Below is a summary of policy positions supported by bipartisan majorities of Americans. These positions were revealed through in-depth surveys with large, representative samples of Americans. Respondents were given balanced briefings on the issues, presented with current proposals (in most cases, legislation under consideration in Congress), and evaluated the strongest arguments for and against the proposals before making their recommendations. This deliberative process is designed to ensure that conclusions are not driven by misinformation or one-sided framing, but instead reflect considered public judgment.
Views in very red and very blue districts or states were also analyzed, and in all cases, majorities supported the same positions with only minor differences from the national sample. Partisan breakdowns were similar, but these partisan subsamples were in some cases not large enough to make a definitive statement.
To find out how Americans respond when they do not go through the in-depth deliberative process, separate samples were asked about these same proposals using a standard poll format. The same positions continued to receive bipartisan majority support, indicating that the conclusions reached through deliberation resonate broadly and are not dependent on a unique or artificial setting.
Finally, related standard polls from other organizations were analyzed. While the questions were not an exact match, in no case did majorities take a position directly at odds with the positions described below.
A complete presentation of the content from the various surveys can be found at vop.org/common-ground.
HEALTHCARE
Bipartisan majorities favor numerous proposals that entail the federal government playing an active role in reducing healthcare costs and ensuring access to healthcare.
Lowering prescription drug prices by limiting prices to those charged in other developing countries
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, July 2024:
- “The federal government shall set maximum prices that drug companies can charge for each prescription drug, based on what is charged for those drugs in other developed countries (such as Canada, Australia, Japan and many European countries).”
- Favor: National 78%, Republicans 75%, Democrats 87%
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “As you may know, many drug companies charge a higher price for drugs in the US than in other developed countries. To ensure that prices are not higher in the US, it has been proposed that the federal government set maximum prices based on what the drugs are sold for in other developed countries.”
- Favor: National 86%, Republicans 90%, Democrats 86%
- Harvard Congressional Election Study, 2022: [note: need to download dataset, var 327b]
- “Allow the government to negotiate with drug companies to get a lower price on prescription drugs that would apply to both Medicare and private insurance. Maximum negotiated price could not exceed 120% of the average prices in 6 other countries.”
- Support: National 86%, Republicans 77%, Democrats 95%
Reducing the cost of health insurance by offering a government-run public option similar to Medicare
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Deliberative Democracy Lab, September 2019
(partisan results) – deliberative poll with briefing, arguments and in-person discussion:- “Everybody should be able to buy a public plan like Medicare, the current plan for seniors over 65.”
- Support: National 71%, Republicans 59%, Democrats 84%
- “Everybody should be able to buy a public plan like Medicare, the current plan for seniors over 65.”
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Offer a government-run public option (similar to Medicare) and allow all individuals who want to, to buy into it.”
- Favor: National 80%, Republicans 76%, Democrats 86%
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Allow people, aged 55 years or older, to purchase a Medicare plan which is now only available to those 65 and over.”
- Favor: National 80%, Republicans 75%, Democrats 84%
- Morning Consult, March 2021:
- “A public option, where people can choose from a government-run health program or private insurance.”
- Favor: National 68%, Republicans 56%, Democrats 80%
- “A public option, where people can choose from a government-run health program or private insurance.”
- YouGov, March 2020:
- “Which system of health care coverage do you prefer the most? Medicare-for-all and end private health insurance; Add a public option to the current system of private health insurance; No changes to the current system of private health insurance.”
- Prefer Medicare-for-all OR public option: National 76%, Republicans 59%, Democrats 88%
- Pew Research Center, January 2020:
- “The government offering a health insurance plan, similar to Medicare, that Americans could choose to purchase instead of private insurance.”
- Favor: National 73%, Republicans 53%, Democrats 86%
- KFF, January 2020:
- “A government-administered health plan, sometimes called a public option, that would compete with private health insurance and be available to all Americans.”
- Favor: National 67%, Republicans 42%, Democrats 85%, independents 73%
Increasing funding for substance-use treatment so that it is available to all who need and want it
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, July 2024:
- “$11 billion a year to local and state governments to: expand existing treatment programs and build new treatment centers to increase the number of openings and reduce waiting lists; offer free or low-cost treatment for people who cannot afford it because they do not have insurance, have used up their coverage or cannot afford the copays that many health insurance plans require. $2 billion a year to research substance use disorders and train healthcare professionals in best-practices to treat substance use disorder and to deal with overdoses.”
- Favor: National 80%, Republicans 77%, Democrats 86%
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Increase government spending on substance use disorder by $13 billion, which would mean nearly all people who want and need treatment would get it.”
- Favor: National 75%, Republicans 69%, Democrats 83%
- ANES, 2024
[note for link: click remove missing data]- “The federal government should be doing more about the opioid drug addiction issue, should it be doing less, or is it currently doing the right amount?”
- Should do more: National 75%, Republicans 78%, Democrats 77%
Renewing increased subsidies for health insurance in the ACA marketplace to prevent sharp premium increases for low- and middle-income households
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, July 2024:
- “Make permanent the law which has: increased financial aid for lower- and middle-income households to reduce the amount that they pay for health insurance premiums and deductibles, and expanded financial aid for health insurance to include individuals making over $60,000 and families of four making over $125,000.”
- Favor: National 67%, Republicans 59%, Democrats 79%
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “As you may know, a law was passed in 2021 which temporarily increased subsidies for health insurance in the ACA marketplace. Recently, those increased subsidies were ended, thus raising the healthcare costs (premiums and deductibles) for households on ACA insurance.Here is a proposal: Renew the increased subsidies for ACA health insurance, so that low- and middle-income households on ACA will not have a major increase in health insurance costs.”
- Favor: National 81%, Republicans 73%, Democrats 90%
- KFF, September 2025:
- “In 2021 Congress increased the financial help provided through tax credits available to some people who purchase health insurance through the Affordable Care Act marketplace to help them afford their premiums. These enhanced tax credits are set to expire at the end of 2025. Should Congress extend these enhanced tax credits, or should they let these enhanced tax credits expire?”
- Should extend: National 78%, Republicans 59%, Democrats 92%
- KFF, December 2022:
- “Extending financial subsidies for people who purchase health coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplace.”
- Support: National 72%, Republicans 54%, Democrats 90%
HOUSING
Bipartisan majorities favor proposals for the federal government to make substantial investments in affordable housing, and regulate corporate homeownership.
$25 billion to build multi-family housing affordable to low and middle-income households
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, October 2025:
- “The Federal government would provide $25 billion to city and state governments that want it, for them to increase the construction or repair of dense housing (townhomes, apartments and duplexes) that are affordable to low- and middle-income people to rent or buy.”
- Favor: National 71%, Republicans 57%, Democrats 88%
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Providing $25 billion to local governments to increase the amount of high-density housing affordable to low- and middle-income households.”
- Favor: National 74%, Republicans 63%, Democrats 84%
$40 billion to build multi-family housing affordable to very low-income households
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, October 2025:
- “The Federal government spending up to $40 billion to increase the building and repair of housing that is affordable to people with low- and very low-incomes. These funds would be given to cities and states that want it to enact their own plans to increase the availability of affordable housing, and to help provide more low-interest loans to home builders to build affordable housing.”
- Favor: National 74%, Republicans 63%, Democrats 86%
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Spending up to $40 billion to increase the amount of high-density housing (such as apartment buildings, duplexes and triplexes) affordable for people with low and very low incomes.”
- Favor: National 74%, Republicans 64%, Democrats 86%
$24 billion in additional Public Housing vouchers
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, October 2025:
- “People who are eligible for public housing can choose between living in public housing that is owned by the government, or getting money in the form of Housing Vouchers to help them pay rent in private housing. Right now there are more people who want and qualify for Housing Vouchers than are. There are also fewer landlords participating in public housing programs than are needed to meet the demand for public housing. A proposal has been put forward to spend $24 billion to provide more people with Housing Vouchers.”
- Favor: National 74%, Republicans 63%, Democrats 87%
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Spending up to $24 billion to provide more vouchers to help people pay rent who are very low income, disabled or elderly.”
- Favor: National 80%, Republicans 74%, Democrats 89%
Tax credits for building housing, provided 60% are affordable to low or middle-income households to rent
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, October 2025:
- “People who are eligible for public housing can choose between living in public housing that is owned by the government, or getting money in the form of Housing Vouchers to help them pay rent in private housing. Right now there are more people who want and qualify for Housing Vouchers than are. There are also fewer landlords participating in public housing programs than are needed to meet the demand for public housing. A proposal has been put forward to spend $24 billion to provide more people with Housing Vouchers.”
- Favor: National 74%, Republicans 63%, Democrats 87%
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Providing tax incentives to home builders to build or repair homes affordable to low- and middle-income households.”
- Favor: National 83%, Republicans 80%, Democrats 88%
Tax credits for building housing affordable to low and middle-income households to own
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, October 2025:
- “Here is a proposal to increase the availability of homes that are affordable for low and middle-income households to purchase in low-income areas. The Federal government would provide tax incentives to: Companies that build or repair houses in low-income areas that are affordable for low- and middle-income people to purchase; homeowners in low-income areas to repair their home.”
- Favor: National 73%, Republicans 63%, Democrats 84%
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Providing tax incentives to home builders to build or repair homes affordable to low- and middle-income households.”
- Favor: National 83%, Republicans 80%, Democrats 88%
Denying corporations that own more than 50 single-family homes the right to any tax deductions related to owning those homes
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, October 2025:
- “To discourage corporations from buying single-family homes, townhome by: Denying large corporations that own more than 50 homes the right to any tax deductions related to owning those homes.”
- Favor: National 71%, Republicans 61%, Democrats 82%
Prohibiting corporations with more than $50 million in assets from buying new single-family homes, and requiring those that own such homes to sell them within the next ten years
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, October 2025:
- “Prohibiting large corporations (more than $50 million in assets) from buying new homes, and requiring those that own such homes to sell them within the next ten years. Failure to comply would result in a substantial financial penalty.
- Favor: National 67%, Republicans 55%, Democrats 81%
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “To help reduce the price of single-family homes, prohibiting large corporations from buying new single-family homes, and requiring those that already own such homes to sell them within the next ten years.”
- Favor: National 80%, Republicans 77%, Democrats 82%
- YouGov, January 2026:
- “Banning large institutional investors from buying single-family homes.”
- Support: National 68%, Republican 80%, Democrats 56%
FAMILIES & CHILDREN
Bipartisan majorities say the government should play a more active role in supporting parents with children.
Increasing tax credits for families with children
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, August 2024:
- “Increase the maximum Child Tax Credit to $3,600 a year for each child under age 6, and $3,000 for each child aged 6-17. Very high-income parents would receive a smaller credit. Parents who have not earned income in the past year would also receive it. Make it fully refundable for all parents who receive it, no matter their income.”
- Favor: National 74%, Republicans 64%, Democrats 83%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Now, let’s turn to a proposal about the tax credit for parents with children under age 17. A tax credit reduces the total amount of taxes a person owes. Some tax credits are also refundable, so if the tax credit is larger than the amount of taxes a person owes, they keep what is leftover. As you may know, in 2021 Congress passed a law to temporarily increase the Child Tax Credit from $2,000 up to $3,600 per child, and to make it fully refundable. That law expired in 2022, and the tax credit has gone back down to being $2,000 and partially refundable. Here is a proposal: Increase the child tax credit back to $3,600 per child, and make it fully refundable again.”
- Favor: National 78%, Republicans 74%, Democrats 84%
- Washington Post/Ipsos, June 2025:
- “Increasing the annual child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,500 for parents who are U.S. citizens.”
- Support: National 72%, Republicans 79%,
Democrats 78%
- YouGov, August 2024:
- “Restoring the pandemic-era child tax credit of $3,600 per child.”
- Support: National 60%, Democrats 78%, independents 51%, among Republicans 47% support and 38% oppose
- YouGov/Economist, August 2024:
- “Expanding eligibility for the child tax credit among lower-income families.”
- Support: National 72%, Republicans 64%, Democrats 84%
Helping states and local governments expand access to free universal preschool
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, August 2024:
- “The federal government to provide $25 billion to states or cities that want it, to help them create or expand preschool programs that are available to all families free of cost.”
- Favor: National 82%, Republicans 74%, Democrats 92%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Here is a proposal related to preschool programs (for 3- and 4-year-olds): The Federal government would provide $25 billion to states or cities that want it, to help them create or expand preschool programs that would be available to all families free of cost.”
- Favor: National 79%, Republicans 69%, Democrats 89%
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Here is a proposal that deals with the cost of childcare, including daycare centers, before- and after-school programs, and summer programs. Provide funds to states to help parents cover some of the cost of childcare, so that low and middle-income families spend no more than 7% of their income on childcare.”
- Favor: National 83%, Republicans 77%, Democrats 89%
- YouGov, February 2023:
- “Expanding publicly funded pre-kindergarten programs.”
- Support: National 74%, Republicans 69%, Democrats 84%
Subsidizing childcare so that it is free for low-income parents and costs no more than 7% of income for middle-income parents
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, August 2024:
- “The federal government would provide funds to states that want it, for them to help parents cover some of the cost of childcare, so that low- and middle-income families spend no more than 7% of their income on childcare.”
- Favor: National 76%, Republicans 66%, Democrats 88%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Here is a proposal that deals with the cost of childcare, including daycare centers, before- and after-school programs, and summer programs. Provide funds to states to help parents cover some of the cost of childcare, so that low and middle-income families spend no more than 7% of their income on childcare.”
- Favor: National 83%, Republicans 77%, Democrats 89%
Creating a national 12-week paid family and medical leave program for all workers
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, August 2024:
- “All workers would be allowed to take up to 12 weeks of family or medical leave. The employer would not be legally allowed to fire those workers if they took leave for valid family or medical reasons.
