A Quinnipiac University survey in August 2025 portrays a seismic shift in the hearts and minds of the American public in terms of military support for Israel. Six out of ten respondents of the survey expressed opposition to providing the US with additional military aid in light of the current operations in Gaza.
The number marks a new low in opposition since the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023 that had initially united American public and political support for Israel. By contrast, only 32 percent said they would continue to aid them – the lowest approval rating on record since the poll began measuring sentiment on this question in late 2023.
The polarization is especially strong along the partisan lines. The number of Democrats opposed to military assistance to Israel stands at 75 percent, closely followed by 66 percent of independents. Working-class Republicans are much more consistent, with 56 percent still supporting assistance, although within conservative ranks, divisions are beginning to show. The data also suggested that a symbolic shift of sympathies was at hand: for the first time, more Americans sympathize with Palestinians (37 percent) than with Israelis (36 percent), signaling an unprecedented reconfiguration of public perception in the United States.
Public views on Israel’s military actions and Gaza humanitarian crisis
A July 2025 Gallup poll also confirms the Quinnipiac results, with only 32 percent of Americans approving of Israel’s military actions in Gaza. Sixty percent do not approve; a significant jump from prior years and surveys. The condemnation is largely driven by the issue of civilian casualties and the humanitarian situation, particularly as the Israeli attack into Gaza City intensifies and widespread isolation reports surface of the destruction of infrastructure.
The differences between the generations are stark. And it’s only 9 percent of Americans 18-34 years old who approve of Israel’s military actions. This group, which is growing in digital and political activity, is changing the discourse on foreign policy by way of digital activism and direct political action. Similarly, among both parties, Republican support for Israel operations remained high at 71 percent, but Democratic approval has also collapsed since 2023 (from 36 percent to just 8 percent in 2025).
Humanitarian narratives and media visibility
Humanitarian agencies have declared Gaza to be in famine, experiencing acute shortages in food, medical supplies and safe shelter for the civilian population. However, the pandemic and the Civil War have been widely diffused in the global news and social media and have played a significant part in reducing the level of support for unconditional US support. The advocacy groups say humanitarian aid must be a primary concern and argue that further arms transfers will deepen the crisis and erode the standards of international laws.
Public opinion vs. congressional action
Despite this obvious change in public opinion, congressional action is almost unchanged. The House of Representatives passed $500 million in non-binding missile defense assistance to Israel by a vote of 422 to 6 in July 2025. Such legislative uniformity is a product of decades-long bipartisanship consensus on Israel’s status as an ally, built upon commitments to Israel and lobbying networks.
President Joe Biden has reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend itself on several public occasions thus reaffirming the strategic alignment of the two countries since the beginning. While there has been a rhetoric of concern for civilian casualties, conditionalities have not been attached to aid packages. Although there is some indication of discomfort with the President’s approach among Democratic legislators, particularly from constituencies that demand human rights-focused policy conditions, the concerns have to date not evolved into significant legislative changes.
Disconnect between voters and policymakers
The growing disconnect between the opinion of the people and the behavior of legislators is a good example of how institutional forces shape US foreign policy. Campaign finance, foreign lobbying, alliance structures and the like add to a status quo which can be insulated against swift changes in opinion. While domestic issues like inflation, health care, and employment retain their traditional primacy in electoral cycles, Middle East policy is still vulnerable to the well-coordinated political demands of interest groups, as opposed to the more diffuse demands of the electorate.
Broader political and humanitarian implications
The data brings to the fore a shifting fracture in American politics over engagement in the Middle East. A growing lack of trust, which is grounded in media exposure, ethical public discourse, and changing values among younger generations, is putting policy assumptions about the past under pressure. Images of destruction and civilian suffering in Gaza appear to have galvanized a rethink of stories that until now seemed politically sacrosanct.
This trend could reflect a wider shift towards conditional assistance, humanitarian accountability and greater scrutiny of alliance conduct. Human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have called on the US to use its economic leverage to encourage ceasefires and negotiations instead of ratcheting up the rhetoric. These demands are now being picked up by some policy makers, including members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Activism and domestic political shifts
Grassroots activism has been of critical importance in increasing public opposition. Protests on campus, interfaith coalitions and civil society campaigns have expanded the discourse beyond conventional advocacy networks. The result is a greater pressure on elected officials to become involved with constituents’ moral and humanitarian issues, especially within the Democratic base.
He has spoken on this topic, highlighting the way in which the dizzying changes in the opinions of the American public force policy makers to balance the ethical with the strategic:
Their comment underscores a wider debate in American political culture, what should the limits of national interests be against rising public-consciousness?
Implications for the future of US-Israel relations
With the national election just four years away in 2026, the direction of American public opinion could start to affect party platforms and candidate strategy. Democrats in particular are challenged to preserve unity in the face of competing visions of U.S.-Israel relations. Younger, more diverse voter bases will have ever growing influence, and may force a rethinking of foreign policy or at least a reconsideration of unconditional support.
Presidential administrations in coming years may be required to confront a vocal and mobilized electorate on the question of foreign aid, particularly as humanitarian conditions in Gaza deteriorate. The Republican Party continues to be pro-Israel, but party divisions – particularly between populist isolationists and traditional hawks – threaten to open internal discussions regarding military commitments abroad.
Future of aid policy and conditional frameworks
The United States has traditionally considered itself to be a guarantor of Israeli security based on common strategic interests and political affinity. However, the sustainability of such support now seems to be more closely related to the development of public opinion. Future assistance packages will need stricter controls, human rights-based monitoring, or may need to be restructured in terms of diplomatic frameworks that emphasize de-escalating and civilian protection.
How the US adjusts to these changes will determine its credibility on the international scene. The possibility of the emergence of conditional military assistance or even dual-track diplomatic strategies that would balance security and humanitarian goals could change the way Washington conducts itself in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Whether this reflects a long-term change in attitudes or is a temporary expression of wartime sentiment remains to be seen–and will depend on developments in the future both in Gaza and on our own shores.
As public debate on the issue grows more polarized and participatory, US foreign policy could be recalibrated to a significant degree for the first time in decades. Whether policymakers are willing to change course or to persist in their own direction will challenge the delicate balance between democratic accountability and strategic continuity in a fast-changing global environment.
