40% of Americans expect civil war in next decade
Forty percent of Americans believe a civil war in the US is 'somewhat' or 'very' likely within the next decade, a new YouGov poll released on Tuesday suggests.
The poll, which surveyed 3,375 adults, underscores widespread anxiety over the nation's deepening divisions. It also follows a wave of unrest in the country, including violent protests against federal deportations and nationwide demonstrations aimed at President Donald Trump.
Women were more likely than men to consider civil conflict plausible, with 45% indicating it was likely. Views also varied by political affiliation: 48% of Democrats, 39% of independents, and 32% of Republicans said a civil war was at least somewhat probable. While respondents were more or less split on the likelihood of a civil war, just over 20% were unsure or declined to answer.
The data also suggested racial disparities. Among white respondents, 10% said a civil war was 'very likely,' compared to 18% of black respondents. Hispanics were the least likely to completely dismiss the idea, with only 11% saying a conflict was 'not likely at all,' while 15% called it 'very likely.'
Earlier this month, riots erupted across California in response to federal immigration enforcement actions. Trump deployed the National Guard and Marines after a public clash with California Governor Gavin Newsom over his handling of the crisis.
Last week, Minnesota State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband were fatally shot and State Senator John Hoffman and his wife injured in what officials called 'politically motivated' attacks.
On Saturday, an estimated 5 million people participated in 'No Kings' marches across all 50 states. Organizers described the protests as a stand against 'authoritarianism, billionaire-first politics, and the militarization of our democracy.'
Meanwhile, some Republican allies have warned that Trump is losing support for deviating from his 'America First' platform, particularly after backing Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Trump dismissed the criticism in an interview with The Atlantic, saying he alone defines what 'America First' means.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
37 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Art of the bluff: Israel's moves against Iran lays post-US Middle East bare
If the Academy handed out Oscars for political theater, Donald Trump would be a shoo-in for the 2025 award for Worst Performance in a Leading Role. His latest remarks are less about statesmanship and more about saving face as global events spin far beyond the grasp of American diplomacy. And the harder he tries to project himself as a dealmaker pulling strings behind the scenes, the clearer it becomes: Western dominance is cracking, and Washington is reacting more on impulse than strategy. The latest flashpoint – the 2025 escalation between Israel and Iran – has exposed the crumbling illusion of American leadership. Despite Trump's claim that he 'convinced' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to strike Iran, the facts tell a different story. Netanyahu brushed off the advice and launched a sweeping assault on Iranian targets – not just military, but symbolic. In one bold move, he derailed already fragile nuclear talks between Washington and Tehran, revealing exactly who sets the agenda in the region now. Faced with this reality, US leaders had two choices: admit their influence over Israel had faded, or publicly support the strikes and cling to the image of leadership – even if it meant further undermining their credibility as a neutral arbiter. Unsurprisingly, they chose the latter. Backing Israel at the expense of diplomacy with Iran has become business as usual. Washington isn't conducting the symphony anymore; it's trying to stay in rhythm while the conductor's baton is in someone else's hand. So when Trump talks about having 'leverage' over Israel, it sounds more like community theater than statesmanship. Even he doesn't seem to believe the part he's playing. In 2025, once again, the United States isn't leading the charge – it's being dragged along. And the more American leaders insist everything's fine, the more obvious it becomes: the age of Western supremacy is fading out, in a blaze of theatrical flair that rivals Trump's own off-script improvisations. A close look at Trump's statements – and those from his administration – in the wake of Israel's strike on Iran reveals a political paradox: while the US officially opposed escalation, it did nothing to stop it. Why? Because the political cost at home was too high. In an election year, Trump couldn't risk a fight with one of the GOP's most reliable bases: pro-Israel voters and the powerful lobbying machine behind them. Trump tried to play it both ways. On one hand, he said, 'It wasn't a surprise to me,' and claimed he neither endorsed nor blocked the strike. But just days earlier, he boasted: 'I talked to Bibi. He promised not to do anything drastic. We held him back.' That's a crucial detail. At least on the surface, the Trump White House wanted to avoid escalation. But once the missiles flew, Trump pivoted hard: 'Israel has the right to defend itself.' 