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.
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.