Limits on President’s Use of Military Force Favored by Bipartisan Majorities in Battlegrounds
Support Aid to Ukraine, NATO Membership, Continuing Nuclear Testing Moratorium, and Foreign Aid
Oct. 15, 2026 – Across battleground states and districts, majorities of both Democrats and Republicans agree on numerous policies related to presidential use of military force and America’s role in the world. These findings come from battleground surveys of nearly 20,000 Americans by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive House districts.
Placing restrictions on presidents’ authority to use military force without congressional approval is favored by bipartisan majorities in most battlegrounds:
- requiring Congressional approval for Presidents to use nuclear weapons first in response to a non-nuclear attack
- cutting off funding for military action after 60 days, if the President fails to get congressional approval
Providing military aid to Ukraine, continuing to be part of NATO, and generally participating in collective security agreements are favored by majorities of both Democrats and Republicans in every battleground surveyed.
Foreign aid programs to assist developing countries are favored by very large bipartisan majorities in every battleground, including for humanitarian relief, health, economic development, education, democracy, human rights and the environment.
Participating in international nuclear weapons agreements gets bipartisan majority support in every battleground, including:
- continuing to abide by the international moratorium on nuclear testing
- having nuclear arms control treaties with Russia
Steven Kull, Director of the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation (PPC) notes, “The American public is against any president having singular control over US military force, especially nuclear weapons.” He adds, “More broadly, bipartisan majorities favor the US being engaged internationally to uphold collective security, limit nuclear weapons, and address humanitarian crises, poverty and disease.”
Common Ground in the Battlegrounds?
This survey release is the 14th in the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? survey series being conducted by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) in the run-up to the November election in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive US House districts. The results for all individual states and districts can be found HERE.
With this release – the last in the series – the project has identified 85 policies with bipartisan majority support in every battleground state and district surveyed, and over a dozen more with bipartisan support in most battlegrounds.
Surveys on a total of fifteen topics have been released, covering over 100 specific policy questions. The policies – most of which are pending in Congress – were chosen because surveys by PPC and others consistently found majority Republican and Democratic agreement nationally.
Previously released surveys: Artificial Intelligence, Housing, Healthcare, Low-Income Assistance, Families and Children, Social Security, Immigration, Abortion and Birth Control, The Role of “We the People”, Energy and Environment, Federal Taxes, Campaign Finance and Government Reform, and Criminal Justice.
Presidential War Powers
A proposal to automatically cut off funding for President-initiated military actions after 60 days, unless Congress approves it, is favored by 72 to 91% of Democrats, 41 to 83% of Republicans (majorities in 31 out of the 39 battlegrounds surveyed), and 60 to 83% overall. Nationally, this proposal is favored by 82% of Democrats, 63% of Republicans, and 71% overall.
Requiring a President to get Congress to issue a formal declaration of war in order for the President to launch a nuclear strike in response to a non-nuclear attack is favored by bipartisan majorities (Democrats 57 to 93%, Republicans 63 to 89%, overall 60 to 81%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 64%, Republicans 77%, overall 69%).
Aid to Ukraine, Collective Security, and NATO
The US continuing to provide military assistance to Ukraine, including military equipment, ammunition, training and intelligence is favored by majorities overall in every battleground state and district (53 to 78%), and majorities of Democrats (62 to 91%). Among Republicans, it is favored by majorities in 31 out of the 39 battlegrounds surveyed (39 to 72%). Nationally, a bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 75%, Republicans 58%, overall 65%).
Consistent with this, large bipartisan majorities favor US foreign policy placing a high priority on upholding the principle of collective security, by contributing to collective military operations and/or using economic sanctions in response to international aggression (Democrats 68 to 97%, Republicans 68 to 88%, overall 67 to 84%). Nationally, eight in ten are in favor (Democrats 76%, Republicans 87%).
Whether the US should continue participating in NATO, which requires coming to the defense of other members if they are under attack, has been under debate recently. Given the full description of what being a member of NATO entails, bipartisan majorities favor the US continuing to participate (Democrats 75 to 95%, Republicans 58 to 83%, overall 70 to 83%. Nationally, a very large bipartisan majority is in favor (Democrats 89%, Republicans 79%, overall 83%).
Foreign Aid
Bipartisan majorities in every battleground surveyed favor the US providing six types of foreign aid to countries in need.
- Humanitarian relief: providing food, medical care, and shelter to victims of disasters like famine, a flood, or a war. (Battlegrounds: Democrats 84 to 97%, Republicans 74 to 91%, overall 81 to 92%. Nationally: Democrats 94%, Republicans 89%, overall 90%).
- Health: treating diseases (including HIV and malaria); preventing the spread of diseases; improving health outcomes (especially for mothers and children); train doctors and nurses; ensure access to clean water. (Battlegrounds: Democrats 84 to 98%, Republican 71 to 89%, overall 78 to 91%. Nationally: Democrats 93%, Republicans 87%, overall 89%).
