Trumpism and TikTok: The Factors Shaping Young Americans’ Foreign Policy Views

From the ballot boxes to the streets, young Americans have joined the wave of youth-led movements challenging government corruption, economic inequality, and militarism around the world. The US role in the Israel-Hamas war, in particular, brought this generational shift in American foreign policy attitudes into sharper focus. 

But even before the conflict in Gaza, Millennial and Generation Z Americans expressed different foreign policy preferences than older generations, favoring an internationalist framework that deemphasizes militarism in favor of a more cooperative, multilateral approach. Understanding what is driving this divergence will be critical in predicting the future direction of US foreign policy.

Life Experiences and Social Media Contribute to Policy Attitudes 

Among the strongest factors influencing foreign policy preferences are the geopolitical landscape during an individual’s most formative years and the information ecosystem through which they experience that landscape. 

Millennial and Generation Z Americans have come of age during a time of economic upheaval and strategic overreach. Their formative years occurred during the War on Terror and the 2008 financial crisis, while the rise of Trumpism and the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic followed them into adulthood. Today, this group faces disproportionate student loan debt, an unattainable housing market, stagnating wages, high inflation, and, more recently, declining employment prospects as artificial intelligence reshapes the job market.

Perhaps more importantly, they have experienced a radically different information ecosystem, primarily sourcing their news from digital media outlets, like social media, podcasts, and blogs (37% Millennials and 46% Generation Z). These sources frequently feature short-form, user-generated content that provides firsthand accounts and alternative perspectives on what is going on in the world—and that need not abide by the same editorial guidelines and standards as traditional media outlets. However, despite the greater accessibility of news, young Americans report following news about the United States’ relations with other countries less frequently than older generations—although this is typical of youth in general, not just the Millennial and Generation Z cohorts.

Meanwhile, older generations of Americans witnessed the United States emerge from World War II and the Cold War as a global superpower and shape the liberal international order of the 21st century during a period of relative peace and middle-class expansion at home. News and information about the world came via traditional media outlets, like broadcast and cable news networks. Such sources traditionally mobilized Americans around the importance of a strong international presence. 

Yet Council research dating back to 1974 reveals that each successive generation of Americans after the Silent Generation has become less supportive of the United States taking an active role in the world.

In the most recent reading, three-quarters of Americans from the Silent (77%) and Baby Boomer (73%) Generations say the United States should plan an active role in the world. Six in 10 Americans from Generation X (59%) say the same. Millennials and Generation Z are even less supportive—as likely to say the United States should stay out of world affairs (47% Millennial and 50% Generation Z) as say it should actively participate (52% and 49%). 

Younger Americans may question the United States playing an active role in the world given the domestic challenges facing the nation, including difficulties facing younger entrants to the workforce. In fact, majorities of Millennials (57%) and Generation Z (61%) think the United States should reduce its involvement in world affairs and use its limited resources to address its own internal problems. Comparatively, Americans from the Silent Generation (63%) and Baby Boomers (59%) think the United States has enough resources to take care of its own problems and lead on global challenges. 

Multilateralism a More Favorable Approach than Military Internationalism 

Nine in 10 across generations think it is more effective when the United States works with other countries to tackle world problems than on its own. Millennials and Generation Z are not unlike other Americans in their preference for working collectively. Majorities of young Americans (64% Millennials, 53% Generation Z) think the United States should mainly consult with key allies when making foreign policy decisions—reflecting the majority view across generations. 

But while majorities across the Silent Generation (65%), Boomers (64%), and half of Generation X (49%) believe maintaining US military superiority is a very effective way to realize US foreign policy goals, fewer than half of Millennials (42%) and Generation Z (31%) agree. Younger generations are also less inclined to say that drone strikes and sending US military aid to other countries are effective, and less likely to think the United States should have long-term military bases abroad.

In the same vein, Millennials and Generation Z are less inclined to support using US troops to defend South Korea if invaded by North Korea (45% Millennial and 47% Generation Z, compared to majorities among older generations) or to defend Taiwan if invaded by China (42% Generation X, 37% Millennial, 33% Generation Z compared to about half of Boomer and Silent generations), though these views may reflect the fact that those sent to defend these allies are of similar ages. 

Compared to older generations, Millennials and Generation Z are less likely to view China through a lens of competition or conflict, but rather cooperation. And while majorities of older Americans consider China either an adversary or a rival, fewer than half of young Americans see it the same way—endorsing a future of friendly cooperation with China over containment.. 

Younger generations of Americans also seem to be rethinking the US role in the Middle East. Council data show Millennials and Generation Z are more likely than others to think the United States and Israel play a negative role in the region, and more likely than older Americans to think the amount of US military aid to Israel should be reduced. This generational gap may be due in part to the spread of videos and firsthand accounts on social media of Israel’s humanitarian blockade and bombing of civilian centers.

On Iran, younger Americans are less likely than others to consider Tehran’s nuclear program a critical threat to vital American interests, and thus are less likely to favor taking military action to destroy it. As a result of growing up with wars in the greater Middle East as a constant backdrop, American youth may prefer a diplomatic end to Iran’s nuclear enrichment rather than risk another protracted conflict. 

The Future of Foreign Policy

Together, Chicago Council data suggest younger generations of Americans are thinking differently about the most pertinent geopolitical challenges facing the United States.

Despite their focus on domestic challenges, they do not want to retreat from the world but pursue a more cooperative way to engage with it. As the most diverse and digitally connected cohort of Americans, these younger generations may thus pursue a foreign policy that relies more heavily on alliances, diplomacy, and international cooperation to solve global challenges. And as part of this remodel, they may try to reduce the American military footprint and rethink US international relationships with partners and rivals. 

What is certain is that Millennial and Generation Z Americans are soon to inherit a volatile geopolitical landscape, and they will have an opportunity to redefine—for themselves and future generations—how the United States engages with the world.