When given the choice between an “America First” approach that prioritizes national interests and one that emphasizes allies and international institutions, a plurality of young Americans are searching for a middle ground. According to the Spring 2026 edition of the Harvard Youth Poll, 37% of Americans ages 18 to 29 believe that the U.S. should balance both approaches, not exaggerating either one.
Yet, economic distress has consistently been the top issue on American voters’ minds, with recent international conflicts repeatedly causing severe price shocks in domestic consumer spending. Information technology advances have meanwhile revolutionized everything from our messages to our markets into an instantaneously interconnected and interdependent web. Further, we are constantly confronted with emerging global issues that require global solutions, from climate change to COVID-19.
In this modern global era, the future of the U.S. appears increasingly intertwined with that of the world as a whole, posing a pivotal question: How do younger generations, rapidly composing a growing proportion of our electorates and leaders, view the value of international collaboration and alliances? A new generation of voters appears primed to believe that not all U.S. global partnerships can be reconciled with an “America First” vision.
Among the alliances young Americans perceive as most beneficial are those with the U.S.’s northern and southern neighbors. According to the Harvard Youth Poll data, 53% of respondents classified the U.S. alliance with Canada as a “benefit,” and 40% held the same view toward Mexico. The proportion that consider both of these nations a benefit strictly grows with postsecondary education level. While 29% of those in trade and vocational schools view the alliance with Canada as a benefit, 70% of those in business or professional schools, such as medical or law school. A similar yet somewhat narrower gap emerges for Mexico, with 26% of those in trade or professional school and 52% of those in business or professional school considering the alliance beneficial.
However, the overall positive view parallels a broader political shift to recenter North American ties over intercontinental ones. For instance, in 2020, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement sought to reduce trade barriers within North America with measures such as lower tariff rates while protecting labor conditions and employment opportunities in the region. As a whole, the USMCA provided a framework for the exchange of goods and services totaling $1.8 trillion in 2022 within the North American continent. Nonetheless, the trend observed by postsecondary education level is potentially related to a perceived loss of manufacturing jobs with recent trade deals such as USMCA, a position largely held not only by current workers, but, as this HPOP data reveals, also adopted by those hoping to enter these industries.
At the same time, the role of the U.S in the Americas was called into question earlier this year with the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by U.S. special operations forces and his subsequent removal from power. Only 26% of young Americans believed this decision was either “definitely” or “probably” in the best interest of the American people, a position held by merely 12% of Democrats and 20% of unaffiliated voters but 54% of Republicans. Meanwhile, 39% overall felt that the decision was “probably not” or even “definitely not” in their best interest. Thus, young Americans appear more skeptical of U.S. involvement in regime change efforts that lack clear domestic benefits than they are of alliances with economic partners such as Canada and Mexico.
Beyond the Americas, President Trump has sparked recent tensions due to his persistent desires to purchase Greenland and accusations that other nations do not make sufficient financial contributions toward NATO’s overall security. Yet, despite the President’s dissatisfaction with the NATO alliance, many of its members lie within another alliance young Americans appear keen to preserve: 45% find the U.S.’s current relationship with its longstanding ally, the European Union, to be a fruitful one.
However, some of the U.S.’s traditional alliances have also been challenged in recent months and years, especially in the context of costly overseas conflicts. Merely 16% of respondents characterized the U.S.’s relationship with Israel as a beneficial one, and just over one in five young Americans felt likewise about the U.S.’s alliance with Ukraine. However, a plurality of respondents (44%) on the question of Ukraine indicated they were unsure, including a majority (51%) of politically unaffiliated respondents. Indeed, young Americans’ perceptions of U.S. support for Ukraine appears to be meaningfully ambiguous: Where values and value conflict, trade-offs are challenging to calibrate.
Nonetheless, these assessments of alliance advantage vary strongly along partisan lines, with 72% of Democrats compared to 43% of Republicans classifying the alliance with Canada as a benefit, 63% versus 34% for the EU, and 60% versus 26% for Mexico. Twenty-one percent of Democrats compared to 47% of Republicans characterized the U.S.’s relationship with Ukraine as “mostly a burden,” while 60% of Democrats and 35% of Republicans indicated the same of Israel. Across the board for each nation evaluated, a larger proportion of male respondents identified alliances as a benefit than did female respondents.
On the flip side, Americans continue to perceive certain countries as outright threats to the U.S. Amongst young Americans, despite growing up in a primarily post-Cold War era, Russia still holds the preeminent title in this category, considered by 59% of respondents to be either a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” threat. Only 4% of respondents said Russia was “not a threat.” These numbers have held relatively consistently since this same question was posed in the 2017 HPOP survey.
The perceived threat of Iran, at 55% “very serious” or “somewhat serious,” and China, at 54%, narrowly follow in 2026. In the case of China, this represents a gain of 12 percentage points from 2017 to 2026. Notably, 82% of individuals enrolled in business or professional schools indicated China as a serious threat, compared to no more than three in five individuals among any other education level. Rather than being driven solely by militaristic priorities, this growing concern around China may reflect its expanding economic and soft power influence as it permeates through global markets and challenges U.S. diplomatic power with plans such as the Belt and Road Initiative. Perhaps it is in light of this economic extension that young Americans are gravitating toward economically beneficial alliances that can strengthen U.S. hegemony on an international scale.
North Korea this year fell slightly below the other nations evaluated, though those who felt that it constituted a serious threat still accounted for a majority of respondents, at 51%. Yet this figure signifies a notable decline since the 2017 survey, in which 77% perceived a serious threat from the nation. Young Americans today seem less concerned by the military threat posed by North Korea and more concerned with the implications of other threats and alliances.
While showing broad agreement about which countries constitute a threat to the U.S., the HPOP data reveals meaningful partisan differences among young Americans. Self-proclaimed Democrats felt more threatened by Russia (71% vs. 61% of Republicans) and North Korea (58% vs. 56%), while a higher proportion of Republicans noted China (65% vs. 54% of Democrats) and Iran (65% vs. 59%) as serious threats. Interestingly, for all four countries evaluated, the share of unaffiliated respondents who indicated a perceived threat was lower than for either partisan line, at 55% for Russia, 50% for China, 51% for Iran, and 45% for North Korea.
Taken together, these responses paint a picture of the U.S.’s future in terms of a form of selective internationalism, yet one complicated by emerging partisan divides echoing those that define the views of older generations. Although attempting to weigh both U.S. and broader cooperative interests, young Americans appear to primarily favor an “America First” approach that prioritizes incorporating foreign alliances specifically when they align with predominant national interests. The answer to whether and how this strategy, if pursued, strengthens U.S. leadership on a global scale is one that not only the U.S., but also its allies and adversaries, are eagerly awaiting.
Publisher