Workers on leave would receive two-thirds of their wages for up to 12 weeks, up to a maximum of $4,000 a month, paid by the Federal government. In order to receive payment while on leave, workers would need to submit an application to the government, which must include official documents from a healthcare professional. This proposal would be paid for by a new 0.2% payroll tax on employers and employees. (For a person making $50,000, this would be about $100 a year, and their employer would also be taxed $100.)” - Favor: National 72%, Republicans 61%, Democrats 85%
- “All workers would be allowed to take up to 12 weeks of family or medical leave. The employer would not be legally allowed to fire those workers if they took leave for valid family or medical reasons.
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Now, let’s look at a proposal for family and medical leave, which includes an employee taking time off to care for a new child or a family member with a serious health condition, or to recover from a serious health condition. Currently, some workers get paid family and medical leave from their employer, but most do not. Here is a proposal: All workers would be allowed to take up to 12 weeks of family or medical leave; Workers on leave would receive two-thirds of their wages, up to a maximum of $4,000 a month, paid by the Federal government. This proposal would be paid for by a new 0.2% payroll tax on both employers and employees.”
- Favor: National 75%, Republicans 68%, Democrats 84%
- Pew Research Center, December 2016:
- “Would you favor or oppose the following proposals for dealing with employees who need to take leave from work for family or medical reasons? A government fund which all employers and employees would pay into through payroll contributions that would provide paid leave to any worker who needed to take it.”
- Favor: National 62%, Republicans 51%, Democrats 72%
- Morning Consult/Politico, November 2021:
- “To what extent do you support or oppose the following components of the Build Back Better plan, which is estimated to cost up to $1.75 trillion? Paid family and medical leave for new parents.”
- Support: National 70%, Republicans 58%, Democrats 82%
- YouGov, February 2023:
- “Would you support or oppose Congress doing the following? Requiring employers to offer paid parental leave for all working parents.”
- Support: National 70%, Republicans 62%, Democrats 80%
LOW-INCOME ASSISTANCE
Bipartisan majorities say the government should play a more active role in assisting Americans with low incomes.
Increasing SNAP benefits
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, April 2025:
- “For people living alone and earning the average of $860 a month, current SNAP benefits are about $170 a month. What do you think this amount should be?”
- Chose a number above $170: National 86%, Republicans 82%, Democrats 92%; Medians: National $250, Republicans $250, Democrats $270
- “For people living alone and earning the average of $860 a month, current SNAP benefits are about $170 a month. What do you think this amount should be?”
- Program for Public Consultation, April 2025:
- “For a single mother earning the average of $1,150 a month, current SNAP benefits are about $530 a month. What do you think this amount should be?”
- Chose a number above $170: National 70%, Republicans 68%, Democrats 76%; Medians: National $600, Republicans $600, Democrats $650
- “For a single mother earning the average of $1,150 a month, current SNAP benefits are about $530 a month. What do you think this amount should be?”
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “For a single person living alone earning about $860 a month, current SNAP benefits are about $170 a month. What do you think the amount of monthly SNAP benefits should be? _____ dollars”
- Chose amount over $170: National 79%, Republicans 70%, Democrats 88%
- Medians: National $250, Republicans $200, Democrats $250
- “For a single person living alone earning about $860 a month, current SNAP benefits are about $170 a month. What do you think the amount of monthly SNAP benefits should be? _____ dollars”
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “For a single mother earning about $1,150 a month, current SNAP benefits are about $530 a month. What do you think the amount of monthly SNAP benefits should be? _____ dollars”
- Chose amount over $530: National 60%, Republicans 52%, Democrats 67%
- Medians: National $600, Republicans $550, Democrats $600
- “For a single mother earning about $1,150 a month, current SNAP benefits are about $530 a month. What do you think the amount of monthly SNAP benefits should be? _____ dollars”
Raising the federal minimum wage to at least $11
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2023:
- “What do you think the [federal] minimum wage should be five years from now? You can choose any number you like.”
- Chose amount over $7.25: National 94%, Republicans 89%, Democrats 99%
- Medians: National $15, Republicans $12, Democrats $17
- “What do you think the [federal] minimum wage should be five years from now? You can choose any number you like.”
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Another proposal is to raise the Federal Minimum Wage.
Currently, it is $7.25 an hour. Though many states have a higher minimum wage for their state. What do you think the Federal Minimum Wage should be? $_____ per hour”- Chose amount over $7.25: National 94%, Republicans 90%, Democrats 97%
- Medians: National $14, Republicans $11, Democrats $15
- “Another proposal is to raise the Federal Minimum Wage.
- YouGov, April 2025:
- “Raising the hourly federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15.”
- Support: National 71%, Republicans 52%, Democrats 92%
- “Raising the hourly federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15.”
- Ipsos, August 2024:
- “Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.”
- Support: National 69%, Democrats 95%, independents 64%, among Republicans 50% support and 50% oppose
- “Increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.”
For workers without children, increasing and expanding eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, April 2025:
- For EITC to workers without children, increase the maximum credit to $1,300, or keep it at $630
- Increased: National 69%, Republicans 63%, Democrats 75%
- Increase the maximum amount recipients can make and still be eligible to $24,000 for single people and $33,000 for married couples, or keep it at $18,500 for single people and $25,500 for married couples.
- Increased: National 66%, Republicans 61%, Democrats 72%
- Lower the minimum age of eligibility to 18, to 21, or keep it at 25
- Lowered to at least 21: National 66%, Republicans 59%, Democrats 73%
- For EITC to workers without children, increase the maximum credit to $1,300, or keep it at $630
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- For EITC to workers without children:
- “Raise the limit on the maximum amount of the EITC credit from $630 to $1,300 a year.”
- Favor: National 77%, Republicans 73%, Democrats 82%
- “Lower the age of eligibility from 25 to 21.”
- Favor: National 69%, Republicans 63%, Democrats 76%
- “Raise the limit on the amount of savings people can have and still get the EITC credit, for individuals from $18,500 to $24,000, for married couples from $25,500 to $33,000.”
- Favor: National 81%, Republicans 77%, Democrats 89%
- Marquette University, November 2022:
- “Increase tax credits for low-income workers.”
- Support: National 75%, Republicans 65%, Democrats 90%
- “Increase tax credits for low-income workers.”
Reductions in Medicaid spending below 2025 levels
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, April 2025:
- “When it comes to Federal spending on Medicaid, which option do you recommend?”
- Increase OR keep the same: National 81%, Republicans 75%, Democrats 86%; (Increase: 55%, Republicans 49%, Democrats 69%)
- “When it comes to Federal spending on Medicaid, which option do you recommend?”
Standard Polling
- YouGov/Economist, May 2025:
- Whether “Medicaid” should “be given more funding [OR] the same level of funding [OR] less funding [OR] be eliminated entirely."
- More OR the same level: National 77%, Republicans 64%, Democrats 92%
- Whether “Medicaid” should “be given more funding [OR] the same level of funding [OR] less funding [OR] be eliminated entirely."
- KFF, February 2025:
- “Do you want to see Congress increase spending on Medicaid or decrease spending, or keep it about the same?”
- Increase OR keep the same: National 82%, Republicans 67%, Democrats 95%
- “Do you want to see Congress increase spending on Medicaid or decrease spending, or keep it about the same?”
- Ipsos, March 2025:
- “Medicaid funding should be cut to reduce government spending.”
- Disagree: National 71%, Republicans 55%, Democrats 88%
- “Medicaid funding should be cut to reduce government spending.”
Asked after the bill which reduced Medicaid spending was passed (the OBBBA), but before spending reductions had actually occurred.
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Do you think federal spending on Medicaid should be:”
- Reduced: National 9%, Republicans 13%, Democrats 3%
- Maintained: National 28%, Republicans 21%, Democrats 14%
- Increased: National 70%, Republicans 59%, Democrats 83%
- “Do you think federal spending on Medicaid should be:”
IMMIGRATION
Bipartisan majorities say the United States should address illegal immigration primarily by expanding lawful pathways to legal status, provided immigrants have not committed serious crimes, while also deterring illegal immigration.
Deporting immigrants who have committed serious crimes
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “The federal government deporting immigrants in the US illegally who have been convicted of a crime.”
- Favor: National 85%, Republicans 94%, Democrats 79%
- UMass Poll, April 2025:
- “Please indicate whether you would support or oppose the deportation of: an undocumented immigrant with a criminal record.”
- Support: National 74%, Republicans 89%, Democrats 63%
- AP-NORC, January 2025:
- “Deporting each of the following: All immigrants living in the U.S. illegally who have been convicted of a violent crime.”
- Support: National 82%, Republicans 89%, Democrats 79%
- Washington Post/Ipsos, February 2025:
- “Do you think each of the following groups of undocumented immigrants should be deported or not? Those who have been accused of committing violent crimes.”
- Yes, should be deported: National 89%
For those who have not committed serious crimes and have lived in the US for some years, offering them a visa and a path to citizenship if they pay a penalty, any taxes they owe, and remain crime-free
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
[Evaluation of Path to Citizenship proposal]
- Program for Public Consultation, October 2024:
- “Create a new type of long-term visa for immigrants who have been living in the US for some years without legal status. Here are the basic elements: Immigrants without legal status could apply for a new type of visa, if they: have been in the US for some years; have not committed a serious crime; pay a penalty and any back taxes they owe.
This new type of visa would: allow them to live and work in the country legally; require they pay current taxes.
If they are accepted for this visa, they would eventually be allowed to apply for citizenship after several years, but they would have to go to the back of the line, like anyone who applies for citizenship. People who do not qualify for this new visa would be subject to deportation. [11-point scale from ‘not at all acceptable’ to ‘just tolerable’ to ‘completely acceptable’]”
- Acceptable: National 64%, Republicans 57%, Democrats 78%
[Path to Citizenship vs Mass Deportation]
- Program for Public Consultation, October 2024:
- “Here again are the two proposals for addressing the millions of people who have been living in the US without legal status. Which do you most prefer:
Option 1: Create a new type of visa that would be available to undocumented immigrants who have been living in the US for some years and have not committed a serious crime. They would pay a penalty, and any taxes they owe. After several years, they would be allowed to apply for citizenship. Those who do not apply or qualify for the visa would be subject to deportation.
Option 2: Undertake a program of mass deportation throughout the country, with the goal of finding, detaining and deporting most or all of the 11 million people who have been living in the US without legal status. States would be asked to use their local law enforcement or National Guard, and the Federal government may use the military. Large facilities would be built to hold people who have been detained. The cost would be $100 billion or more.
Option 3: Neither
- Path to citizenship: National 58%, Democrats 75%, among Republicans 45% favor path to citizenship and 40% mass deportation
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “To address immigrants in the US illegally who have not committed a crime, and who have been in the US for some years, the following proposal has been put forward: Offer them a long-term visa, provided they pay a penalty and any taxes they may owe, and remain crime-free.”
- Favor: National 77%, Republicans 69%, Democrats 87%
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “To address people who were brought to the US illegally as children, the following proposal has been put forward: Offer them a long-term visa and a path to citizenship, provided they have not committed a significant crime and remain crime-free, and are employed, in higher education, or serving in the military.”
- Favor: National 83%, Republicans 76%, Democrats 90%
For the following, respondents were asked whether they generally favored a path to citizenship, without specifically excluding those who had committed a crime. Nonetheless, there was bipartisan support.
- Gallup, June 2025:
- “Allowing immigrants living in the U.S. illegally the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time.”
- Support: National 78%, Republicans 59%, Democrats 93%
- Wall Street Journal, January 2025:
- “Create a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who have been in the U.S. for many years and pass a background check.”
- Support: National 79%, Republicans 64%, Democrats 94%
- Reuters/Ipsos, February 2025:
- “Create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.”
- Support: National 68%, Republicans 55%, Democrats 85%
To deter illegal immigration, requiring employers to verify that employees are legally authorized to work, while also increasing the number of work visas to meet labor demand
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, October 2024:
- “The Federal government providing enough work visas for migrant workers to meet the demand from employers for such workers. In the current environment this would mean substantially increasing the number of work visas. If the demand for workers in the US goes down, the number of work visas available would be reduced.”
- Favor: National 67%, Republicans 53%, Democrats 84%
- Program for Public Consultation, October 2024:
- “Require employers, when hiring new employees, to use a government system–called E-Verify–to verify that the applicant has the legal right to work in the US.”
- Favor: National 68%, Republicans 64%, Democrats 74%
- Program for Public Consultation, October 2024:
- “Would you favor or oppose the following package: Require employers to verify that all new hires have the legal right to work in the US – AND – Provide enough work visas to meet US employers’ demand for migrant workers.”
- Favor: National 74%, Republicans 67%, Democrats 85%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “To reduce the number of workers in the US illegally, a proposal has been put forward, which has two parts: 1) Require employers to use a government system called E-Verify to ensure that their workers are in the US legally; 2) Increase the number of work visas given out each year, provided there is a demand for workers.”
- Favor: National 83%, Republicans 82%, Democrats 84%
- May 2024, YouGov:
- "Requiring employers to use the E-Verify system to check employees’ immigration status."
- Support: National 67%, Republicans 87%, Democrats 57%
- "Requiring employers to use the E-Verify system to check employees’ immigration status."
- June 2022, YouGov:
- "Requiring employers to use the E-Verify system to establish the legal immigration status of current employees and all new applicants."
- Support: National 57%, Republicans 78%, Democrats 52%; Oppose: National 15%, Republicans 10%, Democrats 21%
- Deliberative Democracy Lab, September 2019 (partisan results):
- “Increase the number of visas for low-skilled workers so enough workers can be hired for American industries that need them, like agriculture and service.”
- Favor: National 77%, Republicans 66%, Democrats 87%
Increasing security at the border
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, October 2024:
- “Increase the number of Border Patrol officers from 20,000 to 22,000, and provide them more funding for surveillance technology at the border.”
- Favor: National 70%, Republicans 74%, Democrats 71%
Standard Polling
- Gallup, June 2024:
- “Hiring significantly more border patrol agents.”
