Foreign policy: Arguments, Evidence and Where Politicians Stand
Alliances, military force, aid, sanctions and America's role abroad.
Overview
Foreign policy covers how the United States deals with other countries: alliances such as NATO, the use of military force, foreign aid, sanctions and trade pressure.
Current debates include the conflict with Iran and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, support for Ukraine and talks with Russia, U.S. support for Israel, and competition with China. The divisions often cut across parties, between people who favor active engagement and people who favor restraint.
The main sides
Advocates of active engagement argue
U.S. strength and reliable alliances deter aggression, protect trade routes, and cost less than the wars they prevent.
Advocates of restraint argue
Overseas commitments are costly and risky, interventions often backfire, and resources are better spent at home; diplomacy should come first.
Test statements on this issue
- Military aid to countries resisting invasion is worth the cost.
- A country should be willing to use force to defend its allies.
- Military power should be used proactively when serious external threats are emerging.
- Foreign wars should be avoided unless national territory is directly threatened.
- Diplomatic negotiations should generally take priority over military force.
- Military alliances are worth the risk of involvement in overseas conflicts.
- Governments should avoid efforts to change other countries’ political systems.
- My country should maintain military superiority over any potential rival.
- My country should reduce overseas military bases and deployments.
- Neutrality is preferable to involvement in disputes between major powers.
- Military intervention abroad can be justified to stop mass atrocities.
- Wealthy countries should give more aid to poorer countries.
How ideologies line up
Average estimated answer of each ideology model to the statements above (−100 to +100).
Where 2026 candidates stand
- Troy Jackson (D, Maine Senate): Calls the Iran war foolish and illegal; wants congressional oversight and diplomacy. source
- Susan Collins (R, Maine Senate): Voted in March 2026 against limiting the president's war powers on Iran, then voted for the June resolution to end U.S. hostilities. source
- Sherrod Brown (D, Ohio Senate (special)): Opposes military action against Iran without approval from Congress. source
- Abdul El-Sayed (D, Michigan Senate): Says there is no legal authority for the Iran war and opposes spending on it. source
- Mike Rogers (R, Michigan Senate): Said Trump's strikes on Iran made America and the world safer. source
- James Talarico (D, Texas Senate): Says Iran can be countered without bombing and the president must make the case for war to Congress. source
- Ken Paxton (R, Texas Senate): Said he was very glad Trump took military action against Iran. source
- Mary Peltola (D, Alaska Senate): Opposes the Iran war, citing higher fuel prices, and wants Congress to decide on war. source
- Dan Sullivan (R, Alaska Senate): Voted five times against requiring congressional approval for military action against Iran. source
- Josh Turek (D, Iowa Senate): Opposes the Iran war without congressional approval, saying it has no clear goal and is raising fertilizer prices. source
- Ashley Hinson (R, Iowa Senate): Supports Trump's military action against Iran; voted five times against requiring congressional approval. source
- Chris Pappas (D, New Hampshire Senate): Calls the Iran war a war of choice and voted five times to require congressional approval. source
Articles
- The Iran war and the Strait of Hormuz: where things stand
- Israel votes October 27: Netanyahu vs. Eisenkot, and the polls
- Ukraine: Oslo talks, a Trump–Zelensky rift and a hard winter ahead
- Brazil's runoff: Lula vs. Flávio Bolsonaro on October 25
Open the interactive issue hub to see community discussions and compare with your own answers.