'The US wasn't involved in the operation.' 'But if Iran hits us, we'll hit back harder than ever.' This about-face reveals just how little influence Washington had. Netanyahu played the hand he wanted – defying US interests, derailing diplomacy, and still compelling American support. Warnings from Washington didn't even register. Caught flat-footed, Trump scrambled to regain control with vague reassurances: 'Iran might still get a second chance.' 'We're open to talks.' 'Iranian officials are calling me. They want to talk.' These weren't policy statements. They were PR – a bid to dodge blame for a failed containment strategy. His line that 'I gave Iran a chance, but they didn't take it' is less a fact and more a way to recast himself as the peacemaker – the guy who ended tensions between India and Pakistan and now promises to 'make the Middle East great again.' Is this genuine diplomacy? Or a carefully crafted performance aimed at domestic audiences – and international ones, too? Trump even welcomed Vladimir Putin as a potential mediator: 'He's ready. He called me. We had a long talk.' By doing so, he tried to recast the situation from an American failure to a global problem that needs collective resolution – conveniently shifting the spotlight away from US accountability. And while Trump played diplomat, Axios reported that Israel had actively lobbied for US participation in the strikes, and the Wall Street Journal revealed that Trump had promised Netanyahu he wouldn't stand in the way. All signs point to this: any restraint Washington projected was a smokescreen for its inability – or unwillingness – to rein in its closest Middle Eastern ally. In the end, Israel got what it wanted. The US got sidelined. And Iran got a loud-and-clear message: America isn't calling the shots. Netanyahu exploited the weaknesses baked into the US political system – proving once again that alliances don't equal parity. And while Trump talks of giving Iran another chance, the truth is this: Washington is now playing by rules written in Jerusalem. The current Israel-Iran confrontation has sparked alarm worldwide. But while tensions are high and missiles have flown, the chances of full-scale war still appear slim. Tehran, despite its fiery rhetoric, has shown restraint. It seems to be holding out for a return to diplomacy – and possibly a new round of talks with Washington. The US, too, is in no mood for another drawn-out Middle East war. With its strategic focus shifting elsewhere and voters tired of endless foreign entanglements, Washington is eager to avoid getting pulled into something deeper. A slow, uneasy de-escalation looks like the most plausible outcome – the only question is how long that will take. Make no mistake: Israel's strikes inflicted heavy damage – particularly on the IRGC's infrastructure and the supply networks for Iran-backed forces in Syria and Lebanon. But Iran's retaliation – a massive drone and missile barrage on Israeli territory – was a shock to the Israeli public. It caused serious destruction and considerable casualties, raising questions about Netanyahu's gamble. Inside Iran, the regime faces mounting economic pressure and growing public frustration. Yet there are no signs of collapse. The leadership remains intact, held together by tight control and elite loyalty. A new deal with the US could offer much-needed economic relief, giving leverage to more pragmatic voices in Tehran that favor engagement over confrontation. As for Israel, the longer-term political fallout is still unclear. Netanyahu may have boosted his image as a tough, decisive leader – but if talks between Washington and Tehran resume and produce even a temporary agreement, Israel could find itself isolated. Netanyahu's open friction with the Biden administration over Gaza and Iran may come back to haunt him. If diplomacy moves forward without Israel, it could leave him out in the cold – and facing heat from both domestic critics and international partners. Meanwhile, regional powers like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar are stepping up. They've launched a flurry of diplomatic efforts – including quiet lobbying in Washington – to further rein in Israeli escalation. These countries have no interest in another war. They're worried that if things spiral, US bases and assets across the region – from Iraq to the Gulf – could become targets. That would bring serious security risks and economic disruption, just as these nations are trying to push forward with growth and reform. Their message is clear: further chaos in the Middle East is not an option. These states are now emerging as key voices for de-escalation – working to steer the crisis back to the negotiating table. Despite the intensity of the current standoff, the likeliest path forward remains a tense but managed de-escalation. Neither Iran nor the US wants a war. Israel, meanwhile, is walking a tightrope – trying to look strong while navigating a shrinking space for unilateral action. That leaves a narrow window for diplomacy. The real question is: when will the politics – in all three capitals – catch up with the need for a deal?
