If there is one takeaway from the dramatic events of the past month, it is that now is a risky time to make predictions about the 2024 U.S. presidential election. The assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump, President Joe Biden’s exit and Vice President Kamala Harris’s entry into the race have scrambled the country’s political landscape beyond all recognition.
There is, however, one certainty: Regardless of the outcome, the election will mark the definitive end of an era. Recent public opinion research that New America conducted with the Chicago Council on Global Affairs paints a picture of waning support for the kind of U.S. global leadership that has defined Washington’s engagement with the world the past 80 years. While most Americans still favor a prominent U.S. role, the devil is in the details. And those details reveal a nation adjusting to an emergent multipolar order yet deeply divided along partisan, generational and racial lines when it comes to foreign policy.
The election isn’t just a choice between two candidates. It’s a referendum on America’s place in the world. And as voters ready for the polls in November, they’re not just weighing economic concerns. They’re grappling with a fundamental shift in how the U.S. sees itself on the world stage.
For many Americans, it’s a “guns vs. butter” dilemma writ large, with many questioning whether foreign aid comes at the expense of domestic needs. This is especially true for many minority and younger Americans who are feeling the pinch of inflation and wealth inequality. The contentious congressional fight over the $95 billion aid package to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan highlights Americans’ growing tendency to connect domestic woes to foreign policy decisions.
Gone are the days of unquestioned U.S. primacy. Today’s electorate, particularly younger and minority voters, is asking tough questions: Why send billions abroad when we have pressing needs at home? How can the U.S. maintain its edge while sharing the global stage with other countries?
Meanwhile, the world isn’t waiting for the U.S. to sort out its existential crisis. China is flexing its muscles. Russia continues its assault on Ukraine. And the Middle East remains a powder keg. Over it all looms climate change, a threat—and threat multiplier—that knows no borders.
The next president won’t just inherit these challenges. He or she will face an electorate increasingly divided on the United States’ global role. While White and Asian Americans largely support an active U.S. global role, Black and Hispanic Americans are divided, and younger generations are more skeptical. It’s a recipe for paralysis at a time when decisive action is needed to grapple with the risks posed by today’s planetary politics.
Our study, which was also conducted in collaboration with scholar Christopher Shell from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, explores diverse U.S. perspectives through flash polling and focus groups.The survey included oversamples of Black, Hispanic, Native, Asian, Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Americans to draw meaningful and statistically significant conclusions.
Both parties need to face this new reality, which requires a deeper, bipartisan realization that the era of U.S. global leadership going unchallenged at home is over.
Notably, the data suggests that there are limits to how far Americans of color and younger Americans are willing to go to defend the current security status quo in the Middle East, Europe and Asia. The findings are significant because, by 2027, minorities are projected to outnumber Whites in the 18-29 age bracket, while younger voters, specifically Millennials and Gen Z, will outnumber older ones by 2028. That suggests an electorate that will increasingly favor a more cooperative and cost-conscious approach to U.S. engagement on global issues.
Taken in aggregate, the polling results and focus group responses were telling.
For example, only 50 percent of Black Americans support defending Washington’s NATO allies in the Baltic states, compared to stronger majorities among White and Asian Americans. Hispanic Americans are slightly more supportive at 56 percent, but even they balk at sending troops to defend Germany, with just 50 percent in favor. Reading between the lines, it appears that while the majority of Americans are bullish on the trans-Atlantic alliance, a substantial proportion of the Democratic base is dubious about deploying U.S. troops to defend allies perceived as too remote or not doing enough to shoulder their share of the burden.
Similarly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent visit to Washington came at a time when the country is as divided on the future of the alliance with Israel as it is distracted by campaign politics. The fiery campus protests that dominated headlines earlier this year were a prominent display of those divisions. Dig deeper, though, and you’ll find a generational chasm with the potential to reshape the United States’ Middle East policy.
It’s a tale of two Americas. Boomers and the Silent Generation, scarred by the legacy of the Holocaust as well as memories of the 1973 oil embargo and the rise of regional terrorist groups, largely back Israel’s right to self-defense. Nevertheless, with the exception of the Silent Generation, the majority of Americans prefer a more balanced approach, demanding pressure on Israel to curb its military operations in Gaza.
Something similar emerged with regard to Taiwan. While survey respondents expressed broad support for sanctions and aid in the event of a Chinese invasion, only Asian Americans backed sending troops. It’s a microcosm of the larger trend: a United States increasingly reluctant to put boots on the ground for far-flung allies.
The war in Ukraine has only intensified this shift. Our study found that majorities of Black, Hispanic, Gen X and Millennial Americans were less willing than White, Asian and older Americans to endure higher costs of living to support Ukraine.
This perspective neither implies capitulating to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s demands nor suggests pushing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy into immediate peace negotiations. With 61 percent of Americans—including six in 10 Black and Hispanic Americans—supporting continued aid to Ukraine, there is a clear desire to help Kyiv achieve its strategic goals. But instead of the incremental “as long as it takes” stance that the Biden administration has championed, a majority of Americans favor a “whatever it takes” approach to giving Ukraine the military edge it needs to negotiate with Russia on favorable terms.
Our findings are a wake-up call for Washington’s foreign policy establishment and U.S. allies. As the U.S. becomes more diverse, so too do the voices shaping its global engagement. The old consensus is crumbling, replaced by a more nuanced, often skeptical view of U.S. commitments abroad.
But their concerns are not just about dollars and cents. They are about a fundamental reevaluation of what we mean when we talk about “U.S. interests” in a changing world order. Both parties need to face this new reality, which requires a deeper, bipartisan realization that the era of U.S. global leadership going unchallenged at home is over. The sooner U.S. leaders—and the world—accept this new reality, the better they can adapt to the challenges ahead.
For U.S. allies, the writing is on the wall: They need to start preparing for a U.S. that is more inward-looking over the longer term. Europe must accelerate its defense capabilities. Asia needs to hedge its bets when it comes to U.S.-China competition. U.S. allies in the Middle East should brace for a more conditional U.S. approach.
It’s time for Washington to adopt a foreign policy that reflects this reality, one that balances global engagement with domestic priorities and acknowledges the limits of U.S. power. The world is changing. U.S. foreign policy must change with it. Voters understand this. It’s time U.S. leaders did too.
Candace Rondeaux is the senior director at New America, where she leads the Future Frontlines program, an open-source public intelligence service for next-generation security and democratic resilience. She also directs the Planetary Politics initiative, a policy research hub that aims to find solutions to the problems posed by digitalization and decarbonization in a multipolar world, and is a professor of practice with the Future of Security Initiative and faculty affiliate with the Melikian Center for Russian, Eurasian, and Eastern European Affairs at Arizona State University.