Skip to content
Project 2025
Donate to support
diverse voices
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
Cargo containers piled on each other.

The Facts on U.S.–Canada Tariffs Nearly One Year Into Trump’s Plan

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

An illustration of two hands controlling a small person attached to strings.

Parallels and Patterns: George Orwell’s 1984, Hitler’s Nazi, and Trump 2.0

Public opinion and U.S. policy on the Ukraine-Russia war

Opinion

Public opinion and U.S. policy on the Ukraine-Russia war

Ukrainian soldiers on the frontlines as the Russia-Ukraine war continues in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine

Getty Images
By Steven Kull,
Steven Kull
See More Writings by author
Evan Charles Lewitus
Evan Charles Lewitus
See More Writings by author
Aug 17, 2023

Kull is Program Director of the Program for Public Consultation.

Lewitus is a Research Analyst at Voice of the People whose research interests focus on policy, public opinion and democracy reform.

"Ear to the People,” is an analysis conducted by Voice of the People, that tracks surveys on foreground policy issues from numerous sources. The surveys use standard polls with solid methodology, as well as including public consultation surveys that provide respondents briefings and pro and con arguments (reviewed by experts across the spectrum of views).

While it may sometimes seem that surveys produce contradictory results, usually when one examines the wording carefully it becomes clear that the questions are actually significantly different, each one providing a different angle. Integrating the findings together provides a complex, but coherent, picture of the public’s views.

The key takeaways from an analysis of surveys conducted on attitudes of Americans on various aspects of the Ukraine war were:

  • A large bipartisan majority supports the U.S. providing military assistance to help Ukraine, including military equipment, ammunition, training and intelligence.
  • When U.S. support to Ukraine is framed only in terms of financial assistance, support drops to a modest majority or a plurality, with Republicans the most divided.
  • Bipartisan majorities or pluralities support sending both light and advanced weapons, and defense systems.
  • A very large bipartisan majority supports the U.S. sending humanitarian aid.
  • Majorities prefer that the U.S. support Ukraine's position of not entering peace negotiations until Russia has first committed to withdraw its forces or until Ukraine has reclaimed its territory, even if this stance results in a prolonged conflict. While a clear majority of Democrats favor this position, Republicans’ views are more mixed.

Dig into the data below to learn more about the public’s views on whether the US should provide military equipment, training, intelligence.

A bipartisan seven-in-ten supports the U.S. providing military assistance to Ukraine, including military equipment, ammunition, training and intelligence. Republican support is lower, but still a majority.

When provided with background information and pro and con arguments:

  • 69% favored “the U.S. continuing to provide military assistance to Ukraine, including military equipment, ammunition, training and intelligence” (Republicans 55%, Democrats 87%, independents 58%) ( Program for Public Consultation, July 2023)

Standard polls:

Whether the U.S. should provide funding

Standard polls: When U.S. support to help Ukraine fight against Russia is framed only in terms of financial assistance, without specifying how the funding would be used, a small majority or plurality are in support, but less than half of Republicans.

  • 54% said the U.S. should, “send financial aid to Ukraine, in addition to sending weapons,” including 72% of Democrats, but just 39% of Republicans. ( Reuters/Ipsos, June 2023)
  • In a question in which “not sure” was offered, a clear plurality of 48% said the U.S. should “continue to give money to Ukraine to help it defend itself from the Russian invasion,” with 31% opposed and 22% saying “not sure.” Republicans were divided with 39% in favor and 42% opposed, while 68% of Democrats were in favor. ( Economist/YouGov, December 2022) (See Note below on providing a “not sure” option.)
  • In a question that asked whether Congress should “authorize additional funding to support Ukraine” 45% were in favor with 55% opposed. This number may be lower than the Reuters/Ipsos poll because some respondents may have interpreted “additional funding” to mean over and above the present level. Just 28% of Republicans were in favor, with 71% opposed. Among Democrats, 62% were in favor. ( CNN, August 2023)

What types of military equipment should the U.S. send?

Bipartisan majorities or pluralities support sending both light and advanced weapons, and defense systems. When provided with background information and pro and con arguments:

  • 73% approved of the U.S. allowing NATO allies to send US-made fighter jets to Ukraine, and the U.S. training Ukrainian pilots to operate them (Democrats 86%, Republicans 63%, independents 64%) ( Program for Public Consultation, July 2023)

Standard polls: note that when polls offer a “not sure” option, a substantial percent will choose that option, lowering the total percent in support or opposition. Research shows that this is not because those people lack any view on the policy or are undecided, but that they are expressing their lack of certainty about whether their view is correct. When the “not sure” option is not offered, most will choose an option that expresses a view.

