, should the President go? As Elon Musk’s Starship spacecraft is not yet ready to take passengers to Mars, perhaps he could explore our own vast country?
Maybe he could travel to “flyover country,” the farming states, where his ying-yanging tariffs and trade restrictions have played havoc with rural economies. Or possibly to California, number one in homeless U. S. citizens, and while there, regale homeless veterans (approximately 32,500 nationwide) with tales of his brave exploits invading and bombing foreign countries.
Or he might tour the Great Lakes, and rename the other four?
WHEN should he go? This will be tough, as he is very busy building his ballroom and renaming bodies of water.
How about a trip in early November, around the midterm elections? Despite the long-discredited accusation of widespread voter fraud, it would be reassuring to know he might be so caught up divvying out ladles of soup in a soup kitchen somewhere that he wouldn’t remember to deploy the military for “election security.”
HOW will he travel? He should definitely not take his Qatari-donated, newly renovated 747, especially after last time, when he had to be smuggled off clandestinely in a catering truck. It’s unlikely any traveling companions, like the Secretary of State or of the Treasury, are going to fall for the ruse a second time. Besides, we may need those people. No more decoys!
Perhaps the President could fly commercially, although this likely would expose him to undue suffering. Without gold bathroom fixtures and maple wood floors, the trip will be no “Luxury Experience.” If only he still had his “Trump Shuttle,” bought with a massive loan he later defaulted on, saying then, “I’m smart. I got out at a good time.”
Considering the potential pitfalls, maybe it’s best the President travel incognito, disguised perhaps as an elderly woman wearing a lot of bronzer.
Wherever, whenever, however: our President needs a vacation.
Moreover, we need a vacation from him.
If the President refuses our travel suggestions, here’s another idea:
Let’s get him a pet! He has never owned a pet. As we know with our children, pets teach essential life lessons: compassion and empathy; they instill a sense of responsibility. There is a well-established connection between those who can care for a pet and those who can care for people.
So, which pet should we choose? A puppy? A kitten? A boa constrictor?
Imagine, the President may even decide he likes having a pet. After all, what is more obedient than a well-trained dog, besides possibly the Cabinet? And what is more docile than a sweet kitten, other than plausibly the Supreme Court?
The President may even become more mellow with a pet afoot and less likely to slap tariffs on our allies, or attempt to annex our neighbors, or bully our Congress. (Realizing, of course, a bully requires active participation from the bullied to maintain his status.)
Maybe we should do both: get the President a pet and devise a travel plan for him. (Do you think we could possibly convince him to leave his phone at home?)
Let’s go for it! After all:
Travel far enough, you meet yourself. (David Mitchell)
And for our President, that would likely be the most profound discovery of all.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."