

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Roughly two-thirds of American adults said they oppose an invasion of Venezuela and only 15% support one. But will this be enough to stop Trump?
The White House is ready for war.
As the Trump administration’s made-for-Hollywood strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats have dominated the news, the Pentagon has been positioning military assets in the Caribbean and Latin America and reactivating bases in the region. More recently, the Washington Post reported that high-level meetings were held about a possible imminent attack on Venezuela and the New York Times has learned that the president gave authorization for CIA operations there.
There is one problem: Americans don’t seem to be very enthusiastic.
While voters returned Donald Trump to office in 2024 based on a host of campaign promises, his faithful took his long-voiced complaints about spending on foreign aid and entanglement in overseas wars as vows to focus on the homeland. A range of Americans are in sync with his past statements about avoiding war; opposition to military intervention abroad is common for the left and right. Simply put, the public is not interested in going to war. Indeed, one recent poll found that just 15% of American adults support invading Venezuela.
A 2023 survey found a souring of views of military intervention more broadly, with growing numbers believing that intervention by the US tends to "worsen situations."
Some see Trump's Venezuela moves as an attempt to distract from domestic policy failures or the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, but his actions can't be dismissed as wagging the dog. Trump has shown himself willing to engage with militarism. It's not just "drug boats," and it's not just Venezuela. He has spent 2025 belying the myth, which has persisted over his three campaigns for president, that he is averse to war-making.
The public has mixed views on some of the Trump administration's specific actions toward Venezuela. Asked in a recent YouGov poll about the US Navy's presence in Caribbean waters, for example, the percentage who approve (30%) was not much lower than the percentage who disapprove (37%).
Framing its actions against the South American nation as narcotics enforcement seems to have benefited the administration: A Harvard/CAPS poll in early October found 71% of registered voters in favor of "the US destroying boats bringing drugs into the United States from South America." Different wording—and perhaps media coverage of the continued boat strikes raising issues of their necessity, legality, and effect—could help explain why a Reuters/Ipsos poll in mid-November found only 29% answered yes to the question, "Should the U.S. government kill suspected drug traffickers abroad without judicial process?"
Importantly, however, in YouGov's survey, roughly two-thirds of American adults said they oppose an invasion of Venezuela and, as noted above, only 15% support one. Over half oppose the US using the military to overthrow the country's president, Nicolás Maduro.
A 2023 survey found a souring of views of military intervention more broadly, with growing numbers believing that intervention by the US tends to "worsen situations." Respondents seem to have based this on more recent examples, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Syrian and Yemeni civil wars. None of these interventions were seen by the majority of those polled as "successful" uses of US forces abroad.
Overall, Americans do not want to get, to use Trump's own words, "bogged down" in foreign wars. Public opinion on intervention appears driven by a cost-benefit analysis as John Mueller, professor of political science emeritus at Ohio State University describes it. This may be why some Americans are more willing to accept action in the form of targeted strikes such as the boat bombings and limited displays of military might.
In the end, Trump may not attack Venezuela, but it likely won't be because the people are against it.
Since the Cold War and especially the 9/11 attacks, the US has become increasingly militarized. One measure of this, of course, is government spending. The Costs of War project at The Watson School of International and Public Affairs estimates that the US has spent $8 trillion as a result of the post-9/11 wars. The $22 billion in support for Israel’s war in Gaza since October 7, 2023 is one of the latest and most egregious instances of the US’ support for a military first approach.
Unfortunately, the official end of the post-9/11 wars was not the end of their financial costs to ordinary Americans. The percent of the discretionary federal budget devoted to the military continues to rise and at the expense of domestic programs. Pentagon spending alone in 2026 will jump to well over $1 trillion. Though many of the economic costs of war are hidden or deferred to an indeterminate future—especially when they are funded through deficit spending—Americans still rightly worry about getting involved in costly conflicts like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Many have taken note of how Congress' passage of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force has helped concentrate power in the executive, enabling swifter, unilateral military deployment by the commander-in-chief. With the AUMF, Congress relinquished its constitutionally assigned war powers and ceded to the president its duty to decide whether, when, and where to use the military to combat terrorism. Since then, the executive branch has conducted counterterrorism activities in an astounding 78 countries.
Despite Americans' low trust in Congress, they nonetheless want the president to seek congressional approval before going to war. Feeding their mistrust, Congress has failed to respond to them on this crucial issue.
Look at how a compliant Congress has abdicated responsibility for oversight of the bombings in the Caribbean—which have now killed more than 83 people—as the Pentagon arrays warships, missiles, drones, and jet fighters in the region. Senate Republicans voted down legislation that would have required Trump to get their approval for any attacks on Venezuela, blatantly ignoring the disapproval of a public they are meant to represent.
So the bombings and the buildup continue, with Trump matter-of-factly telling a journalist, "We’re just going to kill people" without seeking congressional approval.
In the end, Trump may not attack Venezuela, but it likely won't be because the people are against it. He is in the process of commandeering all armed capacities of the US government, military, and law enforcement to serve his purposes foreign and domestic. Reasserting the rights of the people, including the right to peace, requires Congress to aggressively reassert its constitutional duty and the citizenry to demand its will be met.
"These are conditions for real change," said progressive journalist David Sirota.
For the first time in at least a decade, a strong majority of Democratic voters now say they disapprove of their party's leadership, according to a new poll.
The survey published Tuesday by Pew Research shows that an astonishing 59% of self-identified Democrats said they disapproved of the performance of their party's leaders in Congress, compared to just 40% who approved.