- Favor: National 76%, Republicans 95%, Democrats 70%
- APNORC, March 2024:
- “Hire more border patrol agents.”
- Favor: National 64%, Republicans 79%, Democrats 54%
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Bipartisan majorities say the United States should promote international trade through mutually low tariffs as part of an international system for fair trade.
Promoting trade with other countries by having agreements to have low tariffs on a mutual basis and to abide by agreed-upon rules for trade
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, September 2024:
- “The US, together with other countries, promoting international trade by having agreements to have low tariffs on a mutual basis and to abide by agreed-upon rules”
- Approve: National 81%, Republicans 74%, Democrats 88%
- “The US, together with other countries, promoting international trade by having agreements to have low tariffs on a mutual basis and to abide by agreed-upon rules”
- Program for Public Consultation, September 2024:
- “In conclusion, which do you prefer: The US raising tariffs on imports from all countries to 10-20% [OR] The US continuing to have low tariffs on a mutual basis with other countries, provided the other countries abide by agreed-upon rules”
- Mutually low tariffs: National 68%, Republicans 60%, Democrats 77%
- “In conclusion, which do you prefer: The US raising tariffs on imports from all countries to 10-20% [OR] The US continuing to have low tariffs on a mutual basis with other countries, provided the other countries abide by agreed-upon rules”
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “As you may know, since World War II, the United States together with most of the major countries in the world have set up agreements and institutions to promote international trade by mutually lowering tariffs and agreeing on a set of rules to ensure that trade is done fairly. Tariffs are taxes paid by US companies on products imported from other countries. However, lately there has been some debate about this. Do you think the US should or should not promote trade with other countries, by having agreements to have low tariffs on a mutual basis and to abide by agreed-upon rules for trade?”
- Should: National 86%, Republicans 86%, Democrats 88%
- “As you may know, since World War II, the United States together with most of the major countries in the world have set up agreements and institutions to promote international trade by mutually lowering tariffs and agreeing on a set of rules to ensure that trade is done fairly. Tariffs are taxes paid by US companies on products imported from other countries. However, lately there has been some debate about this. Do you think the US should or should not promote trade with other countries, by having agreements to have low tariffs on a mutual basis and to abide by agreed-upon rules for trade?”
- YouGov, November 2025:
- “Do you think that tariffs on foreign goods imported into the U.S. should be [increased/kept the same/decreased]?”
- Decreased OR kept the same: National 71%, Republicans 59%, Democrats 90%
- “Do you think that tariffs on foreign goods imported into the U.S. should be [increased/kept the same/decreased]?”
- Chicago Council on Global Affairs, July 2024:
- “Overall, do you think international trade is good or bad for:
- “The U.S. economy”
- Good: National 75%, Republicans 68%, Democrats 82%
- “Consumers like you”
- Good: National 81%, Republicans 78%, Democrats 85%
- “Creating jobs in the US”
- Good: National 58%, Republicans 47%, Democrats 69%, independents 57%
Having higher tariffs on Chinese products until China ceases its violation of international trade rules
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, September 2024:
- “The US continuing to impose tariffs of about 20%, on average, on Chinese imports?”
- Favor: National 71%, Republicans 73%, Democrats 72%
- “The US continuing to impose tariffs of about 20%, on average, on Chinese imports?”
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “For some years now the US has charged China with violating some of the rules of international trade.
As China has not changed its behavior, the US has raised tariffs on Chinese products.
Do you approve or disapprove of having higher tariffs on Chinese products until China changes its behavior?”- Approve: National 69%, Republicans 86%, Democrats 54%
- “For some years now the US has charged China with violating some of the rules of international trade.
- Chicago Council on Global Affairs, September 2023:
- “Has the US government's response to China in the following gone too far, not far enough, or been about right? Theft of US intellectual property by Chinese companies.”
- Not far enough: National 65%
- About right: National 16%
- “Has the US government's response to China in the following gone too far, not far enough, or been about right? Theft of US intellectual property by Chinese companies.”
To deter trade partners from getting an unfair competitive edge, require them to meet minimum labor and environmental standards
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, September 2024:
- “The US actively working to make agreements with other countries that require they: abide by the labor standards they have committed to; do not lower their standards to attract business or to get a competitive edge; have an effective system for enforcing these requirements.”
- Favor: National 82%, Republicans 77%, Democrats 90%
- “The US actively working to make agreements with other countries that require they: abide by the labor standards they have committed to; do not lower their standards to attract business or to get a competitive edge; have an effective system for enforcing these requirements.”
- Program for Public Consultation, September 2024:
- “The US actively working to make agreements with other countries that require they: abide by the environmental standards they have committed to; do not lower their standards to attract business or to get a competitive edge; have an effective system for enforcing these requirements.”
- Favor: National 78%, Republicans 72%, Democrats 86%
- “The US actively working to make agreements with other countries that require they: abide by the environmental standards they have committed to; do not lower their standards to attract business or to get a competitive edge; have an effective system for enforcing these requirements.”
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “There has been debate about whether trade agreements the US enters into should prohibit countries from getting a competitive edge by having low labor and environmental standards.”
- “Do you think that countries that are part of international trade agreements should or should not be required to meet minimum standards for working conditions?”
- Should: National 88%, Republicans 91%, Democrats 87%
- “Do you think that countries that are part of international trade agreements should or should not be required to meet minimum environmental standards?”
- Should: National 88%, Republicans 88%, Democrats 91%
AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE WORLD
Bipartisan majorities say the United States should play an active role globally in reducing conflict and improving well-being by upholding collective security arrangements, limiting nuclear weapons, and providing humanitarian and development aid.
Placing a high priority on upholding collective security by contributing to collective military operations or using economic sanctions in response to international aggression
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, August 2024:
- “Do you think it should or should not be a high priority in U.S. foreign policy to uphold the principle of collective security, by contributing to collective military operations and/or using economic sanctions in response to international aggression?”
- Should: National 80%, Republicans 79%, Democrats 85%
- “Do you think it should or should not be a high priority in U.S. foreign policy to uphold the principle of collective security, by contributing to collective military operations and/or using economic sanctions in response to international aggression?”
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “It being a high priority in US foreign policy to uphold the principle of collective security, by contributing to collective military operations and/or using economic sanctions in response to international aggression.”
- Favor: National 80%, Republicans 87%, Democrats 76%
- “It being a high priority in US foreign policy to uphold the principle of collective security, by contributing to collective military operations and/or using economic sanctions in response to international aggression.”
- Chicago Council on Global Affairs, July 2025:
- “Would you favor or oppose the use of US troops: If a US ally is invaded.”
- Favor: National 81%, Republicans 86%, Democrats 84%
- “Would you favor or oppose the use of US troops: If a US ally is invaded.”
- Chicago Council on Global Affairs, July 2025:
- “Which of the following comes closest to your view on US security alliances… Mostly benefits the U.S. [OR] Benefits both the U.S. and our allies [OR] Mostly benefits our allies.”
- “In Europe”
- Benefits U.S. OR Benefits both: National 68%, Republicans 57%, Democrats 81%
- “In East Asia”
- Benefits U.S. OR Benefits both: National 72%, Republicans 68%, Democrats 74%
- “In the Middle East”
- Benefits U.S. OR Benefits both: National 67%, Republicans 68%, Democrats 67%
Continuing to be part of NATO
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, August 2024:
- “Do you favor or oppose the U.S. continuing to be part of the NATO military alliance?”
- Favor: National 78%, Republicans 70%, Democrats 87%
- “Do you favor or oppose the U.S. continuing to be part of the NATO military alliance?”
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “The US continuing to be part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military alliance, which includes Canada and the nations of Europe, and commits each nation to help defend the other members if they are attacked.”
- Favor: National 83%, Republicans 79%, Democrats 89%
- “The US continuing to be part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military alliance, which includes Canada and the nations of Europe, and commits each nation to help defend the other members if they are attacked.”
- Chicago Council on Global Affairs, July 2025:
- “Do you feel we should increase our commitment to NATO, keep our commitment to what it is now, decrease our commitment to NATO, or withdraw from NATO entirely?”
- Increase OR Maintain: National 74%, Republicans 59%, Democrats 91%
- “Do you feel we should increase our commitment to NATO, keep our commitment to what it is now, decrease our commitment to NATO, or withdraw from NATO entirely?”
- Gallup, February 2024:
- “Do you feel the U.S. should increase its commitment to NATO, keep its commitment as it is now, decrease its commitment but still remain in NATO, or withdraw from NATO entirely?”
- Increase commitment OR Keep the same: National 67%, Republicans 53%, Democrats 80%
- “Do you feel the U.S. should increase its commitment to NATO, keep its commitment as it is now, decrease its commitment but still remain in NATO, or withdraw from NATO entirely?”
Continuing to provide military aid to Ukraine
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, August 2024:
- “The US continuing to provide military assistance to Ukraine, including military equipment, ammunition, training and intelligence.”
- Favor: National 67%, Republicans 57%, Democrats 79%
- “The US continuing to provide military assistance to Ukraine, including military equipment, ammunition, training and intelligence.”
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “The US continuing to provide military assistance to Ukraine, including military equipment, ammunition, training and intelligence.”
- Favor: National 65%, Republicans 58%, Democrats 75%
- “The US continuing to provide military assistance to Ukraine, including military equipment, ammunition, training and intelligence.”
- YouGov, December 2025:
- “Do you favor [increasing/maintaining the same amount of/decreasing/stopping] all military aid to Ukraine?”
- Do NOT stop all military aid: National 64%, Republicans 57%, Democrats 79%
- “Do you favor [increasing/maintaining the same amount of/decreasing/stopping] all military aid to Ukraine?”
- Chicago Council on Global Affairs, July 2025:
- “In response to the situation involving Russia and Ukraine, would you support or oppose the United States: Sending additional arms and military supplies to the Ukrainian government.”
- Support: National 62%, Republicans 51%, Democrats 75%
- “In response to the situation involving Russia and Ukraine, would you support or oppose the United States: Sending additional arms and military supplies to the Ukrainian government.”
Having nuclear arms control treaties with Russia
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2019:
- “Do you approve or disapprove of the U.S. continuing to have arms control treaties with Russia?”
- Approve: National 83%, Republicans 84%, Democrats 83%
- “Do you approve or disapprove of the U.S. continuing to have arms control treaties with Russia?”
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “The U.S. having nuclear arms control treaties with Russia, which limits U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons and requires extensive inspections and information sharing.”
- Favor: National 79%, Republicans 81%, Democrats 79%
- “The U.S. having nuclear arms control treaties with Russia, which limits U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons and requires extensive inspections and information sharing.”
- YouGov, November 2025:
- “The United States signing a treaty with other nations to reduce and eventually eliminate all nuclear weapons, including our own.”
- Should: National 73%, Republicans 70%, Democrats 82%
- “The United States signing a treaty with other nations to reduce and eventually eliminate all nuclear weapons, including our own.”
Continuing to abide by the moratorium on testing nuclear weapons
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, August 2024:
- “The U.S. continuing to abide by the moratorium on nuclear testing.”
- Favor: National 75%, Republicans 72%, Democrats 80%
- “The U.S. continuing to abide by the moratorium on nuclear testing.”
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “As you may know, since the late 1990s all countries but one have abided by a moratorium on nuclear testing, meaning they have all stopped testing nuclear weapons (by exploding them). The one exception is North Korea. Do you favor or oppose the U.S. continuing to abide by the moratorium by not testing nuclear weapons?”
- Favor: National 78%, Republicans 77%, Democrats 81%
- “As you may know, since the late 1990s all countries but one have abided by a moratorium on nuclear testing, meaning they have all stopped testing nuclear weapons (by exploding them). The one exception is North Korea. Do you favor or oppose the U.S. continuing to abide by the moratorium by not testing nuclear weapons?”
- YouGov, November 2025:
- “The U.S. military resuming its testing of nuclear weapons.”
- Oppose: National 53%, Democrats 69%, independents 56%, among Republicans 33% oppose and 50% favor
- “The U.S. military resuming its testing of nuclear weapons.”
Prohibiting a first-use nuclear attack without a Congressional declaration of war
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, August 2024:
- “Congress passing a law that says: The President would still have the authority to use nuclear weapons in response to the launch of a nuclear strike against the U.S. or an ally. But, to use nuclear weapons first, the President would first have to consult Congress and Congress would have to issue a declaration of war on the country the U.S. would be attacking with nuclear weapons.”
- Favor: National 69%, Republicans 67%, Democrats 73%
- “Congress passing a law that says: The President would still have the authority to use nuclear weapons in response to the launch of a nuclear strike against the U.S. or an ally. But, to use nuclear weapons first, the President would first have to consult Congress and Congress would have to issue a declaration of war on the country the U.S. would be attacking with nuclear weapons.”
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Do you favor or oppose a proposal that says the following: To use nuclear weapons first in response to a non-nuclear attack, the President would first have to consult Congress, and Congress would have to issue a declaration of war on the country to be attacked with nuclear weapons. The President would still have the sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack.”
- Favor: National 69%, Republicans 77%, Democrats 64%
- “Do you favor or oppose a proposal that says the following: To use nuclear weapons first in response to a non-nuclear attack, the President would first have to consult Congress, and Congress would have to issue a declaration of war on the country to be attacked with nuclear weapons. The President would still have the sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack.”
- YouGov, November 2025:
- “Which of these comes closest to your view? Congressional approval should always be required for the president to use nuclear weapons; Congressional approval should be required unless the president is retaliating against another country’s use of nuclear weapons; The president should always have the power to use nuclear weapons without needing congressional approval.”
- Congressional approval is required always OR only in response to a non-nuclear attack: National 76%, Republicans 70%, Democrats 89%
- “Which of these comes closest to your view? Congressional approval should always be required for the president to use nuclear weapons; Congressional approval should be required unless the president is retaliating against another country’s use of nuclear weapons; The president should always have the power to use nuclear weapons without needing congressional approval.”
