logo
Exclusive poll: Most voters back Iran strikes, but worry about attacks on U.S.

Exclusive poll: Most voters back Iran strikes, but worry about attacks on U.S.

Axios4 hours ago

The U.S. attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities Saturday have left American voters with contradictory feelings, a new poll finds:
A majority favored limited strikes, but nearly as many said they were worried about a widening war and Iran retaliating on U.S. soil.
Meanwhile, most viewed the U.S. attacks as a success — and are likely to back similar military action as a result.
Why it matters: The survey sheds light on Americans' nuanced views of war and rapidly evolving foreign policy.
Republicans overwhelmingly approved of bombing Iran; sizable majorities of Democrats and independents did not.
But once they were told the bombings only targeted Iran's uranium enrichment for its nuclear program, support increased in each group.
The big picture:"When voters understand the strategic rationale behind the strikes, support increases," said pollster Ryan Tyson, head of the Tyson Group, which conducted the survey. It recently worked for Elon Musk's political committee when it supported President Trump's re-election.
The broad support for military action that the survey found among Republicans and self-identified MAGA voters suggested that the divisions within Trump's base over Iran were more talk than reality.
The poll also measured Trump's job performance, finding that 46% of Americans approve and 51% disapprove.
Voters are deadlocked on his handling of foreign policy, but he's underwater by double digits when it comes to handling inflation.
More concerns for Trump: There's persistent worry in the U.S. electorate about blowback from the bombings and the contagion of war.
75% of voters think that despite the Israel-Iran ceasefire, the conflict could escalate into a wider war.
46% think some sort of Iranian attack on U.S. soil is now likely.
And 45% believe the strikes didn't make the U.S. safer, while just 36% said they did.
The good news for Trump: By 50-33, voters would support airstrikes similar to those launched Saturday, a sign they see it as a success and a manageable risk. Two-thirds believe more U.S. attacks like last Saturday's are likely.
56% agree with the sentiment that military force is justified to stop a nuclear Iran.
55% believe that Iran's nuclear program was either "obliterated," to use Trump's words, or dealt a major setback. Just 25% thought it was barely affected or was unscathed.
62% said the strikes will have been worth it if Iran stops enriching uranium.
The intrigue: The poll also reflected how Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza has been a drag on how U.S. voters view America's ally.
By 2 percentage points, U.S. voters oppose the war in Gaza, the poll found.
By 54-27%, they believe Israel has too much influence on American foreign policy.
Voters are more inclined to arm Ukraine than Israel, the survey found.
Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelensky, has solid favorability numbers as well, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's ratings are negative.
Methodology: The Tyson Group's national survey of 1,027 U.S. voters was conducted online June 25-26. The survey has a margin of error of ±3.1 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. To analyze only the responses of those identifying as Republicans, an oversample was used to ensure the margin of error remained consistent. That did not affect the top-line results of the survey.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump admin live updates: White House sticks to megabill deadline despite Senate GOP's Medicaid setback

time5 minutes ago

Trump admin live updates: White House sticks to megabill deadline despite Senate GOP's Medicaid setback

President Donald Trump is back in Washington after his trip overseas for a NATO summit, where allies committed to an increase in defense spending long pushed for by Trump. On Thursday morning, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine provided more information about U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear sites, with Hegseth pushing back against a preliminary U.S. intelligence report that said Tehran's nuclear program may have only been set back months. Meanwhile, the Senate is making changes to the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" as Republicans try to meet Trump's Fourth of July deadline for passage.

It's the final opinion day this term— but there's plenty of Supreme Court action to come
It's the final opinion day this term— but there's plenty of Supreme Court action to come

Politico

time8 minutes ago

  • Politico

It's the final opinion day this term— but there's plenty of Supreme Court action to come

The biggest mystery of the day: Will we even get a decision in arguably the most high-profile case the justices heard this year? There's already uncertainty about what the justices will actually decide in a case tied to President Donald Trump's effort to end automatic birthright citizenship — but we also don't know for sure whether the court will even issue a formal opinion or opinions on the matter. That's because the case did not come up through the court's usual process for cases argued before the justices: the merits docket. The case, Trump v. CASA, is actually a trio of emergency applications the Trump administration submitted to the justices in March seeking to sharply cut back nationwide injunctions judges issued against Trump's executive order purporting to end the right to birthright citizenship in the U.S. In a twist, the Justice Department did not ask the court for a quick decision on the legality of Trump's anti-birthright order. (Several lower courts have ruled it blatantly unconstitutional because it conflicts with the text of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause.) Instead, the administration is attempting to use the dispute as a way to get the Supreme Court to declare that judges can't issue broad orders that protect people with no connection to a pending lawsuit. In an unusual move, the justices agreed to hear arguments on the emergency applications and did so last month. The oral arguments revealed no obvious consensus on the court about how to proceed or whether the case is a good vehicle to address broader concerns about the scope of nationwide injunctions. There were even some indications that the justices might want to dig into the birthright citizenship issue, which was not the focus of the legal briefs. Because the case is up as an emergency matter, the court could forgo an opinion and simply deny the applications — at any time — in a terse order with little or no explanation of its reasoning. It could also decide it wants to get full briefing and argument on the substance of the birthright citizenship issue this fall and punt on the injunctions issue until then, leaving Trump's birthright policy on hold.

