
Pride in America hits historic low, new poll finds just days before July 4 holiday
Only 36 percent of Democrats say they're "extremely" or "very" proud to be American, while 53 percent of independents said they were, according to the poll conducted just before the Independence Day holiday weekend.
The findings are a stark illustration of how many, but not all, Americans have felt less of a sense of pride in their country over the past decade.
Meanwhile, Republicans reported a higher level of pride in the country, with 92 percent saying they are extremely or very proud to be American.
The split between Democrats and Republicans, at 56 percentage points, is at its widest since 2001. That includes all four years of President Donald Trump 's first term.
While Republicans' pride in the country is on the rise, its still not enough to offset the diminishing pride of Democrats.
Overall, 58 percent of U.S. adults say they are prideful – still a downward shift compared to last 10 years.
Independent voters' pride in their national identity hit a new low in the most recent survey, at 53 percent, largely following that pattern of gradual decline.
Democrats' diminished pride in being American is more clearly linked to Trump's time in office. When Trump first entered the White House, in 2017, about two-thirds of Democrats said they were proud to be American. That had fallen to 42 percent by 2020, just before Trump lost reelection to former president Joe Biden.
America's decline in national pride has been a slow erosion, with a steady downtick in Gallup's data since January 2001, when the question was first asked.
Even during the tumultuous early years of the Iraq War, the vast majority of U.S. adults, whether Republican or Democrat, said they were "extremely" or "very" proud to be American. At that point, about 9 in 10 were "extremely" or "very" proud to be American. That remained high in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but the consensus around American pride slipped in the years that followed.
"It's not just a Trump story," Jones said. "Something else is going on, and I think it's just younger generations coming in and not being as patriotic as older people."
Only about 4 in 10 U.S. adults who are part of Generation Z, which is defined as those born from 1997 to 2012, expressed a high level of pride in being American in Gallup surveys conducted in the past five years, on average. That's compared with about 6 in 10 Millennials.
"Each generation is less patriotic than the prior generation, and Gen Z is definitely much lower than anybody else," Jeffrey Jones, a senior editor at Gallup, told The Associated Press.
"But even among the older generations, we see that they're less patriotic than the ones before them, and they've become less patriotic over time. That's primarily driven by Democrats within those generations."
Other recent polling shows that Democrats and independents are less likely than Republicans to say that expressing patriotism is important or to feel a sense of pride in their national leaders.
Nearly 9 in 10 Republicans in a 2024 SSRS poll said they believed patriotism has a positive impact on the United States, with Democrats more divided: 45 percent said patriotism had a positive impact on the country, while 37 percent said it was negative
But a more general sense of discontent was clear on both sides of the aisle earlier this year, when a CNN/SSRS poll found that fewer than 1 in 10 Democrats and Republicans said "proud" described the way they felt about politics in America today.
In that survey, most Americans across the political spectrum said they were "disappointed" or "frustrated" with the country's politics.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Spectator
25 minutes ago
- Spectator
Could the Arctic be key to ending the Ukraine war?
'It is in Alaska and in the Arctic that the economic interests of our countries converge and prospects for implementing large-scale mutually beneficial projects arise,' said Yuri Ushakov, Vladimir Putin's long-time foreign policy adviser and former Russian ambassador to the United States, at a Friday press conference in Moscow. His words pointed to Arctic economic cooperation being firmly on the agenda when Donald Trump meets Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. For Trump, a massively important commercial deal of this kind is his typical negotiating strategy. It's the 'Art of the Deal' – offer something big, lucrative and tangible, then leverage it to unlock political concessions. It's the template Trump just used to broker a peace agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where economic incentives were bound up with resolving a long-running security dispute. An Arctic agreement between the US and Russia could revive energy collaboration between the two countries on a breathtaking scale. A deal would be massively lucrative for both sides. The Arctic contains an estimated 13 per cent of the world's undiscovered oil, roughly 90 billion barrels, and 30 per cent of its undiscovered natural gas. Russia controls around half of that, with explorers pointing to 2,300 million metric tons of oil and condensate, and 35,700 billion cubic metres of gas. It's a bonanza tailor-made for Trump's America First. Parlay US expertise and capital into these frozen assets and the pay-off would be staggering. The shipping upside is no less compelling. The Northern Sea Route offers the promise of slashing shipping times between Asia and Europe by up to 50 per cent. As melting ice slowly opens the Arctic lanes, that cut becomes ever more real: less fuel burned, no queueing at chokepoints, and avoidance of piracy hotspots. Pair that with a fleet of US oil champions and Arctic logistics savvy, and Trump suddenly holds a commercial deal that has the feel of an irresistible boardroom trophy. The US and Russia have been here before. In 2011 ExxonMobil struck a landmark deal with Russia's Rosneft to explore and drill in the Russian Arctic, including the Kara Sea. It was a project worth tens of billions, giving Exxon access to vast untapped reserves and giving the Russians US technology and expertise. Drilling began, but the partnership was suspended in 2014 when western sanctions were imposed after Russia's annexation of Crimea. Bringing it back to life, or using it as the template for new ventures, would be straightforward in commercial terms. The infrastructure, geological data and corporate relationships already exist. A revived Arctic partnership could go beyond oil and gas to include liquefied natural gas terminals, port upgrades, and joint development of the