Spending at least one percent of the budget on foreign aid, for humanitarian relief, global health, economic development, education, the environment, democracy and human rights
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2025:
- “What do you think would be an appropriate percentage of the federal budget to go to foreign aid, if any?”
- Answered one percent or higher: National 84%, Republicans 84%, Democrats 94%
- “What do you think would be an appropriate percentage of the federal budget to go to foreign aid, if any?”
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2025: Respondents were asked whether the government should spend more, the same, less, or none at all on six foreign aid programs, using a seven-point scale.
Bipartisan majorities favor spending more or the same amount on the following programs:
- “For aid to less developed countries to train teachers, encourage school attendance (especially for girls) such as by offering school lunches, and improve literacy, the US government has been spending about $1.1 billion a year.”
- National 67%, Republicans 54%, Democrats 81%
- “For health aid, the US has been spending about $16.1 billion a year. This aid is used to: treat diseases (including HIV and malaria); prevent the spread of diseases; improve health outcomes (especially for mothers and children); train doctors and nurses; ensure access to clean water.”
- National 64%, Republicans 50%, Democrats 79%
Bipartisan majorities do NOT favor spending significantly less or eliminating the following programs:
- “To help less developed countries improve their food production, develop their infrastructure, and build their private enterprises and financial systems, the US has been spending about $19.4 billion a year.”
- National 72%, Republicans 62%, Democrats 84%
- “For humanitarian relief, the US has been spending about $15.6 billion a year. This aid is used for caring for people who urgently need food, medical care, or shelter because they are victims of a disaster like famine, a flood, or a war.”
- National 71%, Republicans 59%, Democrats 83%
- “For environmental aid to less developed countries, the US has been spending about $1.4 billion a year. This aid is used to help countries preserve their environment, reduce pollution, transition to energy sources that produce less or no pollution, and prepare better for natural disasters.”
- National 76%, Republicans 63%, Democrats 90%
- “For aid that goes to further the development of democracy, human rights, a free press, and the rule of law, the US has been spending about $2.3 billion a year. Nearly all of this goes to non-profits and international organizations with specialized skills, rather than directly to foreign governments.”
- National 72%, Republicans 61%, Democrats 86%
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “As you may know, the US provides aid to less developed countries to help them respond to disasters, address hunger and disease, build their economies and develop their democracies. What do you think would be an appropriate percentage of the federal budget to go to foreign aid, if any? Please answer in terms of a percentage, in between 0 and 100%. You may answer as a fraction of a percent as well.”
- Answered one percent or higher: National 91%, Republicans 87%, Democrats 97%
- Answered one percent or higher: National 91%, Republicans 87%, Democrats 97%
- “As you may know, the US provides aid to less developed countries to help them respond to disasters, address hunger and disease, build their economies and develop their democracies. What do you think would be an appropriate percentage of the federal budget to go to foreign aid, if any? Please answer in terms of a percentage, in between 0 and 100%. You may answer as a fraction of a percent as well.”
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
“Please say whether you favor or oppose the US providing each type of foreign aid.”
- “Humanitarian relief: providing food, medical care, and shelter to victims of disasters like famine, a flood, or a war.”
- Favor: National 90%, Republicans 89%, Democrats 94%
- “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.”
- Favor: National 89%, Republicans 87%, Democrats 93%
- “Economic development: improving food production, developing infrastructure, and building up their private enterprises and financial systems.”
- Favor: National 80%, Republicans 76%, Democrats 86%
- “Education: training teachers, encouraging school attendance (such as by offering school lunches), and improving literacy.”
- Favor: National 84%, Republicans 87%, Democrats 84%
- “The environment: preserving the environment, reducing pollution, transitioning to energy sources that produce less or no pollution, and preparing better for natural disasters.”
- Favor National 82%, Republicans 74%, Democrats 91%
- “Democracy: protecting and promoting free and fair elections, human rights, a free press and the rule of law.”
- Favor: National 86%, Republicans 82%, Democrats 91%
- Favor: National 86%, Republicans 82%, Democrats 91%
- YouGov, February 2025:
- “Do you think the U.S. government should or should not provide aid to foreign countries for the following purposes? Disaster response:”
- Should: National 73%, Republicans 65%, Democrats 88%
- Should: National 73%, Republicans 65%, Democrats 88%
- “Do you think the U.S. government should or should not provide aid to foreign countries for the following purposes? Disaster response:”
- YouGov, September 2023:
- “Do you think the United States should or should not provide humanitarian aid in countries that have experienced major natural disasters?”
- Should: National 65%, Republicans 61%, Democrats 77%
- “Do you think the United States should or should not provide humanitarian aid in countries that have experienced major natural disasters?”
NOTE: Some polling finds support for reducing foreign aid spending.
However, research has found that most Americans vastly overestimate how much is actually spent on foreign aid, by about tenfold (Program for Public Consultation, February 2025; KFF, February 2025). As noted above, large bipartisan majorities support spending levels (at least 1%) that are actually higher than the current actual spending level.
ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Bipartisan majorities say the federal government should work, domestically and internationally, to reduce air pollution and slow climate change.
Making the reduction of air pollution and greenhouse gases a high priority
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, July 2024:
- “Please select how high a priority it should be for the government to work to reduce the air pollution that has negative effects on health.”
- Very OR Somewhat high: National 85%, Republicans 74%, Democrats 95%
- Program for Public Consultation, July 2024:
- “Please select how high a priority you think it should be for the government to work to further reduce greenhouse gasses, especially carbon dioxide.”
- Very OR Somewhat high: National 80%, Republicans 66%, Democrats 94%
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Please select how high a priority it should be for the government to:”
- “Work to reduce air pollution that has negative effects on health”
- Very OR Somewhat high priority: National 86%, Republicans 79%, Democrats 94%
- “Work to further reduce greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide”
- Very OR Somewhat high priority: National 81%, Republicans 69%, Democrats 93%
- Very OR Somewhat high priority: National 81%, Republicans 69%, Democrats 93%
- YouGov, December 2025:
- “Overall, do you think government regulation of the following should be: [Five-point scale from ‘increased a lot’ to ‘decreased a lot’]”
- “Air Pollution”
- Increased OR Kept the same: National 69%, Republicans 62%, Democrats 77%
- “Greenhouse Gas Emissions”
- Increased OR Kept the same: National 57%, Republicans 52%, Democrats 73%
Committing with other countries to reduce greenhouse gases
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Deliberative Democracy Lab, September 2019 (partisan results):
- “The US committing to the 2014 Paris Agreement to combat climate change.”
- Favor OR In the middle: National 80%, Republicans 60%, Democrats 97%
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “The US making a commitment, together with other countries, to reduce their emission of greenhouse gases.”
- Favor: National 82%, Republicans 75%, Democrats 91%
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Do you favor or oppose adopting the goal of reducing US greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 2% a year?”
- Favor: National 80%, Republicans 72%, Democrats 90%
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “The US government working with other countries to study and share data about energy use and greenhouse gases, and their effect on the climate.”
- Favor: National 82%, Republicans 76%, Democrats 89%
- Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, Spring 2025:
- “In 2015, the United States signed an international agreement in Paris with 196 other countries to limit the pollution that causes global warming. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the U.S.’s participation in the Paris Agreement?”
- Support: National 79%, Republicans 57%, Democrats 97%
Providing tax credits for the production of zero-carbon energy
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, July 2024
- “We will now consider a number of specific tax credits. In most cases the amount of the credit depends on how clean the energy is or how much energy savings is produced, up to a maximum… For each one, please select whether you favor keeping the tax credit at its current level, favor increasing it, or repealing it.”
- “A tax credit up to 30% of the cost of equipment that produces clean energy, such as solar panels or wind turbines, or stores clean energy.”
- Increase OR Keep: National 88%, Republicans 83%, Democrats 94%
- “A tax credit for the amount of electricity produced with clean energy, equal to up to 5-10% of the average retail cost of electricity.”
- Increase OR Keep: National 88%, Republicans 84%, Democrats 92%
- “A tax credit of up to $1 per gallon for the production of transportation fuel that produces 25% fewer emissions than the current average.”
- Increase OR Keep: National 83%, Republicans 76%, Democrats 91%
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Please select whether you favor or oppose each of the following tax credits: Tax credits for the production of energy that has no carbon emissions.”
- Favor: National 77%, Republicans 71%, Democrats 86%
- AP-NORC, June 2025:
- "Providing tax credits for the installation of solar panels."
- Favor: National 56%, Democrats 72%, among Republicans 42% support, 30% neither favor nor oppose, and 27% oppose.
- Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, May 2024:
- “Tax rebates for people who purchase energy-efficient vehicles or solar panels.”
- Support: National 76%, Republicans 57%, Democrats 93%
- Gallup, March 2022:
- “Providing tax credits to Americans who install clean energy systems, like solar power, in their homes.”
- Favor: National 89%, Republicans 78%, Democrats 98%
- “Providing tax credits to Americans who install clean energy systems, like solar power, in their homes.”
- Gallup, March 2022:
- “Providing tax incentives to businesses to promote their use of wind, solar and nuclear power.”
- Favor: National 75%, Republicans 62%, Democrats 88%
Providing tax credits for improving the energy efficiency of homes and buildings
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, July 2024
- “We will now consider a number of specific tax credits. In most cases the amount of the credit depends on how clean the energy is or how much energy savings is produced, up to a maximum… For each one, please select whether you favor keeping the tax credit at its current level, favor increasing it, or repealing it.”
- “A tax credit up to $3,000 for building a new energy-efficient home or residential building.”
- Increase OR Keep same: National 87%, Republicans 83%, Democrats 93%
- “A tax credit up to $6,500 for making energy-saving improvements such as fuel-efficient lighting, doors, windows, or insulation."
- Increase OR Keep: National 86%, Republicans 82%, Democrats 92%
- “A tax credit up to $1,500 for installing a new energy-efficient heating or air conditioning system."
- Increase OR Keep: National 89%, Republicans 84%, Democrats 93%
- “A tax credit up to $4.75 per square foot for building new energy-efficient commercial buildings."
- Increase OR Keep: National 88%, Republicans 84%, Democrats 94%
-
“A tax credit up to $9.25 per square foot for making energy-saving improvements to commercial buildings that reduce energy.” - Increase OR Keep: National 83%, Republicans 81%, Democrats 87%
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Please select whether you favor or oppose each of the following tax credits: Tax credits for improving the energy-efficiency of homes and buildings.”
- Favor: National 84%, Republicans 79%, Democrats 91%
- AP-NORC, June 2025:
- “Providing consumer rebates for more efficient home appliances.”
- Favor: National 65%, Republicans 59%, Democrats 74%
Requiring new cars and trucks to get more miles per gallon
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, July 2024:
- “By 2027, new cars and light trucks need to get about 20 to 30% more miles per gallon (mpg) on average than cars and light trucks made in 2022.”
- Favor: National 70%, Republicans 61%, Democrats 81%
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Require that new cars and trucks get more miles per gallon.”
- Favor: National 80%, Republicans 75%, Democrats 86%
- YouGov, September 2024:
- “Would you support or oppose the following? Requiring automobiles to meet higher energy efficiency standards.”
- Support: 61%, Democrats 79%, independents 54%, among Republicans 47% support and 44% oppose)
- Consumer Reports/NORC, September 2024:
- “The U.S. government should continue to increase fuel efficiency standards.”
- Agree: National 64%
Providing transition assistance to workers who lose their jobs in the fossil fuel industry
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, June 2016: “Government assistance to help coal workers who lose their jobs.” Favor: National 69%, Republicans 59%, Democrats 78%
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Do you favor or oppose the federal government providing financial assistance and job training to workers who lose their job in the coal, oil, and gas industries as a result of the transition to cleaner forms of energy, to help them transition to other employment?”
- Favor: National 85%, Republicans 82%, Democrats 89%
SOCIAL SECURITY
Bipartisan majorities say the Social Security shortfall should be addressed through a package of reforms that would increase tax revenue and reduce benefits for higher earners, while also increasing benefits for lower earners.
Subjecting wages over $400,000 to the payroll tax
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, September 2024:
- “You may select OR not select the following proposal: All wages above $400,000 would be subject to the payroll tax (but not income from dividends or capital gains) [reduces shortfall by 60%]”
- Chosen: National 87%, Republicans 86%, Democrats 89%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Here are some options that would reduce the budget shortfall of the Social Security program, and thus extend the amount of time that the program can provide full benefits. For each, please say whether you favor or oppose… Currently, the amount of salary and wages that are subject to the Social Security payroll tax includes income up to $185,000 per year. Do you favor or oppose also subjecting wages over $400,000 to that payroll tax, which would reduce the budget shortfall by 61%?”
- Favor: National 79%, Republicans 77%, Democrats 83%
- NASI/AARP, January 2025:
- “Currently, all workers pay Social Security taxes on their wages up to about $168,000. Any wages earned above about $168,000 per year are not taxed for Social Security. This proposal would maintain the current cap at about $168,000 but have Americans with annual wages over $400,000 start paying Social Security taxes again on wages above that amount. For example: Workers earning under $400,000 would not see any changes. Those earning above $400,000 would now be taxed only on the money earned above $400,000 in addition to the first $168,000 of earnings that they are taxed on today.”
- Favor: National 65%, Republicans 60%, Democrats 73%
Another poll asked about lifting the current cap, without specifying exactly whether this would be to a higher level or eliminated completely. Different scenarios were presented.
- Bipartisan Policy Center, August 2025:
- “The following government policies that could be enacted to shore up Social Security’s finances… Lift the cap on income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, which is set at $176,100 in 2025.”
- Support: National 61%, Republicans 63%, Democrats 65%
- Bipartisan Policy Center, August 2025:
- Respondents were asked to choose between the following: “Lift the cap on income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, which is set at $176,100 in 2025 [OR] reduce Social Security benefit payments to current retirees.”