It is the first time since Pew began asking the question in 2014 that more Democrats have said they disapproved of leadership than approved of it. The last time the question was surveyed, the numbers were basically reversed: 61% of Democrats approved while just 37% disapproved.

Democrats have particularly soured on Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). In May 2024, when Democrats still held the chamber and Joe Biden was still president, 47% of Democratic voters had a favorable view of Schumer compared to just 26% who were unfavorable. Now, his approval has fallen to just 35%, while 39% of Democrats now say they disapprove of his leadership.
Voters have extended a bit more grace to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who still enjoys 41% approval compared with just 20% disapproval among Democrats. Though 39% say they've never heard of him.
Following the loss of former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and the subsequent return of President Donald Trump, many Democratic voters have expressed displeasure at what they view as the leadership's failure to stand up to an increasingly lawless and authoritarian president.
This was perhaps best encapsulated by the overwhelming backlash Schumer faced in March after he voted to help Republicans advance a funding bill that expanded Trump's ability to override Congress' control over spending. In the latest shutdown fight, many progressives expressed fears that Schumer would "cave" once again.
Despite his warmer approval rating, Jeffries has not been insulated from criticism either, with commentators and activists growing increasingly frustrated by his tendency to respond to Trump's abuses of power with little more than "strongly worded letters."
A Reuters/Ipsos poll of nearly 1,300 Democratic voters released in June showed that nearly two-thirds believed that “the leadership of the Democratic Party should be replaced with new people."
Policy was at the core of the disagreement: While voters overwhelmingly expressed support for populist agenda items like universal healthcare, affordable childcare, and higher taxes on the rich, many of them—especially younger voters—expressed skepticism that party leaders shared those priorities.
Nick Field, a correspondent for the Pennsylvania Capital-Star, observed that "Democratic approval of their congressional leadership now resembles Republican approval of their congressional leadership in 2014, which historians might remember as the year before Donald Trump took over that party."
At that time, congressional Republicans languished with just 38% support from their voters while Democrats remained largely happy with theirs.
In 2025, the roles have essentially reversed. Republicans now have historic reverence for their leaders, with a record 69% approval for the duo of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD).
The progressive journalist and founder of The Lever, David Sirota, said the fact that Democratic voters now have their pitchforks out for leadership "is good."
"These are conditions for real change," he said. He noted that there have been previous times when he believed such a change was possible, including 2007, when public opinion had turned against a newly Democratic-led Congress that had struggled to counter then-President George W. Bush.
"That might have been the moment for real change, but the problem was Democratic voters still worshiped their party leaders," Sirota said. "We're at a similar moment now, only Democratic voters are mad at their leaders now. Good."
"Democratic politicians who continue to support sending weapons to Israel are acting in direct defiance of their own constituents' wishes," said one progressive commentator.
As its genocidal actions in Gaza become more brazen by the day, support for Israel among Americans has reached a record low.
According to a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday, 60% of voters across all parties now say they oppose the United States sending more military aid to Israel, while just 32% say they support it. The pollster said it was the greatest amount of opposition it has recorded for the US-Israel alliance since it first asked the question in November 2023.
Opposition is even stronger among Democratic voters: 75% of them now oppose sending military aid to Israel, compared with just 18% who still support it.
Also for the first time ever in a Quinnipiac poll, more voters, 37%, said they sympathized with the Palestinians—an all-time high—compared with just 36% who said they sympathized with the Israelis—an all-time low.
In recent months, Israeli politicians have begun moving forward with a plan to fully occupy the Gaza Strip and permanently empty it of its inhabitants, which international humanitarian organizations have described as an "ethnic cleansing."
On Wednesday, every member of the United Nations Security Council, with the exception of the United States, joined in a statement backing the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification's declaration that Israel was creating a "man-made" famine in Gaza.
Meanwhile, even Israel's leaders have found it impossible to defend its "double-tap" strike on Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis on Monday, in which the Israel Defense Forces launched a strike on the medical facility before launching another attack shortly afterward on the journalists and medical personnel who came to respond to the destruction.
That attack killed at least 20 people, adding to the potentially well over 100,000 Palestinians who experts estimate have been killed over the course of the nearly two-year military onslaught.
According to the Quinnipiac poll, 50% of Americans now agree with the international community's assessment that Israel is perpetrating a genocide in Gaza. This includes 77% of Democrats and 51% of independents.
When Democrats were polled last month by Gallup, just 8% of them said they supported Israel's military actions in the Gaza Strip, a dramatic decline from October 2023, when 36% expressed support.
In recent weeks, as the images of death and starvation coming out of Gaza have grown increasingly heinous and ubiquitous, some Democratic politicians have begun to take a harsher stance against Israel.
Last month, a majority of Democrats in the Senate, for the first time, voted in favor of resolutions introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to suspend US assault weapons and 1,000-pound bombs to Israel.
Twenty-seven Democrats voted for the resolution halting assault rifles, and 24 voted for the resolution to stop the sale of bombs. Notably, the top Senate Democrat, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), voted against both resolutions.
Despite overwhelming support from their voters, the Democratic National Committee on Tuesday voted down a resolution calling for the US to suspend military aid to Israel.
"Democratic politicians who continue to support sending weapons to Israel are acting in direct defiance of their own constituents' wishes," said Nathan J. Robinson, the editor-in-chief of Current Affairs Magazine, in response to news of the latest polling numbers.
Previous polls have indicated that opposition to former President Joe Biden's arming of Israel was a primary reason why Democratic voters chose to abandon the Democratic Party in 2024, potentially costing then-Vice President Kamala Harris the election.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) said the poll showed that "Democrats continuing to ignore their base on the Palestine issue is insane," adding that if they continue down this path, "they will continue to lose."