

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.
"In Iraq, it took more than three years to reach that high. In Vietnam, it took six years."
More than 6 in 10 Americans now say President Donald Trump's war in Iran was a "mistake," according to a poll out Friday from the Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos.
Within two months, the war—which has inflicted thousands of civilian deaths and caused gas prices to spike worldwide with little tangible gain—has reached levels of unpopularity that previous wars now seen as historic boondoggles took years to reach.
The Post has asked the "mistake" for other major wars. But CNN senior political reporter Aaron Blake explained: "In Iraq, it took more than three years to reach that high. In Vietnam, it took six years."
Despite a massive protest movement, voters overwhelmingly supported President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq, with 81% believing it was the "right thing" in April 2003 and just 16% believing it was a mistake.
But the occupation turned into a long, deadly, and costly disaster, and the administration's pretexts for the war were revealed to be lies. Public opinion steadily eroded to the point where 64% viewed it as a mistake by January 2007.
Vietnam never had the overwhelming support of Iraq, but 60% of Americans still supported President Lyndon Johnson's decision to begin direct US military involvement in 1965, while just 24% said it was a mistake.
While the protest movement against the war is as present in Americans' memories today as the conflict itself, public opinion was still split until 1968 and only reached a high of 61% in May 1971, after more than 50,000 US soldiers had been killed in battle.
Trump's war in Iran is unique in history in that it never enjoyed even a moment of consensus support. In a Reuters/Ipsos poll just days after the opening salvo of what the Trump administration dubbed "Operation Epic Fury," just 27% said they approved of the strikes, which killed 555 Iranians, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and several other top Iranian officials.
At this point, 43% of Americans already said they disapproved of the strikes, far eclipsing Iraq and Vietnam. But 30% still said they had not yet made up their minds.
In the coming months, they would. It was revealed that an airstrike on a school, which killed at least 155 people, including 120 children, was a double-tap attack by the United States. Iran retaliated by blocking oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, which sent US gas prices hurtling above $4 per gallon. And Trump took on an increasingly erratic and at times outright genocidal posture toward Iran that made any peaceful resolution appear increasingly impossible, even with the current fragile ceasefire.
Friday's poll shows that while the war still maintains a core base of support—36% of Americans who say it was the right decision, nearly all of them Republicans—it is dwarfed by the 61% who say it was a mistake.
Majorities of respondents across all demographics show that they believe the war has increased the risks of "terrorism against Americans" (61%), "the US economy going into a recession" (60%), and "weakening relationships with US allies." (56%)
Looking beneath the surface shows an even more worrying sign for Trump: The war has almost no constituency outside of his biggest fans. Self-identified Democrats (91%) overwhelmingly say the war was a mistake. But 71% of independents—many of whom were undecided at the war's outset—now disapprove too, with just 24% in support.
Even within the GOP, there is a decisive split: 86% of those who self-identify as "MAGA Republicans" are still baying for blood. But "non-MAGA Republicans" have grown uncertain—50% still say war was the right decision, while 49% say it was a mistake.
They were particularly rattled by Trump's threat last month that "a whole civilization will die tonight" if Iran did not negotiate a deal to his liking. The threat of genocide was too much even for the majority of Republicans, 53% of whom said they viewed it negatively.
What remains to be seen is whether even Trump's most faithful backers will turn against the war as it drags on. If Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's appearance in Congress on Thursday is any guide, the country may soon find out.
On Thursday, when Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) pressed Hegseth about why he has "not sought the support of the American people" and added that "3 out of 5 Americans are against this war today," he appeared in abject denial about the war's unpopularity.
"I believe we do have the support of the American people," he said. "I would remind you and this group that we're two months in to an effort, and many congressional Democrats want to declare defeat two months in."
He specifically invoked lengthy past conflicts, repeatedly emphasizing that this one had only lasted "two months," as if to urge patience with a war Trump had previously said was intended to last only "four to five weeks."
"Iraq took how many years? Afghanistan took how many years? And they were nebulous missions that people went along with," he said.
"This is different," he said of a war that has—depending on the day—been described as one aimed at regime change in Iran, defending protesters, destroying its nuclear program, eliminating its ballistic missile supply, taking its oil, defending Israel, and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, among other objectives.
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."