- Lift income cap: National 70%, Republicans 71%, Democrats 75%
- Bipartisan Policy Center, August 2025:
- Respondents were asked to choose between the following: “Lift the cap on income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, which is set at $176,100 in 2025 [OR] gradually reduce Social Security benefit payments from their currently scheduled levels, beginning with those who are younger than 50 today.”
- Lift income cap: National 58%, Republicans 56%, Democrats 59%
Gradually increasing the payroll tax from 6.2% to 6.5%
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, September 2024:
- These proposals raise the Social Security payroll tax rate from 6.2% for both employees and employers. You may select ONLY ONE (or NONE) of the following three proposals:
- Increase by 0.05 per year for 6 years up to 6.5% [reduces shortfall by 15%
- Increase by 0.05 per year for 14 years up to 6.9% [reduces shortfall by 28%
- Increase by 0.05 per year for 20 years up to 7.2% [reduces shortfall by 41%
- Increase to at least 6.5%: National 86%, Republicans 87%, Democrats 87%
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Here are some options that would reduce the budget shortfall of the Social Security program, and thus extend the amount of time that the program can provide full benefits. For each, please say whether you favor or oppose… Gradually increase the payroll tax by 0.05 percent per year for 6 years up to 6.5%, which would reduce the budget shortfall by 15%.”
- Favor: National 62%, Republicans 61%, Democrats 66%
Asked only about the option of raising the rate to 7.2 percent, a bipartisan majority still supported, though only a bare majority of Republicans.
- NASI/AARP, January 2025:
- “Workers currently pay 6.2 percent of their wages to Social Security, and their employers pay the same share for a total of 12.4 percent. This proposal would gradually raise the rate until it hits 7.2 percent for workers and the same amount for employers. For example: For a worker earning $50,000 per year, this would mean an increase of $500 annually, or $42 a month, matched by the employer.”
- Favor: National 57%, Republicans 51%, Democrats 64%
Another poll asked about increasing the payroll tax, without specifying how much it would be raised and found bipartisan support under several scenarios..
- Bipartisan Policy Center, August 2025:
- “The following government policies that could be enacted to shore up Social Security’s finances… Increase the amount that all employers and employees pay towards Social Security.”
- Support: National 57%, Republicans 60%, Democrats 60%
- Bipartisan Policy Center, August 2025:
- Respondents were asked to choose between the following: “Increase the amount that all employers and employees pay towards Social Security [OR] reduce Social Security benefit payments to current retirees.”
- Raise payroll tax: National 70%, Republicans 68%, Democrats 76%
- Bipartisan Policy Center, August 2025:
- Respondents were asked to choose between the following: “Increase the amount that all employers and employees pay towards Social Security [OR] gradually reduce Social Security benefit payments from their currently scheduled levels, beginning with those who are younger than 50 today.”
- Raise payroll tax: National 60%, Republicans 54%, Democrats 70%
Reducing benefits for the top 20% of lifetime earners
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, September 2024:
- “You may select ONLY ONE (or NONE) of the following proposals:
- Reducing benefits for the upper 20 percent of earners [reduces shortfall by 11%]
- Reducing benefits for the upper 40 percent of earners [reduces shortfall by 23%]
- Reducing benefits for the upper 50 percent of earners [reduces shortfall by 31%]”
- “You may select ONLY ONE (or NONE) of the following proposals:
Reduce benefits for at least upper 20 percent: National 92%, Republicans 92%, Democrats 93%
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Here are some options that would reduce the budget shortfall of the Social Security program, and thus extend the amount of time that the program can provide full benefits. For each, please say whether you favor or oppose. Reduce benefits for the top 20% of lifetime earners, which would reduce the budget shortfall by 11%.”
- Favor: National 65%, Republicans 62%, Democrats 69%
Another poll asked about reducing benefits for higher income people without specifying the cutoff level and found bipartisan support under several scenarios..
- Bipartisan Policy Center, August 2025:
- “The following government policies that could be enacted to shore up Social Security’s finances… Reduce how much higher-income people receive in Social Security payments.”
- Support: National 60%, Republicans 62%, Democrats 64%
- Bipartisan Policy Center, August 2025:
- Respondents were asked to choose between the following: “Reduce how much higher-income people receive in Social Security payments [OR] reduce Social Security benefit payments to current retirees.”
- Reduce benefits for top earners: National 67%, Republicans 64%, Democrats 72%
- Bipartisan Policy Center, August 2025:
- Respondents were asked to choose between the following: “Reduce how much higher-income people receive in Social Security payments [OR] gradually reduce Social Security benefit payments from their currently scheduled levels, beginning with those who are younger than 50 today.”
- Reduce benefits for top earners: National 60%, Republicans 60%, Democrats 64%
Gradually increasing the full retirement age to 68
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
“You may select ONLY ONE (or NONE) of the following proposals:
- Gradually raise to age 68 by 2033, and stop there [reduces shortfall by 15%
- Gradually raise to age 69 by 2041, and stop there [reduces shortfall by 21%
- Gradually raise to age 70 by 2064, and stop there [reduces shortfall by 29%
- Raise to at least age 68: National 89%, Republicans 91%, Democrats 88%
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Here are some options that would reduce the budget shortfall of the Social Security program, and thus extend the amount of time that the program can provide full benefits. For each, please say whether you favor or oppose. Gradually increase the full retirement age from age 67 to 68 by 2033, which would reduce the budget shortfall by 15%”
- Favor: National 56%, Republicans 58%, Democrats 55%
Another poll asked about increasing the retirement age, without specifying to what age it would be raised.
- Bipartisan Policy Center, August 2025:
- Respondents were asked to choose between the following: “Over time, increase the full retirement age, which is currently 67, while leaving the earliest age at which one can claim Social Security at 62 [OR] reduce Social Security benefit payments to current retirees.”
- Raise retirement age: National 64%, Republicans 65%, Democrats 67%
- Bipartisan Policy Center, August 2025:
- Respondents were asked to choose between the following: “Over time, increase the full retirement age, which is currently 67, while leaving the earliest age at which one can claim Social Security at 62 [OR] gradually reduce Social Security benefit payments from their currently scheduled levels, beginning with those who are younger than 50 today.”
- Raise retirement age: National 51%, Democrats 57%, among Republicans 49% raise retirement age and 30% reduce benefits
Raising the minimum benefit for someone who has worked 30 years to 125% of the federal poverty line
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, September 2024:
- “Raise the minimum monthly benefit for those who have worked 30 years or more from $1,066 to $1,570 [increases shortfall by 7%]”
- Chosen: National 71%, Republicans 71%, Democrats 73%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Now here are some options for increasing Social Security benefits, which would increase the Social Security shortfall. For each, please select whether you favor or oppose. Raise the minimum benefit for those who have worked at least 30 years from the current level of $1,125 a month to $1,630 per month, which would increase the budget shortfall by 8%.”
- Favor: National 78%, Republicans 76%, Democrats 81%
Changing cost-of-living adjustments to focus more on what older adults buy (which would increase benefits)
Survey with Briefing and Pro-Con Arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, September 2024:
- “Base annual COLAs on the inflation rate for a set of goods that reflect what elderly people tend to buy (increases shortfall by 12%)”
- Chosen: National 68%, Republicans 70%, Democrats 67%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Now here are some options for increasing Social Security benefits, which would increase the Social Security shortfall. For each, please select whether you favor or oppose… Change the formula used for calculating Social Security benefits so that it focuses more on what older adults buy, which would increase benefits for all retirees, and also increase the budget shortfall by 12%.”
- Favor: National 70%, Republicans 70%, Democrats 73%
- NASI/AARP, January 2025:
- “Social Security’s annual Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) increases benefits to keep up with inflation. This proposal would gradually increase the Social Security cost of living adjustment (COLA) by basing it on the spending patterns of older Americans, which differs from the spending patterns of those younger. For example, older Americans tend to spend more of their income on medical care, which tends to increase in cost more than average costs. The impact would grow over time. For example, a person receiving $2,000 per month today would receive more than $4,400 a month in 30 years, as opposed to receiving about $4,200 under today’s rules.”
- Favor: Republicans 57%, Democrats 71%, (national frequencies were not reported)
TAXES
Bipartisan majorities favor increasing taxes that would reduce the federal deficit by several hundred billion dollars a year.
Increasing income tax rates on income over $500,000
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, June 2025:
- “We will now give you the option to change the effective tax rate for different income groups…”
- “$500,000 to $1 million”
Reduce to 20.6% (reduces revenue $64B)
Reduce to 22.6% (reduces revenue $32B)
Keep 2018 rate of 24.6%
Increase back 2017 rate of 27.6% (increases revenue $48B)
Increase further to 29.6% (increases revenue $80B)
Increase further to 31.6% (increases revenue $12B)
- Increase: National 58%, Republicans 53%, Democrats 64%
- “$1 million and above”
Reduce to 22.8% (reduces revenue $132B)
Reduce to 24.8% (reduces revenue $66B)
Keep 2018 rate of 26.8%
Increase back to 2017 rate of 29.0% (increases revenue $73B)
Increase further to 31.0% (increases revenue $139B)
Increase further to 33.0% (increases revenue $205B)
- Increase: National 61%, Republicans 56%, Democrats 71%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “For households with income of $500,000 to $1 million, the effective income tax rate (the actual average rate after tax credits and deductions) is currently about 25%. Do you favor:
Raising it to 30% (increases revenue $80B)
Raising it to 28% (increases revenue $48B)
Keeping it at 25%
Lowering it to 23% (reduces revenue $32B)
Lowering it to 21% (reduces revenue $64B).”
- Raise: National 60%, Republicans 54%, Democrats 67%
- “For households with income of $1 million and over, the effective income tax rate (the actual average rate after tax credits and deductions) is currently about 27%. Do you favor:
Raising it to 31% (increases revenue $139B)
Raising it to 29% (increases revenue $73B)
Keeping it at 27%
Lowering it to 25% (reduces revenue $66B)
Lowering it to 23% (reduces revenue $132B).”
- Raise: National 60%, Republicans 55%, Democrats 69%
- Marquette Law School, May 2025:
- “Increase taxes on those earning more than about $600,000”
- Favor: National 83%, Republicans 73%, Democrats 94%
When asked about whether to extend the 2017 tax cuts for those with higher incomes, bipartisan majorities were opposed, which would have effectively increased the tax rates for that income group when the question was asked (before the One Big Beautiful Bill made them permanent.)
- Ipsos/Washington Post, June 2025: “Extending the 2017 federal income tax cuts for each of the following? Individuals with incomes above $400k (above $450k for married couples)”
- Do not favor: 71%, Republicans 54%, Democrats 83%
However, there was an outlier in which less than half of Republicans favored an increase.
- Pew Research Center, February 2025:
- “Should tax rates on household income over $400,000 be:” Raised a lot/a little; Decreased a lot/a little; Kept the same as they are now.
- Raised: National 58%, Republicans 43%, Democrats 74%
Taxing capital gains at the (higher) ordinary income rate for income over $200,000
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, June 2025:
- “There is a proposal for changing the tax rate for capital gains and dividends, by taxing them at the same rate that income from wages and salaries are taxed. This would increase revenues. You can now choose whether you favor this change and for which income levels.”
- “$200,000 to $500,000 (raises $26 billion)”
- Tax as ordinary income: National 60%, Republicans 59%, Democrats 63%
- “$500,000 to $1 million (raises $18 billion)”
- Tax as ordinary income: National 65%, Republicans 62%, Democrats 69%
- “$1 million and above (raises $120 billion)”
- Tax as ordinary income: National 68%, Republicans 65%, Democrats 71%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Do you favor raising the tax on capital gains by taxing them at the same rate as ordinary income, for the following income groups:”
- “Households with incomes of $200,000 to $500,000”
- Favor: National 64% Republicans 61%, Democrats 69%
- “Households with incomes of $500,000 to 1 million”
- Favor: National 72% Republicans 65%, Democrats 79%
- “Households with incomes of $1 million or more”
- Favor: National 76% Republicans 70%, Democrats 83%
Adopting a tax of 2% on wealth over $50 million, and 3% over $1 billion
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, June 2025:
- “Impose an extra annual tax of 2% on wealth over $50 million, and 3% on wealth over $1 billion. This proposal would reduce the deficit by $200 billion a year. What is your recommendation?”
- Charge wealth tax: National 78%, Republicans 72%, Democrats 83%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Now let’s look at a proposal for a new tax on people with very high net worth – the top one tenth of one percent of the population. A proposal has been put forward to have a tax on wealth (this includes assets such as stocks, bonds and property) over a certain amount. The first $50 million of wealth would not be taxed. Wealth above $50 million would be taxed at 2%. Wealth over $1 billion would be taxed at 3%.
Do you favor: Having this new proposed tax on wealth (increases revenue $200B).” - Favor: National 80%, Republicans 72%, Democrats 88%
- “Now let’s look at a proposal for a new tax on people with very high net worth – the top one tenth of one percent of the population. A proposal has been put forward to have a tax on wealth (this includes assets such as stocks, bonds and property) over a certain amount. The first $50 million of wealth would not be taxed. Wealth above $50 million would be taxed at 2%. Wealth over $1 billion would be taxed at 3%.
- Hill/HarrisX, February 2019:
- “Would you support an annual wealth tax of 2% on assets over $50 million and 3% on wealth over $1 billion?”
- Support: National 74%, Republicans 65%, Democrats 86%
- Fox News, December 2019:
- “Creating an annual two percent wealth tax on an individual’s worth over $50 million dollars in addition to income tax.”
- Support: National 68%, Republicans 51% (with 42% opposed), Democrats 83%, independents 63%
- New York Times, February 2019:
-
“A 2 percent tax on wealth above $50 million.” - Approve: National 61%, Republicans 51% (with 46% disapproving), Democrats 75%, independents 57%
-
Keeping the estate tax
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, June 2025:
- “What is your recommendation?