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Iran's supreme leader fires back at Trump
The US would suffer 'irreparable damage' if it intervenes militarily against Iran, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has stated. His remarks follow a series of increasingly direct threats from US President Donald Trump. Over the past few days, Trump has warned that US forces are ready to strike if Iran attacks any American targets, and has implied that Khamenei is an 'easy target.' 'We are not going to take him out—at least not for now,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social account. In other posts, he insisted that Iran 'must surrender' and claimed that the US had 'complete and total control of the skies over Iran.' Responding to Trump's threats in a televised address on Wednesday, Khamenei stated that 'those with wisdom who know Iran and its history never speak to this nation in the language of threats.' 'Iran is not a nation that will surrender,' the supreme leader was quoted by Iranian media as saying, adding that 'any kind of military entry by the US will undoubtedly be accompanied by damage that cannot be compensated.' Khamenei also described Trump's ultimatum for Iran's 'unconditional surrender' as unacceptable and stressed that the Islamic Republic 'will not accept an imposed peace.' 'The US President threatens us. With his absurd rhetoric, he demands that the Iranian people surrender to him. They should make threats against those who are afraid of being threatened. The Iranian nation isn't frightened by such threats,' Khamenei said, adding that Trump's remarks suggest Washington was directly involved in Israel's attack on Iran. Israel began carrying out strikes on Iran last Friday, claiming Tehran is nearing the completion of a nuclear bomb. Iran dismissed the accusations and retaliated with waves of drone and missile strikes on the Jewish state. Israel's attacks have been condemned by a number of countries, including Russia, which has described the strikes on Iran's nuclear infrastructure as 'illegal' and warned they could trigger a 'nuclear catastrophe.' The Russian Foreign Ministry has also pointed out that Israel's actions violate international law and threaten global stability. In a statement on Tuesday, the ministry further claimed that the widespread condemnation of Israel's attack on Iran by most of the international community suggests that the Jewish State is only supported by its 'accomplices.'
Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
Canadian state media explains absence of G7 Ukraine statement
G7 leaders did not issue a joint statement on the Ukraine conflict following the group's recent summit in Canada, because the US refused to sign off unless it was 'watered down,' Canadian state broadcaster CBC and other media outlets have reported. The summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, ran from Sunday to Tuesday. US President Donald Trump left the gathering early, and did not meet with Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky, who also attended. On Tuesday, CBC cited an anonymous official from Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney's office admitting that plans for a group statement on Ukraine were dropped. The Americans reportedly opposed wording referencing Russia, due to concerns that it could jeopardize US-brokered diplomatic efforts to settle the conflict between Moscow and Kiev. The Canadian PM's office later rejected the reports, with its spokesperson Emily Williams insisting that 'no proposed joint statement regarding Ukraine was distributed. Canada's intention was always for the important language to be a part of the G7 Chairs' Summary Statement, and it was.' Carney's Summary statement said that the 'G7 leaders expressed support for President Trump's efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace in Ukraine' and backed Kiev's call for 'an unconditional ceasefire.' Russia has repeatedly rejected Ukraine's sudden demand, calling it a ploy to allow Ukrainian forces regroup and resupply. According to Carney, the G7 is 'resolute in exploring all options to maximize pressure on Russia, including financial sanctions.' Commenting on the summit on Tuesday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that the event was 'rather unremarkable and meaningless.'