- Economic development: improving food production, developing infrastructure, and building up their private enterprises and financial systems. (Battlegrounds: Democrats 74 to 93%, Republicans 63 to 83%, overall 70 to 86%. Nationally: Democrats 86%, Republican 76%, overall 80%).
- Education: training teachers, encouraging school attendance (such as by offering school lunches), and improving literacy. (Battlegrounds: Democrats 81 to 96%, Republicans 62 to 88%, overall 76 to 90%. Nationally: Democrats 90%, Republican 80%, overall 85%).
- Democracy: protecting and promoting free and fair elections, human rights, a free press and the rule of law. (Battlegrounds: Democrats 80 to 96%, Republicans 71 to 85%, overall 75 to 89%. Nationally: Democrats 91%, Republican 82%, overall 86%).
- The environment: preserving the environment, reducing pollution, transitioning to energy sources that produce less or no pollution, and preparing better for natural disasters. (Battlegrounds: Democrats 83 to 96%, Republicans 56 to 85%, overall 69 to 89%. Nationally: Democrats 91%, Republicans 74%, overall 82%).
Nuclear Testing
Whether the US should continue to abide by the international moratorium on nuclear testing – something which has been debated recently – was asked. Bipartisan majorities in every battleground surveyed are in favor, including 72 to 93% of Democrats, 62 to 88% of Republicans, and 68 to 87% overall. Nationally, over three-quarters are in favor (Democrats 81%, Republicans 77%, overall 78%).
The US having nuclear arms control treaties with Russia, which limits both countries’ nuclear weapons and requires extensive inspections and information sharing, is favored by large bipartisan majorities (Democrats 69 to 91%, Republicans 65 to 91%, overall 72 to 85%). Nationally, eight in ten Democrats (79%) and Republicans (81%) are in favor (overall 79%).
MORE INFORMATION
- Individual State and District Results
- National Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs and Methodology
About the Surveys
The state and district surveys used for this analysis were fielded July 21 – August 17, 2026, to a total of 19,949 adults, including 600-2016 in each of the 11 states, and 499-592 in each of the 28 congressional districts. The response rates were 7.1 to 8.9%. The confidence intervals range from +/- 2.9 to 8.1%, and the maximum weights range from 3.7 to 10.0.
The national survey was fielded February 11-26, 2026, with 2,509 adults. The response rate was 7.6%. The confidence interval is +/- 2.9%, and the maximum weight is 2.5.
Sample was obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control were managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. The surveys were offered in both English and Spanish.
The samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, ethnicity, gender, education, household income, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The national sample was further weighted by Census region. The distribution of partisan affiliation was within expectations, based on voter registration data for non-leaners and/or Cook’s Partisan Voting Index for leaners, or weighted to reflect those benchmarks.
About the Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? Survey Series
The Common Ground in the Battlegrounds? project is conducting and releasing a survey series in 11 competitive states and 28 competitive U.S. House districts, being released on a rolling basis through the midterm elections. Surveys will cover 15 topics and include over 100 specific policy questions. The goal of this effort is to determine where there is bipartisan common ground in competitive states and districts across the nation. Additionally, the project seeks to educate the public, policymakers and candidates about the findings; and provide journalists with independent, nonpartisan research that brings the public into the conversation about public policy.
In addition to PPC, project partners include the Civic Innovation Center at the University of Maryland (CivIC), and Voice of the People (VOP), a national nonpartisan organization seeking to give the public a greater voice in government. None of these entities advocate for policy positions or endorse candidates.
States surveyed: Alaska; Georgia; Iowa; Maine; Michigan; Minnesota; Montana; Nebraska; New Hampshire; North Carolina; Ohio; and Texas.
Congressional Districts surveyed: Arizona’s 1st and 6th; Colorado’s 8th; Iowa’s 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th; Maine’s 2nd; Michigan’s 4th, 7th, 8th and 10th; Montana’s 1st; Nebraska’s 2nd; Nevada’s 3rd; New Jersey’s 7th and 9th; New Mexico’s 2nd; New York’s 3rd, 4th, 17th and 19th; Oregon’s 5th; Pennsylvania’s 1st, 7th, 8th and 10th; and Washington’s 3rd.
Program for Public Consultation
The Program for Public Consultation (PPC), affiliated with the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, seeks to improve democratic governance by consulting the public and bringing the people’s views into the public discourse. It conducts surveys with representative samples on policies proposed by elected officials and shares its findings with government officials, the media, other academics, and the general public.
Civic Innovation Center
The Civic Innovation Center (CivIC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy works to strengthen the foundations of civic health. It contributes to important debates about civic education, civic engagement, and needed democratic reforms in the state of Maryland and nationwide, in partnership with other BIG 10 universities. It works to build the connective tissue that brings together students, scholars and practitioners to help elevate the UMD community’s contribution to our wider democracy.
Voice of the People
Voice of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization working to re-anchor our democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater and more effective voice in government. It champions innovative methods and technology that enable the American people to play a role in the policymaking process and provide policymakers with a more accurate understanding of the views of their constituents.
Be the first to comment