A newly released CNN poll, conducted this month, illustrates the resilience of a hawkish DNA within the Republican Party and among its voters even amid the rise of an isolationist strain that has sought to gain influence in the GOP during President Donald Trump’s second term.

The poll asked respondents: “Do you think the United States should or should not take the leading role among all other countries in the world in trying to solve international problems?” Overall, 43% took the more active approach, while 56% took a more isolationist view.

Republicans, however, remained the strongest advocates of a muscular American role in world affairs, with 52% supporting America taking a leading role and 47% opposed. By contrast, just 42% of Democrats and 39% of independents shared the more hawkish worldview.

Notably, the shift in more isolationist sentiment was almost entirely driven by Democrats and independents since the last CNN survey in March, which found majority support for significant American global engagement. In the March survey, a 57% majority of Democrats preferred more American involvement in the world, a number that dropped 15 points in the last four months. The Republican share of those preferring American engagement remained steady at 52%.

The results from the CNN polls suggest there’s a more committed core of Republican-voting hawks that is more resilient than the shifting political winds, whereas the Democratic foreign policy worldview appears more dependent on partisanship and what’s happening in the news at the time. 

In March, at the time of the first CNN poll, Democrats showed a surge of support for foreign engagement — in large part, because they were responding to the hostile reception Trump delivered at the time to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who was seeking American military aid to his country. Back then, Trump wrongly blamed Zelensky for causing the war, and attacked him as a dictator in the run-up to the ugly confrontation at the White House. It was the high point of isolationism in Trump’s second term — and prompted an uptick of hawkishness among Democrats.

But since then, Trump has sharpened his rhetoric against Russian President Vladimir Putin and agreed to send Ukraine offensive weapons, in a reversal of his previous reluctance. He also decided to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities despite alarmism from an isolationist faction within his party, which turned out to be a major military (and political) success. 

A recent Echelon Insights survey underscored that Trump’s hawkish turn has broadened and deepened support for strongly supporting American allies within the party. A clear 49-36% of Trump voters, asked if they supported continuing to give weapons to Ukraine, said yes. When informed that it was Trump’s decision to aid Ukraine further, nearly two-thirds of Trump supporters embraced the decision.

The actions on Capitol Hill are consistent with the polling. When Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) proposed a series of amendments cutting off aid to foreign allies, the vast majority of Republicans voted against them. Even on her proposal to cut military aid for Ukraine, 141 of the 217 House Republicans took the pro-Ukraine side. 

And when Greene proposed to block missile defense funding that the U.S. gives to Israel, only one other Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), joined her. Indeed, there were more Democrats who joined with MTG (four) than Republicans — in a sign of the “horseshoe theory” of the far left and far right uniting in their extremism.

Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear program appears to have created a momentum shift within the party, pushing back the faction of isolationists seeking to gain influence in the administration but also building support for a familiar brand of muscular engagement that has defined the party for generations.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) says he doesn’t share the concerns of some in the isolationist wing of the Republican Party that U.S. engagement in Israel’s military operation to destroy Iran’s nuclear program would lead to a global war or another prolonged conflict in the Middle East, citing his confidence in President Donald Trump’s ability to avoid either outcome. 

The Missouri senator told Jewish Insider, following a conversation with Trump on Tuesday morning, that he trusted the president to navigate the situation without dragging the U.S. into a broader war, an issue that has caused growing consternation among commentator Tucker Carlson and other neo-isolationists in the GOP. Hawley has previously advocated for a more restrained approach to U.S. foreign engagement and aligns with the national conservative movement.

“I just don’t think that. I think Donald Trump is the least likely person to let that happen,” Hawley said when asked what he’d say to those who argue Trump’s actions will embroil the U.S. in a war. “I think he’s pretty careful, and I think he’s got a pretty good sense of our security interests, obviously our allies. So I feel pretty good with him in charge.”

Hawley made similar comments in a separate conversation with JI on Monday, saying at the time, “I think the president has a pretty clear assessment of what is good, what is in America’s interests. He’s been really clear on this, America’s interest and the world’s interest is to not have Iran have a nuclear weapon.” 

“There’s all kinds of paths to that, and that’s what the president is saying about negotiating. Iran ought to come and do this peacefully and give up their nuclear program. You can get there that way, but at the end of the day, we’re going to get to the point where they don’t have a nuclear weapon and they don’t have a nuclear program,” Hawley explained.