Eliminate the estate tax completely (reduces revenue $34B)
Continue to tax inherited wealth over $14 million for individuals and $28 million for married couples, up to 40%
Tax inherited wealth over $5 million for individuals and $11 million for married couples, up to 40% (increases revenue $17B)
Tax inherited wealth over $3.5 million for individuals and $7 million for married couples, up to 45% (increases revenue $54B)
- Do not eliminate the estate tax: National 75%, Republicans 69%, Democrats 82%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “As you may know, the estate tax is a tax on large inheritances, which includes both property and financial assets like stocks and bonds. Currently there is no tax on the first $15 million for individuals and $30 million for married couples, but the amount above that is taxed. Proposals have been put forward to change the estate tax. Do you favor taxing inherited wealth:
Above $3.5 million for individuals and $7 million for married couples (increases revenue $54B)
Above $5 million for individuals and $11 million for married couples (increases revenue $17B)
Above $15 million for individuals and $30 million for married couples (current law)
Eliminating the estate tax (reduces revenue $34B)”
- Do not eliminate the estate tax: National 81%, Republicans 76%, Democrats 88%
- Increase estates subject to tax by lowering exemption from $15 to $5 million (or less): National 64%, Republicans 59%, Democrats 71%
- Hill/Harris-X, January 2019: [link no longer contains full questionnaire]
- “The federal government does not tax estates valued under $11.4 million. Estates valued over $11.4 million are taxed at 40 percent.” [Respondents were asked whether estate taxes should be eliminated, kept the same, raised somewhat, or raised significantly]”
- Do not eliminate the estate tax: National 69%, Republicans 61%, Democrats 79% (includes those who favored raising)
Ending the special tax rate for carried interest
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, June 2018:
- “Managers of private investment funds, such as hedge funds, are paid in part by giving them a percentage of the profits of the firm even though they have not invested money that is at risk. Currently this income is taxed at the same level as dividends or capital gains – that is, with a top rate of 23.8%, which for high income managers is substantially less than it would be if it were taxed like ordinary income. Tax this “carried interest” compensation like ordinary income, such as wages. This would raise extra revenue of $2.1 billion and reduce the deficit accordingly.”
- Tax carried interest as ordinary income: National 84%, Republicans 82%, Democrats 86%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Currently, there is a tax law that allows managers of private investment funds (like hedge funds) to have their income taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. Do you favor: Taxing hedge fund managers’ income like ordinary income [OR] Keeping the law that taxes hedge fund managers at a lower rate.”
- Favor: National 73%, Republicans 70%, Democrats 78%
Adopting a 0.01% tax on the purchase of stocks and bonds
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, June 2025:
- “Another proposal would tax each trade transaction by a percent of the value of the security being traded. Here are three options. What is your recommendation?
Do not charge a tax on financial transactions
Charge of a tax of 0.01%, so a trade of $10,000 would be charged $1 (increases revenue $30B)
Charge a tax of 0.1%, so a trade of $10,000 would be charged $10 (increases revenue $77B)
- Charge at least 0.01%: National 72%, Republicans 70%, Democrats 76%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Currently, when people buy stocks and bonds there is no tax. A proposal has been put forward to have a new tax of 0.01%, or $1 on a purchase of $10,000. Do you favor: Having a tax of on the purchase of stocks and bonds (increases revenue $30B) [OR] Not having a new tax.”
- Favor new tax: National 56%, Republicans 53%, Democrats 62%
Maintaining or increasing the corporate tax rate
Surveys with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, June 2025:
- “Just like individuals, corporations have exemptions, credits, and deductions that they apply to their profits before calculating their tax. Therefore, their effective tax rate—the amount that they actually pay—is on average about 12%... Which of the following options do you recommend?” [Respondents could decrease by two, four, or six percentage points, keep the same, or increase by two, four or six percentage points. Revenue effects for each option were shown.]
- Increase OR keep same: National 76%, Republicans 71%, Democrats 81%
- Increase: National 58%, Republicans 49%, Democrats 68%, independents 58%
- Program for Public Consultation, May 2019:
- “Here are six options for an extra tax on corporate income over $100 million. What is your recommendation?” [1%, 3%, 5%, 7% or 9%, or not charge a new tax. Revenue effects for each option were shown.]
- Surtax of 1% or more: National 78%, Republicans 68%, Democrats 86%
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Corporations do not pay tax on their entire income; they only pay tax on their profits (income minus spending). The effective tax rate on corporate profits is currently 12%. Do you favor:
Raising it to 16% Revenue
(increases revenue $81B)
Raising it to 14% (increases revenue $41B)
Keeping it at 12%
Lowering it to 10% (reduces revenue $41B)
Lowering it to 8% (reduces revenue $81B).”
- Raise: National 62%, Republicans 56%, Democrats 71%
- Marquette Law School, June 2025:
- “Do you favor or oppose the following changes to tax policy? Increase taxes on corporations.”
- Favor: National 86%, Republicans 63%, Democrats 92%
- Gallup, 2024:
- “As I read off some different groups, please tell me if you think they are paying their FAIR share in federal taxes, paying too much or paying too little. How about -- Corporations?”
- Too little: National 70%, Republicans 54%, Democrats 93%
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Bipartisan majorities favor substantially increasing federal government regulation of artificial intelligence and entering into international treaties to regulate AI.
Creating a new federal agency dedicated to AI for regulation enforcement and policy recommendations
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2024:
- “Create a new federal agency dedicated to taking a preventative and comprehensive approach to overseeing and regulating the development and use of AI programs. This new agency would: closely monitor the state of AI programs and their uses, and try to anticipate potential problems; define best practices for developing and using AI programs, based on input from AI experts, industry leaders, and other professionals; make recommendations for AI regulations to Congress and the Executive Branch; enforce AI regulations that have been adopted.”
- Favor: National 74%, Republicans 68%, Democrats 81%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Create a new federal agency dedicated to artificial intelligence, that would monitor new AI programs and try to anticipate potential problems, define best practices for developing and using AI programs, make policy recommendations, and enforce regulations.”
- Favor: National 80%, Republicans 79%, Democrats 85%
Requiring AI programs that make impactful decisions (such as in healthcare, banking, housing) to pass a pretest or audit to ensure they are compliant with the law, have data security protections, and are not biased
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2024:
- “Require pre-testing for any new AI program that is going to be used to make decisions that can have significant impacts on people, including in healthcare, banking, housing, education, employment, legal services, and utilities (like electricity). These tests would try to ensure that the AI program: follows regulations and best practices, has data privacy and security protections, and does not have unintended biases. These tests would be conducted by the government or an independent third-party. If it does not pass the tests, it would not be approved for general use.”
- Favor: National 81%, Republicans 76%, Democrats 88%
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2024:
- “Here is another proposal that has been put forward as a way for the government to take a preventative approach to regulating AI programs. Give the government the authority to audit AI programs, or to contract independent third parties to audit them, that are already in use and that make decisions which have significant impacts on people’s lives. The audits would include tests on whether the program follows regulations and best practices, has data privacy and security protections, and does not have unintended biases. If the audit finds that the AI program has problems in any of those areas, then the company who owns the AI program would have to fix them and redistribute the corrected version.”
- Favor: National 77%, Republicans 74%, Democrats 82%
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “The first set of proposals addresses AI programs that make decisions that can have significant impacts on people (e.g. in health insurance claims, loan applications, hiring, etc.) To ensure these AI programs follow regulations, have data privacy and security protections, and do not have unintended biases, do you favor or oppose:
- “For new AI programs, require they first pass a government-designed test.”
- Favor: National 78%, Republicans 78%, Democrats 82%
- “For AI programs already in use, allow the government to audit them.”
- Favor: National 74%, Republicans 73%, Democrats 77%
- YouGov, March 2024:
- “Regulating the use of algorithms in high-stakes decision-making, such as hiring, mortgage-approval, or health care decisions.”
- Support: National 60%, Republicans 58%, Democrats 68%
- April 2025, University of Massachusetts Amherst:
- "Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) should be strictly regulated by the government.”
- Agree: National 58%, Republicans 54%, Democrats 66%; Disagree: National 17%
- August 2024, Pew Research Center:
- “Thinking about the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the United States, are you more concerned that the U.S. government will…Go too far regulating its use; Not go far enough regulating its use; Not sure.”
- Not go far enough: National 58%, Republicans 55%, Democrats 65%; Go too far: National 21%
Americans also express discomfort with AI making significant decisions.
- April 2025, Quinnipiac University:
- “Would you be comfortable with an AI tool being used to screen: job applications by companies”
- Not comfortable: National 64%, Republicans 61%, Democrats 71%
- "Would you be comfortable with an AI tool being used to screen: loan applications by banks"
- Not comfortable: National 67%, Republicans 63%, Democrats 75%
- "Would you be comfortable with an AI tool being used to screen: health insurance claims"
- Not comfortable: National 71%, Republicans 64%, Democrats 80%
Requiring all deepfakes be labelled as such
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2024:
- “Require that any deepfake image or video distributed publicly – e.g. posted online or shown on TV – must have a label that states that it is not real and was generated by AI. For audio deepfakes, they would be required to have a verbal statement at the beginning.”
- Favor: National 83%, Republicans 83%, Democrats 85%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “As you may know, some AI programs can create fake images, audio, or videos, of real people or events, that look completely real. These images or videos are known as “deepfakes”. Require that any deepfake image or video distributed publicly – e.g. posted online or shown on TV – must have a label that states that it is not real and was generated by AI.”
- Favor: National 86%, Republicans 89%, Democrats 88%
- Communication Research Center, August 2025:
- “A.I.-generated content posted to social media platforms should be clearly labeled and watermarked.”
- Somewhat or strongly agree: National 83%, Republicans 85%, Democrats 88%
Prohibiting political campaigns, including PACs, from using deepfakes
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2024:
- “Make it illegal for political campaigns, including PACs, to use deepfakes in their campaign advertisements.”
- Favor: National 84%, Republicans 83%, Democrats 86%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Prohibit political campaigns, including PACs, from using deepfakes in their campaign advertisements.”
- Favor: National 82%, Republicans 85%, Democrats 83%
An international treaty banning fully-automated weapons systems that can fire on targets without human approval
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2024:
- “The US is actively working with other nations to create an international treaty that would prohibit lethal autonomous weapons. Weapons could use AI to find and lock onto a target, but a human would have to decide whether it fires on that target. The treaty would also have a UN agency enforce this requirement. Member nations would have to disclose information about the use of AI in their weapons systems and allow the UN agency to inspect their weapons systems to ensure they are complying with the treaty. Non-Member nations would be pressured to ban lethal autonomous weapons as well.”
- Favor: National 81%, Republicans 77%, Democrats 85%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “The US actively working with other nations to create an international treaty that would prohibit the development and use of AI-powered weapons that can fire on targets without a direct human command.”
- Favor: National 79%, Republicans 81%, Democrats 82%
- Ipsos, January 2021:
- “The United Nations is reviewing the strategic, legal and moral implications of lethal autonomous weapons systems. These weapons systems would be capable of independently selecting targets and attacking those targets without human intervention. They are thus different than current day "drones" where humans select and attack targets. How do you feel about the use of such lethal autonomous weapons systems in war?”
- National 55% oppose and 22% support
Note: A plurality opposes the development of autonomous weapons per se.
- Gallup, May 2025:
- “To what extent do you support or oppose the U.S. military developing AI-enabled autonomous weapons for use in military conflicts with other countries?”
- National 48% oppose and 39% support
An international treaty to regulate large-scale AI programs
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2024:
- “An international treaty for regulating large-scale AI programs [to ensure] they can always be shut down by human operators in case they get out of control; have robust security measures to protect them from being hacked or misused; do not cause major unintended and problematic consequences. An international agency would be created to monitor and inspect whether nations’ large-scale AI projects are following the agreed-on regulations and help fix any problems that arise.”
- Favor: National 77%, Republicans 71%, Democrats 84%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “The US actively working with other nations to create an international treaty to regulate large-scale AI programs.”
- Favor: National 77%, Republicans 78%, Democrats 82%
ABORTION AND BIRTH CONTROL
Bipartisan majorities say the government should seek to reduce unintended pregnancies by increasing access to birth control, and should not criminalize abortions before fetal viability.
Prohibiting state governments from restricting or banning access to birth control
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, July 2024:
- “Ensure that everyone has legal access to birth control, by prohibiting state governments from restricting or banning access to birth control."
- Favor: National 81%, Republicans 74%, Democrats 90%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Prohibit state governments from restricting or banning access to birth control, to ensure that everyone has legal access to birth control.”
- Favor: National 79%, Republicans 73%, Democrats 86%
- YouGov, August 2025:
- “Do you think that birth control should be legal or illegal?”
- Legal: National 88%, Republicans 84%, Democrats 96%
- FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos, July 2022:
- Whether the following should be “legal in all/most cases” or “illegal in all/most cases”
- “Birth control pills” (Legal in all/most cases: National 89%, Republicans 91%, Democrats 93%)
- “IUDs (intrauterine devices” (Legal in all/most cases: National 81%, Republicans 82%, Democrats 83%)
- Whether the following should be “legal in all/most cases” or “illegal in all/most cases”
Increasing funding for health care clinics to provide long-term birth control for free or at low cost
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, July 2024:
- “The government to increase the amount of funding to health care clinics so they can provide long-term birth control for free or at low cost."
- Favor: National 76%, Republicans 64%, Democrats 89%
- “The government to increase the amount of funding to health care clinics so they can provide long-term birth control for free or at low cost."
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Increase the amount of funding to health care clinics so they can provide long-term birth control for free or at low cost for women who cannot afford it (mainly low-income and uninsured women).”
- Favor: National 81%, Republicans 72%, Democrats 91%
- YouGov, October 2024:
- “Expanding the access and affordability of birth control.”