Northern Sea Route, binding the two economies together in one of the last great frontiers for energy extraction. There is no confirmation that the Arctic and Ukraine will be explicitly linked. Yet the logic is obvious enough and the hints coming from Moscow cannot be ignored. For Putin, the Arctic could be the sweetener that secures US agreement to a settlement on his terms in Ukraine. Moscow is unlikely to shift on the fundamentals: Crimea and the Donbas are written into Russia's constitution as part of its territory. Any deal would lock in those gains, demand Ukraine's demilitarisation and secure a buffer against Nato. Trump could claim an Arctic deal as a massive commercial win for the US and the end of a war which he insists was caused by Biden. Putin could gain Washington's help in pushing Kyiv to accept the deal. Trump's leverage is blunt. Kyiv's very survival depends on American weapons and cash. By threatening to cut them off, Trump can force Zelensky to the table on terms Kyiv has long rejected. For Trump, this is straight from his negotiating playbook: create a crisis point, hold the most valuable card, and make sure everyone knows you are prepared to walk away. For Zelensky, the choice would be between accepting a peace agreement that leaves Ukraine truncated, or facing a war without US backing. Ukraine's position is fragile. Its army is drained, its economy battered, and its war effort hinges on western aid. European and UK promises mean little without US firepower and financing. If Trump decides to pivot towards an Arctic bargain with Putin, Kyiv may need to fall in line or face the battlefield more or less alone. Zelensky can draw red lines, but without American support they'll count for little. The EU and Britain would protest loudly, but they lack the leverage to block an American/Russian deal. Brussels, London, Paris and Berlin have all made clear that no settlement should be struck over Ukraine's head, yet moral objections are no substitute for raw power. British, French and German support for Ukraine may not make much of a difference to the Russian advance if the war were to drag on without full US support. Kyiv would be furious about a deal on the Arctic linked to Ukraine. Zelensky has built his presidency on reclaiming occupied land and has vowed never to cede Crimea or the Donbas. A deal that locks in those losses would be denounced as a betrayal. London would echo the outrage, while Brussels would convene summits and issue condemnations. Yet despite the rhetoric, the Europeans would be powerless to change the outcome. The settlement would already be signed and control of US financing of the war firmly in Trump's hands. Beyond the western alliance, the reaction would be far warmer. Much of the global south sees the war in Ukraine less as a clash over borders, and more as a drag on global trade and growth. For China, India and Brazil, an end to the war, even entirely on Russia's terms, would be hailed as pragmatic diplomacy. Trump could present the Arctic bargain as proof that US-Russia cooperation can solve global problems, and this would help blunt criticism from Europe and the UK. The incentives for both Trump and Putin line up neatly. For Trump, it would be another Trump 'deal' in which commercial muscle underwrites a political settlement. Putin would keep his territorial gains and reopen the Arctic to US investment, and Ukraine would be left to make the best of a settlement it didn't shape. Britain and the EU would be reduced to a role of bystanders.


The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
Fox News pundit contradicts Trump's claims that ‘crime is out of control' in the nation's capital
Former Washington, D.C., homicide detective and defense attorney Ted Williams has taken to Fox News to reject President Donald Trump 's contention that 'crime is out of control' in the nation's capital. Over the weekend, Trump announced that he would be staging a press conference on Monday to address the matter, saying of the city: 'It has become one of the most dangerous cities anywhere in the World. It will soon be one of the safest!!!' He subsequently insisted that D.C.'s homeless citizens 'move out, IMMEDIATELY,' adding: 'We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital. The Criminals, you don't have to move out. We're going to put you in jail where you belong.' It was then reported that the president is sending 120 FBI agents on overnight shifts to help local law enforcement battle carjackings and other violent crime in D.C. His rhetoric has escalated since former DOGE employee Edward Coristine, also known as 'Big Balls,' was beaten up by muggers eight days ago when he refused to give up his car during an attempted hijacking. Asked by Fox anchor Jon Scott about D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser 's comment that violent crime is down 61 percent in the district from two years ago, Williams said: 'I have to agree with the mayor here… Yes, there is crime, and there will always be crimes in every major metropolitan city in this country. 'What I really found troubling and, I gotta tell you, as a lawyer I found it troubling… is that the President of the United States would say that crime is out of control. 'I take exception to that. Crime is not out of control in the District of Columbia. Yes, you do have some juveniles here that are out of control and those juveniles need to be addressed and arrested.' But, he continued: 'I think that even the Metropolitan Police Department is happy that the president has married up the federal agencies that help to try to combat crime in the District of Columbia.' Scott went on to present Williams with official data suggesting that juvenile offenders were the real problem, given that young people have been involved in half of the attempted carjackings this year and that 2,000 teens have been arrested in D.C. over the last two years. 'In any major metropolitan city you are going to have, unfortunately, juveniles committing crimes,' he responded. The ex-cop invoked the attack on Coristine as the likely motivation for Trump's new hard-line stance and added: 'I would like to ask Mr Trump: 'Where were you last month when a three-year-old child, Honesty Cheadle, was shot and killed as the result of a crime in the District of Columbia?' I didn't hear Mr Trump speaking out then. 'I want Mr Trump to do something for the district. Continue to have the federal officers partner with the district officers to try to bring down crime. But don't use this as a pretext to actually eradicate home rule... That seems to be what Mr Trump is interested in.'


