Operation Midnight Hammer demonstrated the U.S. military’s awesome power and dealt Iran’s nuclear ambitions a severe setback. It also ignited a debate at home. Was the assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities a betrayal or a furtherance of President Donald Trump’s “America first” agenda?
Neo-isolationists argued Mr. Trump abandoned his MAGA base and predicted the immediate outbreak of a great Middle Eastern war. They were wrong on both counts. No ground war has erupted. Nor is one remotely likely. And there’s clear evidence that Mr. Trump acted in accord with his domestic coalition, which seems in reality interventionist-minded.
Look at a poll that the Ronald Reagan Institute conducted three weeks before the B-2s unloaded their ordnance—and therefore prior to any rally-around-the-flag effect from the strikes.
The June 2 survey by Beacon Research and Shaw & Co. Research found that “when it comes to international events,” 64% of Americans think it is better for the U.S. “to be more engaged and take the lead” compared with 23% who believe it’s better “to be less engaged and react to events.” That’s a marked pro-international-involvement shift from last November, when 32% said they preferred less engagement and 57% said more.
When you dig into the partisan numbers, things look even worse for the neo-isolationist case. Among Democrats, support for being more engaged is at 65%, and among independents, 50%. The biggest supporters are Republicans—at 69%—and particularly self-identified MAGA supporters, 73% of whom are pro more engagement. Among non-MAGA Republicans, it’s only 59%.
Republican support for increased engagement has risen across the board since the mid-November survey by a whopping 21 points. Again, this is due more so to Mr. Trump’s base. MAGA Republican support for more engagement went up 22 points, while non-MAGA backing rose 11 points.
While neo-isolationists paint international involvement as out of fashion, the numbers say otherwise. Of any age group, it’s Americans under 30 who most favor more engagement, at 68%. But no age group was below 61%.
The survey also examined four questions about America’s engagement. An overwhelming 86% of respondents felt “a strong US military is essential to maintaining peace and prosperity at home and abroad,” with 59% believing that strongly. There was a partisan divide—75% of Republicans and 47% of Democrats strongly agreed with the statement.
The proposition that American “leadership and engagement is essential for promoting trade and boosting our economy” likewise drew a remarkable 85%, with 49% agreeing strongly. There was little difference between the parties on this question: 54% of Republicans and 50% of Democrats strongly agreed.
Eighty-two percent of Americans also felt that the U.S. “has a moral obligation to stand up for human rights and democracy whenever possible.” Fifty percent agreed strongly. There was a partisan split on this question: 63% of Democrats agreed strongly but only 42% of Republicans.
Lagging far behind was the proposition that the U.S. “is better served by withdrawing and focusing more attention on problems here at home.” While 57% agreed across the political spectrum, only 29% felt strongly. Support for this neo-isolationist approach has dropped 5 points among Democrats and independents and 6 points among Republicans since this question was last asked, in the Reagan Institute’s May 2024 poll.
These responses show Americans are capable of holding conflicting opinions. By a huge margin, they want their country to be engaged in the world and to lead. They believe that is important for trade and prosperity. They want the U.S. to stand for human rights and democracy “whenever possible.” And some people can hold those views while also wanting more attention paid to challenges at home.