- Support: National 79%, Republicans 73%, Democrats 91%
- YouGov, May 2022:
- “Expanding access to birth control for people who cannot afford it.”
- Support: National 74%, Republicans 69%, Democrats 87%
Continuing to require health insurance plans to cover long-term birth control (with some religious and moral exemptions)
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, July 2024:
- “Continuing to require that health insurance covers long-term birth control."
- Favor: National 85%, Republicans 78%, Democrats 94%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Continue to require that health insurance plans cover long-term birth control (with some religious and moral exemptions for some employers).”
- Favor: National 82%, Republicans 77%, Democrats 90%
- YouGov, May 2022:
- “Should private health insurance plans be required to cover the cost of birth control?”
- Should: National 65%, Republicans 58%, Democrats 82%
- AP-NORC, April 2019:
- “Requiring private health insurance plans to cover the full cost of birth control.”
- Favor: National 62%, Democrats 77%, independents 64%, among Republicans 41% favor, 33% oppose and 25% neither favor nor oppose
Making abortion a serious crime before fetal viability (in line with the Roe v Wade standard)
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, July 2024:
- “Now that you have considered the various options, we would like you to make your final recommendations on whether abortion should be a serious crime and if so under what circumstances. If you do choose to make abortion a crime, you will then be given the chance to choose whether the law should punish the doctor and/or the woman; and whether there should be exceptions to that law… which of the following do you favor the most:
Do not make abortion a crime
Make abortion a serious crime after the fetus is viable (meaning it can very likely survive outside of the womb), with the punishment including prison time and/or major fines
Make abortion a serious crime after 15 weeks with the punishment including prison time and/or major fines
Make abortion a serious crime at any point during the pregnancy, with the punishment including prison time and/or major fines.”
- Do not make abortion a serious crime OR make a crime after viability: National 77%, Republicans 61%, Democrats 90%
- Do not make abortion a serious crime: National 66%, Republicans 50%, Democrats 81%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “There is a debate about whether it should be a serious crime for a doctor to provide an abortion at different stages of pregnancy. Please select which option you favor the most:
Do not make abortion a crime
Make abortion a serious crime after the fetus is viable (meaning it can very likely survive outside of the womb, about 22-24 weeks), with the punishment including prison time and/or major fines
Make abortion a serious crime at any point during the pregnancy, with the punishment including prison time and/or major fine.”
- Do not make a serious crime OR make a crime after viability: National 84%, Republicans 74%, Democrats 91%
- KFF, February 2024:
- “Protecting doctors who perform abortions from fines or prison time”
- Support: National 67%, Republicans 53%, Democrats 82%
- AP-NORC, July 2025:
- “Protecting doctors who provide abortions from fines or prison time.”
- National 55% support, 20% oppose and 24% neither favor nor oppose (Partisan data not provided)
- NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist May 2022:
- “A law that makes it a crime requiring fines and/or prison time for doctors who perform abortion.”
- Oppose: National 75%, Republicans 53%, Democrats 93%
- Kaiser Family Foundation June 2022
- “Making it a crime for doctors to perform abortions that would result in either fines or prison time.”
- Oppose: National 73%; supported by just 13% of Democrats and 47% of Republicans [Partisan oppose numbers not provided]
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
POLICE REFORM:
Bipartisan majorities favor reforms that would reduce the use of excessive force by police and increase accountability when they do so.
Requiring police officers to intervene when they perceive another officer is using excessive force
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, July 2020:
- “Require police departments to adopt a policy that makes it a duty for officers to intervene when they perceive another officer is using excessive force. Provide officers with training for when and how to intervene.”
- Favor: National 82%, Republicans 71%, Democrats 94%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Require police departments to make it a duty for officers to intervene when they perceive another officer is using excessive force. Also, provide officers with training for when and how to intervene.”
- Favor: National 88%, Republicans 88%, Democrats 91%
- Reuters/Ipsos, June 2020:
- “Requiring police officers to intervene when they see police misconduct,” including 93% of both Republicans and Democrats.
- Favor: National 93%, Republicans 93%, Democrats 93%
- KFF, June 2020:
- “Please tell me if you support or oppose each of the following proposals aimed at reducing excessive use of force by police officers. Requiring police to intervene and stop excessive force used by other officers and report these incidents.”
- Support: National 95%, Republicans 95%, Democrats 97%
Prohibiting the use of chokeholds
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, July 2020:
- “Require states to prohibit the use of chokeholds and other restraints that prevent breathing or block the flow of blood or oxygen to the brain.”
- Favor: National 73%, Republicans 55%, Democrats 91%
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Prohibit the use of chokeholds that prevent breathing or block the flow of blood or oxygen to the brain.”
- Favor: National 78%, Republicans 70%, Democrats 86%
- Pew Research Center, June 2020:
- “Make it a crime for police to use chokeholds or strangleholds.”
- Favor: National 74%, Republicans 57%, Democrats 88%
- “Make it a crime for police to use chokeholds or strangleholds.”
- KFF, June 2020:
- “Please tell me if you support or oppose each of the following proposals aimed at reducing excessive use of force by police officers. Banning police from using chokeholds and strangleholds.”
- Support: National 68%, Republicans 52%, Democrats 82%
- “Please tell me if you support or oppose each of the following proposals aimed at reducing excessive use of force by police officers. Banning police from using chokeholds and strangleholds.”
- Reuters/Ipsos, June 2020:
- “Banning police from using chokeholds to restrain civilians/suspects.”
- Favor: National 82%, Republicans 71%, Democrats 91%
Requiring police to wear body cameras and use them during interactions
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, July 2020:
- “Require all police departments to have body cameras, to have their law enforcement officers wear them, and turn them on whenever they are responding to a police call or interacting with a suspect. Failure to do so would result in disciplinary action.”
- Favor: National 89%, Republicans 85%, Democrats 94%
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Require all police departments to have body cameras, to have their officers wear them, and turn them on whenever they are responding to a police call or interacting with a suspect.”
- Favor: National 90%, Republicans 90%, Democrats 90%
- YouGov, November 2025:
- “Requiring all police officers to use body cameras while on duty.”
- Support: National 89%, Republicans 89%, Democrats 90%
- Yahoo! News/YouGov, February 2023:
- “Require state and local police agencies to use existing federal funds to ensure the use of body cameras.”
- National 74% support
- Reuters/Ipsos, June 2020:
- “Requiring federal police officers to wear body cameras.”
- Support: National 92%, Republicans 89%, Democrats 94%
- “Requiring federal police officers to wear body cameras.”
- AP-NORC, June 2020:
- “Requiring on-duty police officers to wear video cameras that would record their interactions with the public as they occur.”
- Support: National 88%, Republicans 88%, Democrats 93%
Requiring law enforcement agencies to submit information about officer misconduct to a national public database
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, July 2020:
- “Create a national database of police misconduct and require all law enforcement agencies to submit information about officer misconduct. This information would include: complaints filed by civilians against a law enforcement officer; disciplinary action taken against an officer such as a suspension, and the reason for it; firing of an officer and the reason for it; lawsuits against an officer, and their outcome. This database would be available to all law enforcement agencies as well as other government agencies and the public.”
- Favor: National 81%, Republicans 70%, Democrats 92%
Standard Polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Require law enforcement agencies to submit information about officer misconduct to a national database so that this information is available to all other law enforcement agencies when deciding whether to hire an officer.”
- Favor: National 89%, Republicans 87%, Democrats 92%
- YouGov, November 2025:
- “ Creating a federal registry for complaints against police officers.”
- Support: National 72%, Republicans 60%, Democrats 84%
- Yahoo! News/YouGov, February 2023:
- “Create a national police misconduct registry to prevent police officers who are fired or pushed out for bad performance from being hired by other law enforcement agencies.”
- National 71% support, 12% oppose and 16% not sure
Providing funds to states to hire independent prosecutors in cases of police using deadly force
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, July 2020:
- “Offer states federal funding to hire an independent prosecutor when investigating or charging a law enforcement officer for using deadly force. To receive this funding, the state must first put in place a policy requiring the use of an independent prosecutor in all such cases”
- Favor: National 70%, Republicans 52%, Democrats 86%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “For cases in which a law enforcement officer has been charged with using deadly force, provide funds to states so they can hire an independent prosecutor, meaning they do not regularly work closely with the officer’s department.”
- Favor: National 78%, Republicans 73%, Democrats 85%
- HuffPost/YouGov, June 2020:
- “Assigning independent prosecutors to handle cases of police using fatal force.”
- Support: National 68%, Republicans 63%, Democrats 74%
SENTENCING AND PRISON REFORM:
Bipartisan majorities favor reforms that would generally shorten prison sentences by reducing mandatory minimums and giving judges greater discretion, and limiting the use of solitary confinement.
Lowering the mandatory minimum sentence for first-strike drug offenses from 10 to 5 years
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, July 2018:
- “Current federal law states that a conviction for one serious drug offense must result in a minimum 10
year prison sentence. Serious drug offense includes the sale, manufacturing or trafficking of a significant
amount of illegal drugs.
Do you favor or oppose a proposal to lower the mandatory minimum sentence for “one strike” so that a judge
could decide to give a sentence of 5 years in prison, though the judge could still make it longer?” - Favor: National 83%, Republicans 76%, Democrats 90%
- “Current federal law states that a conviction for one serious drug offense must result in a minimum 10
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Currently, when someone is convicted of selling or producing a substantial amount of drugs, a judge is required to impose a minimum sentence of 10 years. Do you favor or oppose lowering the mandatory minimum sentence to 5 years and letting the judge decide if it should be more?”
- Favor: National 67%, Republicans 60%, Democrats 74%
For prisoners who were convicted as juveniles and have served at least 20 years, giving federal judges the option to release them from prison on parole
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, July 2018:
- “For prisoners who were convicted as juveniles and have served at least 20 years in prison, federal judges
will have the option to determine whether the prisoner still poses a threat to society, and to release them
from prison and place them on 5 years of supervised release.” - Favor: National 78%, Republicans 68%, Democrats 87%
- “For prisoners who were convicted as juveniles and have served at least 20 years in prison, federal judges
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “For prisoners who were convicted as juveniles and have served at least 20 years in prison, do you favor or oppose giving federal judges the option to release them from prison and place them on 5 years of supervised release?”
- Favor: National 73%, Republicans 70%, Democrats 79%
Regulating the use of solitary confinement by restricting the reasons it can be used, and limiting how long a person can be kept in solitary confinement
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2021:
- Respondents were asked to choose between the following:
“Proposal 1… Solitary confinement could only be used when a prisoner has committed an act of violence or prison officials have made the judgement that the prisoner poses a serious threat to others or themselves, and a less restrictive intervention would not be adequate. The prisoner would receive a regular medical and mental evaluation by a medical professional to determine if the isolation is having harmful effects. If so, the confinement will be stopped. In no case would it be more than 15 days in a row or 20 days in a two-month period.”
“Proposal 2… Solitary confinement could not only be used when the prisoner is violent or poses a serious threat to others or themselves in the judgement of the prison officials. It could also be used as a punishment when a prisoner commits a serious violation of regulations, like possessing drugs or weapons, or trying to escape. Confinement for disciplinary purposes would be limited to 30 days in a row, but not more than 40 days in a two-month period.”
“Neither proposal”
- Favor Proposal 1 OR Proposal 2: National 86%, Republicans 84%, Democrats 90%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Here are proposals related to the use of solitary confinement which means putting a prisoner in a cell by themselves for 22-24 hours a day.
People are put in solitary confinement for the following purposes: as punishment for minor or serious violations of prison rules; for the prisoner’s safety (protection from other inmates, or they are suicidal). Currently, there are no federal laws that regulate how many days a person can be kept in solitary confinement, or for what purposes. Proposals have been put forward to limit the use of solitary confinement. Which do you favor:
- “Here are proposals related to the use of solitary confinement which means putting a prisoner in a cell by themselves for 22-24 hours a day.
Prohibit any use of solitary confinement
Limit the use of solitary confinement only when it is necessary for the prisoner’s safety, and to no more than 15 days in a row or 20 days in a two-month period
Limit the use of solitary confinement as punishment for serious violations only or for their own safety, and to no more than 30 days in a row or 40 days in a two-month period
Do not limit the use of solitary confinement.”
- Prohibit any use OR limit use to safety reasons: National 59%, Republicans 52%, Democrats 69%
Note: When the only option presented is to limit the use of solitary confinement for safety reasons, and no further information is given about solitary confinement, a plurality of Republicans are opposed.
- YouGov, May 2024:
- “Would you support or oppose the following policy being implemented nationally in the U.S.? Requiring that solitary confinement be used only for safety reasons — not as punishment.”
- Support: National 52%, Democrats 70%, independents 52%, among Republicans 34% support and 50% oppose
CRIMINAL RECORDS:
Bipartisan majorities favor reforms that would reduce and limit the extent to which criminal records can be used to disqualify a person from employment or housing.
Prohibiting employers and licensing boards from disqualifying a person on the basis that they were arrested but never charged or convicted; convicted of a petty non-violent crime; or convicted of a crime unrelated to the job
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2021:
- “Licensing boards and employers could not disqualify a person because:”
- “they were arrested but not charged or charged with a crime but found not guilty.”
- Favor: National 81%, Republicans 72%, Democrats 90%
- “Licensing boards and employers could not disqualify a person because:”
- “they have been convicted of a petty, non-violent crime.”
- Favor: National 79%, Republicans 68%, Democrats 89%
- “they have been convicted of a crime when the nature of the crime is unrelated to their ability to perform the duties or responsibilities of their work.”
- Favor: National 76%, Republicans 65%, Democrats 87%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Do you favor or oppose prohibiting employers and licensing boards from disqualifying a person on the basis that:”
- “They were arrested but not charged, or charged but not convicted.”
- Favor: National 65%, Republicans 66%, Democrats 65%
- “They were convicted of a petty, nonviolent crime, such as littering, jaywalking, failing to pay a parking ticket, or loitering.”