Reuters
26 minutes ago
- Reuters
Fed structure may be in flux, not just rates: Mike Dolan
LONDON, Aug 11 (Reuters) - Whatever happens at September's Federal Reserve meeting will pale in comparison to a wholesale rethinking of the U.S. central bank's design, a possibility stirred by Donald Trump's latest appointment. The president nominated White House advisor Stephen Miran to temporarily fill Adriana Kugler's vacant Fed board seat, reheating a debate about whether the Fed structure, its independence, and even its central role in the monetary economy should now become live questions. That may sound like a giant leap in a discussion that has so far centered largely on how quickly the Fed should lower interest rates, and numerous big hurdles certainly limit the potential for massive institutional change. For one, Miran, who has written about re-ordering the Fed voting system and appointment process and binding the central bank more closely to government thinking, still has to be confirmed by the Senate. While that process may be expedited, because he was already confirmed as a White House official, he would ostensibly only hold the post until Kugler's term formally ends in January. He would also only get one vote under the current system, and Trump has yet to name his pick to replace Chair Jerome Powell next May. But most Fed watchers think Miran is likely to be confirmed for the full board term eventually, even if he's not considered a candidate for the top job. And his appointment, the eventual new Fed Chair, along with Chris Waller, the current favorite to replace Powell when his leadership term ends in May, and fellow Trump appointee Michelle Bowman, would then give Trump a board majority. On monetary policy at least, the five rotating regional Fed presidents on the 12-person policymaking committee can still push back. That said, their views are likely in flux since last week's employment report, and markets expect interest rate cuts to resume next month regardless. Sowing the seeds of longer-term structural change would reside more clearly with the board itself. The wider issue of rethinking Fed structure, its functioning and independence is a much harder nut to crack. Even if a Trump-dominated board opened the process, it would likely face considerable Congressional opposition and take some time. Many voices have been quick to downplay such speculation. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who spoke just last month of the need to examine the entire institution, also told NBC this week that Trump has "great reverence" for the central bank and just "likes to work the referees". Former Fed officials, such as ex-New York Fed boss Bill Dudley, also think the institution and its independence will withstand Trump's repeated attacks on the current leadership. In an opinion piece on Bloomberg this week, Dudley wrote, "Don't be fooled by the drama. In terms of how the Fed manages the economy, it's mostly a tempest in a teapot." And yet the appointment of Miran - whose work also includes a radical rethink of U.S. trade policy and the controversial "Mar-a-Lago Accord" idea on cutting U.S. deficits and debt obligations - indicates that a wider Trump worldview is being injected into the Fed. For some critics, Trump's dramatic embrace of digital assets, crypto tokens and stablecoins is already an indication of a very real direction of travel that could transform the monetary world and banking system. Former International Monetary Fund chief economist Kenneth Rogoff, opens new tab wrote this week that Trump's stablecoin framework bears striking similarities to the free-banking era of the 1800s, when the United States did not have a central bank. "At the time, private banks issued their own dollar-backed currencies, often with disastrous consequences such as fraud, instability and frequent bank runs," Rogoff wrote on the Project Syndicate site. While similar problems are "bound to emerge" with stablecoins, particularly tax evasion, he added that top stablecoin issuers today are at least more transparent and better capitalized than their nineteenth-century cousins. What happens to the Fed's role in a potential world of private money, however, is a whole other question. Trump supporters regularly insist that his asides and off-the-cuff remarks are often taken too literally and that people catastrophize what ends up being fairly sensible plans. Yet dismissing Trump's intention to reshape American and global institutions has proven to be folly this year as well. The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters -- Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. Follow ROI on LinkedIn. Plus, sign up for my weekday newsletter, Morning Bid U.S.