How foreign policy could crash Republican midterm prospects

This summer’s MAGA revolt over the Epstein Files has challenged the longstanding assumption that President Trump has an unbreakable bond with the Republican base. Trump loyalists from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to Steve Bannon to Tucker Carlson have recently criticized the president not just on the Epstein disclosures but also on Medicaid cuts in the “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

Yet new polling shows that another issue could cost Trump crucial support and substantially lower his standing among independent voters whom Republicans need in order to win future elections.

While Republicans largely rallied around Trump following the June 22 bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, recent YouGov polling commissioned by the Center for Economic and Policy Research demonstrates substantial political risks for the president and his party if he supports an expanded war involving Israel and Iran.

When respondents consider the economic consequences of a broader conflict, as well as their trust in the justifications offered for involvement in such a war, Trump faces overwhelming dissent among Independents. These voters are about one-third of the electorate and currently about evenly split between Democrat-leaning and Republican-leaning. If an issue becomes important in an election and the Independent voters move strongly in one direction, that can swing the election.

A clear majority of voters — 65 percent — reported they would hold Trump responsible if gasoline prices rose to $6 a gallon as a result of expanded U.S. military involvement. Among Independent voters, this sentiment rises to 69 percent. Further, when informed that economists would expect a significant rise in mortgage interest rates to result from an expanded conflict — potentially adding over $100,000 in lifetime payments for a typical home — 72 percent oppose U.S. military involvement, with two thirds of those expressing “strong” opposition.

Most polls treat foreign policy decisions as isolated events, simply asking whether voters support or oppose military action. But major interventions do not occur in isolation — they can impact gas prices, mortgage rates and overall confidence in politicians and their political parties. A true measure of public sentiment on expanded military involvement must account for these potential and even likely consequences, which often drive voter attitudes more than abstract strategic considerations.

Donald Trump rose politically by highlighting Americans’ declining trust in institutions, from government regulators and health experts to traditional media. But the polling shows that Trump himself faces serious accusations from his base of breaching public trust and caving to wealthy donors advocating unconditional support for Israeli policies that millions of voters view as wrong and dangerous.

Sixty-three percent of respondents expressed concern that Trump’s decision to attack Iran could be influenced by major campaign donors, a concern particularly strong among Independents. And two-thirds of voters — including nearly one-third of Republicans — feel that intervening in an Israel-Iran conflict contradicts Trump’s core “America First” promise.

In June, Tucker Carlson accused Trump of being “complicit in the act of war” following Israel’s attacks on Iran, and influential MAGA voices like Steve Bannon echoed similar skepticism. Yet commentary alone is unlikely to shift conservative public opinion. People respond to tangible impacts in their lives. If Trump once again follows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into major military action in the Middle East, the consequences may extend beyond geopolitics and significantly impact the president’s party in next year’s midterm elections.

Consider some midterm math. On all five questions related to U.S. intervention in Iran, voters who identify as Republican or Democrat overwhelmingly aligned with their respective parties. For example, by a ratio of 88 percent to 12 percent, Democrats said they did not believe that “Trump is getting involved in this war for the sake of U.S. national security.” Republicans held the opposite view, with 77 percent believing national security was the reason and 23 percent not believing it. This leaves Independent voters as potentially decisive.

According to current polling data, Independents are evenly divided between “Republican-leaning” and “Democrat-leaning,” generally indicating close national elections. However, on questions regarding U.S. participation in a war against Iran, Independents are solidly opposed, by a margin of two to one. This leads to an overall result of 63-37 saying that they do not believe that U.S. involvement in such a war is “for the sake of national security.”

While the June war between Israel and Iran appears to be over, another Israeli attack in the near future remains quite possible. Should Trump decide to join such an operation before the next election, it could significantly undermine Republican chances of retaining Congress.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He is the author of “Failed: What the ‘Experts’ Got Wrong About the Global Economy (Oxford University Press). Justin Talbot Zorn is a senior adviser at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a Truman National Security Fellow, and served as legislative director for three members of Congress.