“If they keep going down this path, good luck,” he added.

Hawley also praised Trump’s approach to addressing the conflict and the threat posed by a nuclear Iran while cautioning against engaging in conjecture about what the Israelis were asking of the Trump administration. 

“I think the president has struck the right position, which is supportive of Israel’s right of self-defense, which is what this really is, and supporting them publicly while they defend themselves. I think that’s the right position to stick on. I know what the speculation is in the press about what Israel may want to do or not do next, but let’s see what they actually ask us for,” he told JI on Monday. 

Following his Tuesday conversation with Trump, Hawley reiterated his support for the president’s response since Israel first struck Iran last week. “He’s handled this situation very deftly. I think his message has been pretty clear, which is that Iran is not going to get a nuke. So they can either surrender their nuclear program peaceably, and he’s willing to [have] the United States facilitate that, or the Israelis are going to blow their program to smithereens. Right now they’re choosing the smithereens route. Doesn’t seem very wise to me,” he said.

Speaking to reporters later Tuesday, Hawley said he wouldn’t support Sen. Tim Kaine’s (D-VA) war powers resolution blocking the U.S. from taking military action in support of Israel’s operation against the Iranian regime, citing his opposition to the legislation broadly.

“I tend to think the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, and I don’t think the president needs preclearance to do one-off military strikes. That doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily a good idea, but I don’t think he needs preclearance from Congress. I don’t know quite how that would function,” Hawley said. 

Another week, another round of evidence showing that a growing faction of isolationist-minded foreign policy advisors — or, in the parlance of some on the MAGA right, the “restrainers” — are slowly but surely gaining influence in the Trump administration’s second term.

If personnel is policy, it suggests the second Trump term will feature a markedly different approach to the Middle East than his record from 2017-2021, which included the signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel and four Arab countries, the elimination of Iranian Revolutionary Guard leader Qassem Soleimani and the withdrawal from former President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.

We reported this week that the Senate will soon consider the nomination of Justin Overbaugh to be deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence and security. Overbaugh is just the latest of several senior Pentagon nominees who come from Defense Priorities, a Koch-backed think tank that has generally argued the U.S. should scale back its involvement in global conflicts, including in the Middle East. 

It’s not just at the Defense Department. A senior State Department official told Jewish Insider that at Foggy Bottom, too, the “restrainers” are ascendant. Morgan Ortagus, an Iran hawk who has been serving as deputy Middle East special envoy under Steve Witkoff, plans to depart the office. At the National Security Council, top officials focused on Israel and the Middle East were pushed out last month as President Donald Trump seeks to centralize foreign policy decision-making in the Oval Office. 

This story is more than just a gossipy tale of White House palace intrigue. This factional foreign policy battle is set to have major global consequences. The impact is already clear: Trump is pursuing nuclear negotiations with Iran, led by Witkoff, that may result in a deal — one that reportedly could allow Iran to at least temporarily continue enriching uranium, a position that would have been unimaginable in Trump’s first term.

The ongoing, ever-extending negotiations and apparent concessions to Iran — along with occasional leaks from unnamed American officials telegraphing Israel’s military plans — have reduced the leverage to pressure Iran to make significant concessions. While Trump has threatened military action if the talks break down, the actions from the U.S. side suggest they’re eager to make a deal at any cost.

It’s not a coincidence that malign actors are taking advantage of American goodwill. Last month, Trump abruptly abandoned a bombing campaign against Yemen’s Houthi militia, announcing a truce with the Iranian proxy even as the group continues to threaten Israel with missiles. While Trump claimed to have reached a ceasefire with the Houthis to make the trade lanes safer, commercial shipping companies are continuing to avoid the Red Sea and Suez Canal shipping lanes, according to The New York Times.

Trump’s reassignment of hawkish former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz to serve as ambassador to the United Nations last month was the first of a series of moves that have since diminished the influence of those advocating a more traditional conservative foreign policy worldview of peace through strength, and projecting military power to deter American enemies.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is also serving as U.S. national security advisor, would’ve been considered firmly in that camp until this year. But since joining the Trump administration, Rubio has managed to maintain his influence by accommodating the ascendant faction of isolationists in the administration.