A plurality of 45% supported the U.S. sending “Advanced weapon systems (for example, helicopters, cannons, armored vehicles)” with 29% opposed and 26% “not sure.” Among Democrats, 59% are in favor. Among Republicans, 45% are in favor and 36% opposed. ( Economist/YouGov, December 2022)

  • A plurality of 46% supported “Long-range missiles” with 31% opposed and 23% “not sure.” Among Democrats, 67% are in favor. Among Republicans, 40% are in favor and 35% opposed. ( Economist/YouGov, March 2023)
  • 53% supported “Tanks,” including 67% of Democrats and 48% of Republicans (with 35% opposed). ( Economist/YouGov, March 2023)
  • 54% supported “Light weapon systems” (for example anti-tank weapons, rifles, ammunition), (Democrats 67%, Republicans 53%), with 34% opposed and 22% “not sure.” ( Economist/YouGov, December 2022)
  • A plurality of 47% supported “the Patriot missile defense system, a surface-to-air guided missile system, in order to help Ukraine defend itself from the Russian invasion,” with 29% opposed and 26% “not sure.” Among Democrats, 61% were in support. Among Republicans 45% are in support and 37% opposed. ( Economist/YouGov, December 2022)
  • 61% supported the U.S. sending “Non-lethal military assistance” (for example trucks, repair parts, computers, radars), (Democrats 74%, Republicans 60%), with 20% opposed and 19% “not sure.”( Economist/YouGov, December 2022)

Whether the U.S. should provide humanitarian aid

A very large bipartisan majority supports the U.S. sending humanitarian aid, such as food and shelter, and aid for infrastructure repair. When provided with background information and pro and con arguments:

Standard polls:

  • 77% supported the U.S. sending “food and medical assistance” (Democrats 84%, Republicans 79%). ( Economist/YouGov, March 2023)
  • 74% supported the U.S. sending “Humanitarian assistance” (for example food, civilian supplies), (Democrats 79%, Republicans 79%). ( Economist/YouGov, December 2022)

Whether Ukraine should be encouraged to enter negotiations

Majorities prefer that the U.S. support Ukraine's position of not entering peace negotiations until Russia has first committed to withdraw its forces or until Ukraine has reclaimed its territory, even if this stance results in a prolonged conflict. While a clear majority of Democrats favor this position, Republicans’ views are more mixed.

When provided with background information and pro and con arguments:

  • 56% opposed the U.S. “encourag[ing] Ukraine to enter into negotiations, whether or not Russia first commits to withdraw from all of Ukraine.” Majorities of Democrats and independents were opposed (68% and 53%, respectively). Among Republicans, less than half were opposed (47%, should encourage negotiations now 53%). ( Program for Public Consultation, July 2023)

Standard polls:

  • In June 2023, 62% said the U.S. should “support Ukraine in reclaiming territory Russia has captured, even if it results in a more prolonged conflict between the two nations,” with 36% saying the U.S. should instead, “try to end the conflict as quickly as possible, even if it means allowing Russia to keep territory it has captured from Ukraine.” Among Democrats, 79% said the U.S. should support Ukraine reclaiming territory. Republicans are divided (47% to 49%). ( Gallup, June 2023)

When the poll included non-committal options, the total percentage in support dropped to a plurality:

  • A bipartisan plurality of 46% preferred that the U.S. “support Ukraine in its efforts against Russia until such a time that Russia withdraws from the country, even if this means the war and its effects last longer,” with 24% saying the U.S. should instead “encourage a negotiated peace to end the fighting, even if this means Russia still has control over some parts of Ukraine,” with 13% saying “neither” and 17% “don’t know.” Among Democrats, 61% said the U.S. should support Ukraine until Russia withdraws, as did a plurality of Republicans (41% to 30%). ( YouGov, February 2023)

Is Support Going Down?

Polls have shown some changes in public opinion towards aid to Ukraine since the start of the war. Support for providing military aid started very high at over seven-in-ten, gradually declined, but then recovered to two thirds and has stayed there since. The percentage saying the US is providing too much aid in general has gradually increased but is still less than 3 in 10. Republicans, however, have reached a plurality saying it is too much.

Providing military aid to Ukraine

Support for the US, “sending additional arms and military supplies to the Ukrainian government,” started at 79% in March 2022, declined to 72% in July 2022 and then to 65% in November 2022. (Chicago Council of Global Affairs). Support for the US “provid[ing] weapons to Ukraine” started at 71% in March 2022, declined to 66% in October 2022, then to 58% in February 2023, and increased to 65% in June 2023 (Reuters/Ipsos). As noted, a PPC survey in June 2023 found 69% in support of continuing to provide military aid (Program for Public Consultation).

Respondents were asked whether the US, in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, was providing Ukraine with too much, too little, or about the right amount of aid. Those who said the US was providing too much aid was just 7% in March 2022, increased to 20% in September 2022 and then reached a high point of 28% in June 2023. Among Republicans, those saying too much started at a low of 9%, increased substantially to 32% and then reached a plurality of 47% (with 34% saying too little or about right) (Pew Research Center).

You can find these digests on various issues on Voice of the People’s website.


Latest news

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem
Environment

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”
Ethics & Leadership

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift
Elections

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift

Read More

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026