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.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.