Gavin Newsom sues Fox News for $787M in defamation case over Trump call
Gavin Newsom sues Fox News for $787M in defamation case over Trump call

Politico

time8 minutes ago

  • Politico

Gavin Newsom sues Fox News for $787M in defamation case over Trump call

Gavin Newsom is taking a page right out of Donald Trump's media playbook. The California governor accused Fox News of defamation in a lawsuit Friday morning, alleging the network should fork over $787 million after host Jesse Watters claimed Newsom lied about his phone calls with Trump, who ordered National Guard troops to Los Angeles this month. Newsom's lawyers argue Watters' program misleadingly edited a video of Trump to support the claim. The Democratic likely presidential hopeful's request for damages is nearly identical to the $787.5 million sum Fox News paid Dominion Voting Systems in 2023 to settle another defamation case over election falsehoods. And it comes amid a spate of lawsuits from Trump against major media and other companies that resulted in multi-million dollar settlements. 'If Fox News wants to lie to the American people on Donald Trump's behalf, it should face consequences — just like it did in the Dominion case,' Newsom told POLITICO in a statement. 'Until Fox is willing to be truthful, I will keep fighting against their propaganda machine.' Public officials must clear an extremely high legal standard to prevail in defamation cases, as the U.S. Supreme Court established six decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. But the lawsuit's filing marks a pointed escalation in Newsom's feud with the Republican president and his allies in media. Newsom is suing in his personal capacity and has agreed to pay any possible fines or penalties from his campaign account, aides said. Any proceeds from the case to Newsom would be disseminated to anti-Trump causes. Newsom's suit echoes Trump's own lawsuits against major news networks like ABC, which agreed in December to pay Trump $15 million to settle a defamation case over George Stephanopoulos' inaccurate claim that Trump was found civilly liable for rape. (Trump was actually found civilly liable for sexual abuse, though the judge in the case later ruled that it was accurate in 'common modern parlance' to say Trump had been found liable for rape.) Trump in another suit accused CBS' '60 Minutes' last fall of misleadingly editing an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential race. At least two executives from the company have since left their posts and the unresolved CBS suit has become a central drama in the pending sale of a controlling stake in Paramount. Newsom's lawyers said he is prepared to drop the lawsuit if Fox retracts its claims and Watters apologizes to him on air. A copy of Newsom's complaint filed in the Delaware Superior Court — in the same state where Fox News is incorporated — claims he last spoke with Trump for approximately 16 minutes by phone on June 7, two days before the president deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops over Newsom's objections to quell protests in Los Angeles. Trump, however, told reporters on June 10 he had spoken with Newsom 'a day ago,' implying a conversation took place the same day 700 U.S. Marines were deployed to Los Angeles. Newsom refuted Trump's claim in a post on X minutes later. That evening, Watters played an edited clip of Trump's remarks on air before asking, 'Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him?' He simultaneously showed a screenshot of the president's call history, obtained by Fox host John Roberts, showing Trump's last call with Newsom was on June 7, as the governor had claimed. Newsom's lawyers argue the incident meets the legal standard for defamation and potentially harmed the governor's standing with voters in future elections. Additionally, they claimed it violated California's Unfair Competition Law, which outlaws 'deceptive and unfair business practices.' Mark Bankson and another private lawyer representing Newsom, Michael Teter, summarized their case in a five-page letter to Fox on Friday littered with biting insults of the network's credibility and sarcastic jabs at Trump's mental acuity. 'It is perhaps unsurprising that a near-octogenarian with a history of delusionary public statements and unhinged late-night social media screeds might confuse the dates,' the lawyers wrote. 'But Fox's decision to cover up for President Trump's error cannot be so easily dismissed.' Newsom's suit adds further drama to his love-hate relationship with Fox. He's an avid viewer who's enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship with the network at times over the last three decades, reveling in the ability to go toe-to-toe with firebrand hosts like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly in front of millions of conservatives. Yet he's often decried Fox's rightward tilt while smiling for its cameras, as he did in 2023 when heaccused Hannity of helping Florida's Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, cheat in a primetime debate. His relationship with Trump is more complex but follows a similar rhythm of a tense rivalry punctuated by moments of collaboration. This year alone, Newsom hugged Trump as the president deplaned to tour wildfire damage in Los Angeles, only to sue him over tariffs months later before savagely attacking the president in a June primetime address that catapulted him back to the forefront of Democratic resistance against the president's agenda. Newsom's tense face-off with Trump put him squarely in conservative media's bullseye. Just last week, the Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post mocked Newsom on its front page with a photo of him sipping wine in Napa on the same weekend Trump called in Guard troops. Newsom's press office has since said he was at a cancer fundraiser honoring his late mother, who died of breast cancer. The governor's legal team is no stranger to high-profile defamation cases. Bankson represented the parents of an elementary school student killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre in a defamation suit against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Bankson's team secured a verdict in 2022 ordering Jones to pay $49.3 million in total damages.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store