US Foreign Policy Consensus Crumbles Under Partisan Pressure

CHICAGO, IL – January 28, 2026 – A landmark study released today reveals that the deep political divisions cleaving the United States are now dangerously eroding a half-century of bipartisan consensus on America's role in the world. The new report from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, drawing on over 50 years of public opinion data, finds that while most Americans still support an active foreign policy, they are profoundly split along party lines on how to confront the nation's most critical global challenges.

The study, "The Growing Partisan Divide on US Foreign Policy," paints a complex picture. While foundational support for international engagement remains surprisingly robust, partisan chasms have widened dramatically over the last decade on core issues including competition with China, international trade, and immigration. This growing rift threatens to undermine the stability and credibility of U.S. foreign policy on the global stage.

“Political divisions once limited to the domestic sphere are now spilling over into the foreign policy realm,” said Dina Smeltz, the Council’s managing director and chair of public opinion and foreign policy. “To preserve U.S. credibility abroad, leaders in Washington must find a way to unite the American people around a common strategy for addressing the most critical challenges facing the world today.”

The End of an Era?

For generations, the axiom that "politics stops at the water's edge" served as a guiding principle for American statecraft. During the early Cold War, a period sometimes described as a "golden age" of bipartisanships, leaders from both parties rallied behind a common foreign policy agenda centered on containing the Soviet Union, defending allies, and promoting free trade. This unity provided a bedrock of predictability for allies and adversaries alike.

The Council's latest data suggests this era of broad agreement is rapidly fading. The erosion has accelerated significantly since 2015, coinciding with the rise of a more nationalistic "America First" political agenda that openly questioned the value of traditional alliances and multilateral cooperation. While congressional bipartisanship has historically been more common on foreign policy than domestic issues, this trend is now under severe strain.

The consequences of this division are stark. As U.S. policy on major international agreements like the Paris climate accord or the Iran nuclear deal swings dramatically from one administration to the next, international partners grow wary. The inability to forge lasting, cross-party commitments diminishes American influence and creates a vacuum that adversaries are eager to fill. This "fracturing continuity," as some analysts term it, makes it difficult for the United States to project resolve and long-term strategic vision.

The New Partisan Battlegrounds

The survey pinpoints three key areas where partisan views have diverged most sharply, transforming them from areas of policy debate into political battlegrounds ripe for exploitation in election cycles.

First among them is China. While concern over Beijing's rising power is shared across the political spectrum, the nature of that concern and the preferred response are deeply partisan. A formidable 66% of Republicans now view China as a "critical threat," a perception shared by only 44% of Democrats and Independents. This gap informs strategy: two-thirds of Democrats and Independents (66% each) favor friendly cooperation and engagement with Beijing, a stark contrast to the mere 33% of Republicans who agree. This marks a major break from previous decades when support for friendly cooperation consistently hovered above 60% across all parties.

Second, international trade has become a flashpoint. While a strong majority of Americans (79%) still see trade as beneficial for the U.S. economy, the question of how to manage it is deeply divisive. In a remarkable pivot, 61% of Democrats now say U.S. trade policy should have no restrictions to provide consumers with more choices and lower prices—a massive jump from just 34% in 2024. Half of Independents (50%) concur. Republicans, however, remain steadfast in their position, with 76% favoring trade restrictions designed to protect American jobs, a consistent view since 2018.

Finally, immigration has emerged as the single most polarizing issue. An overwhelming 68% of Republicans—their top concern—label immigration as a critical threat. This stands in stark opposition to just 14% of Democrats and 32% of Independents. This chasm represents a dramatic shift from as recently as 1998, when majorities across all three groups viewed large-scale immigration as a critical threat, highlighting how the issue has become intertwined with deeper partisan splits over national identity and culture.

A Public Divided, But Not Withdrawn

Despite these deep fissures, the report decisively refutes the narrative that Americans are turning their backs on the world. A consistent 60% of the public—a figure that has remained stable since the survey began in 1974—continues to favor an active U.S. role in global affairs.

Support for America's core alliance commitments is not just holding steady; it's at an all-time high. An overwhelming 81% of Americans support using U.S. troops to defend allies, and 74% favor increasing or maintaining the U.S. commitment to NATO. These findings suggest the American public is not embracing isolationism, but is instead grappling with how the nation should engage.

Here, too, partisanship shapes the details. While support for alliances is high across the board, Democrats (74%) and Independents (60%) are far more likely than Republicans (40%) to believe the U.S. should consult its allies before making major foreign policy decisions. This reflects a fundamental disagreement on the value of multilateralism versus unilateral action, a divide that complicates alliance management and strategic planning.

“As the United States prepares to celebrate its 250th anniversary, the Council has a vital role to play in helping leaders in the United States and across the world deepen their understanding of how Americans feel about U.S. global engagement,” said Council President and CEO Leslie Vinjamuri. She emphasized the importance of discerning these public views at a "time of considerable disruption" to advance U.S. goals abroad.

The challenge for Washington is clear: to navigate a world of complex threats with a public that agrees on the need for engagement but is increasingly fractured on the methods, priorities, and purpose of American power. Bridging this divide will be essential for any administration seeking to lead effectively on the world stage.