We’re still waiting to find out whether President Donald Trump follows through and strikes Iran after the country violated his red line by killing lots of protesters. While Trump said he’s received assurances that “the killing has stopped,” he’s kept the possibility of military action on the table – which would mark a significant escalation even for the increasingly militaristic Trump.
We’re still waiting to find out whether President Donald Trump follows through and strikes Iran after the country violated his red line by killing lots of protesters. While Trump said he’s received assurances that “the killing has stopped,” he’s kept the possibility of military action on the table – which would mark a significant escalation even forthe increasinglymilitaristic Trump.
But regardless of whether Trump ultimately pulls the trigger, one thing has become increasingly clear in recent weeks and months: As Trump has grown more hawkish, he’s pulled his party right along with him.
The days of Trump-inspired non-interventionism in the Republican Party are very much over.
A case in point Friday was a newpoll from Marist College. It asked Americans whether they supported “military action” in five different places – not just Iran and Venezuela (where Trump recently used the military to oust Nicolás Maduro) but also Cuba, Greenland and Mexico.
A majority of Republicans supported military action inall five locations. And at least 7 in 10 supported it in every place except Greenland.
Here are the percentages of Republicans who supported military action in each:
Those are … remarkable numbers.
We’ve got basically three-fourths of Republicans who are happy to send the military to locations on three different continents right now, including to two of our closest neighbors.
And it’s overwhelmingly Republicans who are on-board with these hypotheticals. Independent support ranges between 23% and 35% for each of these targets. Democratic support ranges between 4% and 18%.
What’s to account for this?
Some of this is the GOP base apparently following Trump’s lead. Trump hasthreatened each of these placesin recent weeks with different kinds of military interventions, so perhaps Republicans don’t want to outright dismiss those ideas.
Backing up that reading: the fact that in none of these cases do a majority of Republicans “strongly” support the idea. Lots and lots of Republicans offer more qualified support.
And it bears emphasizing that “military action” is undefined. The poll isn’t specifically about taking over Greenland, for example, which has polled poorly even among Republicans in other surveys.
But we’re still talking about some really striking levels of willingness to go along with dispatching the military. And that matters as Trump repeatedly threatens to do just that.
And these aren’t the only findings in this vein.
One of the striking things about Trump’s attacks on Iranian nuclear sites back in June was how quickly the GOP shifted after the strikes were launched. A pre-strikes Washington Post poll showed just 47% of Republicans supported the idea, but supportquickly spiked to 77% afterward.
When Trump began eyeing possible military action in Venezuela later in the year, it wasn’t as hard a sell with his base. Polls before the strikes showed Republicans were already on-board with military action by16 pointsand19 points.
(Again, this was despite independents and Democrats overwhelmingly opposing the strikes.)
After this month’s operation, Republicans also shifted even more in favor – and favored going even further. While the broader population shied away from further involvement in Venezuela, a Reuters-Ipsos poll showed Republicans supportedstationing troops inside Venezuela, 60%-22%.
Not even boots on the ground is apparently a bridge too far.
And it’s not just these specific military actions in specific countries. It’s also Republicans’ general attitude towards using the military.
Most telling here is AP-NORC polling. It has regularly tested whether Americans want a “more active role” or a “less active role” in solving the world’s problems.
The percentage of Republicans who want a “less active role” has dropped from 53% in February 2024, to 43% in March 2025, to 34% in September, andnow just 26%in a poll conducted after the Venezuela strike.
The United States is objectively getting much more involved in world affairs right now, including through its use of the military. And the Republicans who object to that are dwindling.
And then there’s a recentNPR-Ipsos poll, which asked an appropriate question for this moment in time: whether people agree that “The United States should not hesitate to use its military power.”
Republicans agreed with that sentiment, 67%-23%.
None of it means that Trump has carte blanche to do what he wants.
Indeed, the fact that Americans overall strongly oppose just about all of these military actions is a real warning sign for him, and the country as wholeremains in a pretty non-interventionist posture.
Some of Trump’s more specific ideas are also unpopular even among Republicans. That’s especially the case with taking Greenland by force, which Republicans opposed 60%-8% in Reuters-Ipsos polling. AQuinnipiac University pollreleased this week, meanwhile, asked with more specificity about the situation in Iran and found Republicans opposed to getting involved, 53%-35%.
Finally, the latest Reuters pollshowed just 43% of Republicans backed the idea of dominating the Western Hemisphere, as Trump and his team has proposed.
But most of the rest were unsure. That betrays an openness. And the rest of the data suggest the GOP is warming to Trump’s efforts to throw his and the military’s weight around on the world stage.
And that matters if Trump does decide to follow through. It might not make his actions popular, but it will make it difficult for Republican lawmakers to stand in his way. Just this week,two GOP senators backed offon checking Trump’s authorities in Venezuela on a key vote, amid plenty of pressure.
We’re entering a new phase in GOP foreign policy.