- Favor: National 60%, Republicans 59%, Democrats 63%
- “They were convicted of a crime unrelated to their ability to responsibly perform the job.”
- Favor: National 57%, Republicans 57%, Democrats 58%
Limiting the period of time during which employers and licensing boards can disqualify a person to one year after sentence completion for a misdemeanor, and five years for a felony
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2021:
- “Limit the period of time during which licensing boards and employers can disqualify an applicant for certain convictions, provided that the person has not committed any other crimes during this period: For a misdemeanor, the limit would be to one year after the person completes their sentence; for a felony, the limit would be five years after the person completes their sentence.”
- Favor: National 74%, Republicans 64%, Democrats 83%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Limit the period of time during which employers and licensing boards can disqualify a person for certain convictions: for a misdemeanor, one year after they complete their sentence; for a felony, five years after they complete their sentence.”
- Favor: National 79%, Republicans 79%, Democrats 82%
Automatically sealing the record of a non-violent drug conviction five years after the person has finished their sentence
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2021:
- “For a person convicted of a non-violent drug offense, five years after they finish their sentence or probation, information about the offense would be automatically sealed. Legally, they would not need to disclose their arrest or conviction to an employer or landlord.”
- Favor: National 75%, Republicans 68%, Democrats 84%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Proposals have been put forward to reduce the amount of time it takes to get a record of an arrest or crime sealed so that it is no longer available to the public, including employers and landlords. For a person convicted of a non-violent drug offense, automatically sealing the record of that crime five years after the person has finished their sentence or probation.”
- Favor: National 77%, Republicans 73%, Democrats 83%
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
Bipartisan majorities favor numerous reforms to counter the potentially corrupting influence of money in politics.
Overturning Citizens United, by passing a new Constitutional amendment allowing Congress to restrict or prohibit corporations and PACs from spending money to influence elections
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, August 2017:
- “A new Constitutional amendment that would have two parts. It would allow Congress and the states to write campaign finance laws that: May regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections; Can distinguish between people and corporations or other organizations, thus allowing legislators to restrict or prohibit corporations and other organizations from spending money to influence elections.”
- Favor: National 75%, Republicans 66%, Democrats 85%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Passing a new Constitutional amendment that would allow Congress and state legislatures to restrict or prohibit corporations and private political groups (PACs) from spending money to influence elections.”
- Favor: National 82%, Republicans 82%, Democrats 85%
- March 2025, YouGov:
- “Currently, groups not affiliated with a candidate are able to spend unlimited amounts of money on advertisements during a political campaign. Should this kind of spending be limited by law, or should it remain unlimited?”
- Limited by law: National 60%, Republicans 52% (with 18% opposed), Democrats 69%
- ANES, 2024: [note for link: click remove missing data]
- “Placing limits on political campaign spending.”
- Favor: National 66%, Republicans 62%, Democrats 72%
- “Placing limits on political campaign spending.”
- Pew Research Center, July 2023:
- “Which comes closer to your own view - even if neither is exactly right: Individuals and organizations should be able to spend as much money as they want in support of political campaigns [OR] There should be limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations can spend in support of political campaigns.”
- Limits: National 72%, Republicans 71%, Democrats 76%
Encouraging small campaign donors by providing a tax credit for small donations
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, August 2017:
- “When a citizen contributes up to $50 to a specific candidate, half of the contribution would be refundable in the form of a tax credit. This would be limited to small donors, which would be people whose total donations to that candidate are no more than $300.”
- Favor: National 60%, Republicans 53%, Democrats 67%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Encouraging small campaign donors by making half of small donations to candidates by small donors refundable in the form of a tax credit.”
- Favor: National 67%, Republicans 63%, Democrats 72%
Continuing the Johnson Amendment’s restrictions on non-profit organizations’ political activity
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, August 2017:
- “Change current law and allow tax‐exempt organizations to endorse political candidates and provide them money and other support, while keeping the organization’s tax‐exempt status.”
- Oppose: National 79%, Republicans 71%, Democrats 88%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Continuing to prohibit non-profits that receive tax-deductible donations, such as churches and universities, from endorsing and providing financial support to political candidates.”
- Favor: National 79%, Republicans 80%, Democrats 80%
Requiring greater public disclosure of campaign-related spending by individuals, corporations, unions, and other groups
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, August 2017:
- “Currently, when corporations, unions, and other groups spend money on their own campaign-related activity, such as running a TV ad that is supportive of a candidate, they do not have to report it. This proposal would require that these groups: report this spending, within 24 hours, to their shareholders and members; make this information available to the public on their websites; report it to the Federal Election Commission.”
- Favor: National 85%, Republicans 83%, Democrats 88%
- “Require that all individuals or organizations that donate or receive a total of $10,000 or more for campaign-related activities promptly register with the Federal Election Commission, and have their name and the amount of the donations listed on the Commission’s website.”
- Favor: National 82%, Republicans 77%, Democrats 88%
- “The Federal Communications Commission would require the public disclosure of the names of significant donors in paying for TV or radio ads in support of candidates or related to controversial public issues.”
- Favor: National 81%, Republicans 74%, Democrats 89%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “While many forms of campaign-related donations and spending are required to be publicly disclosed, there are donations that can be made anonymously to certain organizations that can support candidates and political causes.
Here are some proposals that require greater disclosure of campaign financing.
- “While many forms of campaign-related donations and spending are required to be publicly disclosed, there are donations that can be made anonymously to certain organizations that can support candidates and political causes.
- Require corporations, unions, and other groups, when spending money on campaign-related activities, to immediately report this to their shareholders and members, to the public, and to the Federal Election Commission.”
- Favor: National 83%, Republicans 85%, Democrats 85%
- “Require the Federal Election Commission to publicly disclose the names of significant donors paying for TV or radio ads in support of candidates or related to controversial public issues.”
- Favor: National 81%, Republicans 80%, Democrats 85%
- YouGov, March 2025:
- “Currently, people or groups not affiliated with a candidate are able to spend unlimited amounts of money on advertisements during a political campaign. Do you think this kind of spending should… Be limited by law [OR] Remain unlimited.”
- Limited: National 60%, Republicans 52% (with just 18% saying remain unlimited), Democrats 69%
- AP-NORC, November 2015:
- “All groups that raise and spend unlimited money to support candidates should be required to publicly disclose their contributors.”
- Should: National 76%, Republicans 78%, Democrats 79%
- “All groups that raise and spend unlimited money to support candidates should be required to publicly disclose their contributors.”
- CBS News/New York Times, May 2015:
- “Do you think groups not affiliated with a candidate that spend money during political campaigns should be required to publicly disclose their contributors, or do you think it’s okay for that information to remain private?”
- Require disclosure: National 75%, Republicans 76%, Democrats 76%
- “Do you think groups not affiliated with a candidate that spend money during political campaigns should be required to publicly disclose their contributors, or do you think it’s okay for that information to remain private?”
Requiring federal contractors to publicly disclose their donations to campaign-related groups
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, August 2017:
- “The President requiring Federal contractors to publicly disclose their donations to groups that spend money on campaign-related activities?”
- Favor: National 85%, Republicans 84%, Democrats 89%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Require federal contractors to publicly disclose their donations to groups that spend money on campaign-related activities.”
- Favor: National 81%, Republicans 82%, Democrats 83%
GOVERNMENT REFORM
Bipartisan majorities favor numerous reforms to reduce partisanship and corruption in Congress and the White House, including changes to the electoral process and new regulations for government officials.
Imposing term limits for Members of Congress, of four terms for House Members and two terms for Senators
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2023:
- “An amendment to the US Constitution to limit the number of terms that a Senator or House Member can serve.”
- Favor: National 83%, Republicans 86%, Democrats 80%
Respondents who favored term limits were asked what those limits should be. The bipartisan majority positions (of the whole sample) were as follows::
- “House members should be limited to:”
- Four terms: National 60%, Republicans 64%, Democrats 54% (includes those who said fewer than four)
- “Senators should be limited to:
- Two terms: National 63%, Republicans 69%, Democrats 56% (includes those who said fewer than two)
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Limit how many terms a member of the House or Senate may stay in office, by passing a new Constitutional amendment that says House Members are limited to four two-year terms, and Senators are limited to three six-year terms?”
- Favor: National 82%, Republicans 85%, Democrats 83%
- Pew Research Center, July 2023:
- “Limiting the number of terms that Members of Congress can serve.”
- Favor: National 87%, Republicans 90%, Democrats 86%
- Grinnell College, October 2023:
- “For each of the following, would you say you mostly favor or mostly oppose the suggested revision to the United States Constitution? Set limits on how many years senators and representatives can serve in Congress”
- Favor: National 86%, Republicans 88%, Democrats 85%
- Fox News, July 2022:
- “Establishing limits on the number of terms members of the U.S. Congress can serve.”
- Support: National 81%, Republicans 80%, Democrats 82%
Requiring that all Congressional districts be drawn by a commission of citizens in each state, made up of equal numbers of Republicans, Democrats and independents
Using ranked choice voting in all federal elections
To counter potential corruption, they favor:
Prohibiting the trade of stocks in individual companies by Members of Congress, the President, Vice President, and Supreme Court Justices
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Program for Public Consultation, July 2024:
- “A proposal has been put forward in Congress that would actually ban Members of Congress (and family members that live with them) from trading stocks in individual companies. For any such stocks that they already own, they would have to either: Sell them OR Put them in a “blind trust” which an independent person manages and decides which stocks to buy or sell. However, Members of Congress would still be able to buy or sell shares of mutual funds or index funds that include stocks in numerous companies.”
- Favor:
- Program for Public Consultation, July 2024:
- “Another proposal is to prohibit the President, the Vice President, and Supreme Court Justices from trading stocks in individual companies. Currently, these top-level officials are not required by law to disclose their stock trades. Many Presidents and Vice Presidents, though, have voluntarily disclosed their stock trading.”
- Favor:
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “Proposals have been put forward to prohibit high-level officials in the federal government from trading stocks in individual companies. They would still be allowed to buy or sell shares of funds that include stocks in numerous companies. For each group of federal officials, please say whether you favor or oppose prohibiting them from trading stocks in individual companies.”
- “Members of Congress.”
- Favor: National 76%, Republicans 78%, Democrats 75%
- “The President, Vice President, and Supreme Court Justices.”
- Favor: National 71%, Republicans 74%, Democrats 70%
- YouGov, May 2024:
- “Banning stock trading by elected officials.”
- Support: National 73%, Republicans 77%, Democrats 73%
- Politico/Morning Consult, October 2022:
- “Banning stock trading for members of Congress.”
- Support: National 68%, Republicans 66%, Democrats 67%
- “Banning stock trading for members of Congress’ families.”
- Support: National 63%, Republicans 64%, Democrats 61%
- “Banning stock trading for the president.”
- Support: National 67%, Republicans 68%, Democrats 64%
- “Banning stock trading for U.S. Supreme Court Justices.”
- Support: National 65%, Republicans 61%, Democrats 66%
Requiring Supreme Court Justices have the same ethical standards as all other federal judges
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Deliberative Democracy Lab, 2023:
- “Requiring members of the Supreme Court to comply with the same ethical standards that apply to other federal judges
- Favor: National 88%, Republicans 87%, Democrats 95%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “ Do you favor or oppose Supreme Court Justices being required to comply with the same ethical standards that apply to other federal judges?”
- Favor: National 85%, Republicans 87%, Democrats 86%
- The Economist/YouGov, May 2024:
- “There is currently no formal ethics code for Supreme Court justices that allows for justices to be investigated if they are accused of an ethical violation. Would you support or oppose the Supreme Court adopting a formal ethics code for justices?”
- Support: National 64%, Republicans 50% (with 23% opposed), Democrats 79%
- Marquette Law School, October 2024:
- “How much do you favor or oppose the following proposals affecting the Supreme Court? Enforce a strict ethics code for Supreme Court justices.”
- Favor: National 90%, Republicans 88%, Democrats 93%
- UMass Amherst, June 2023:
- “Nearly all federal judges are beholden to a code of conduct that requires they avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities and establishes penalties for violations of ethical standards. The nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are the only federal judges not bound by this code of conduct. Should the justices of the Supreme Court be held to a formal code of ethics?”
- Yes they should: National 90%, Republicans 84%, Democrats 96%
Requiring Supreme Court Justices have the same ethical standards as all other federal judges
Survey with briefing and pro-con arguments
- Deliberative Democracy Lab, 2023:
- “Requiring members of the Supreme Court to comply with the same ethical standards that apply to other federal judges
- Favor: National 88%, Republicans 87%, Democrats 95%
Standard polling
- Program for Public Consultation, February 2026:
- “ Do you favor or oppose Supreme Court Justices being required to comply with the same ethical standards that apply to other federal judges?”
- Favor: National 85%, Republicans 87%, Democrats 86%
- The Economist/YouGov, May 2024:
- “There is currently no formal ethics code for Supreme Court justices that allows for justices to be investigated if they are accused of an ethical violation. Would you support or oppose the Supreme Court adopting a formal ethics code for justices?”
- Support: National 64%, Republicans 50% (with 23% opposed), Democrats 79%
- Marquette Law School, October 2024:
- “How much do you favor or oppose the following proposals affecting the Supreme Court? Enforce a strict ethics code for Supreme Court justices.”
- Favor: National 90%, Republicans 88%, Democrats 93%
- UMass Amherst, June 2023:
- “Nearly all federal judges are beholden to a code of conduct that requires they avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities and establishes penalties for violations of ethical standards. The nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are the only federal judges not bound by this code of conduct. Should the justices of the Supreme Court be held to a formal code of ethics?”
- Yes they should: National 90%, Republicans 84%, Democrats 96%
CONGRESSIONAL RESPONSIVENESS
Bipartisan majorities favor consulting representative samples of the public to reveal what federal policy proposals have majority support, and those majority positions having a major influence on Members of Congress.