A National Poll on Human Rights, Democracy, and The United States’ Role in the World

By: Rina Amiri and Abby Finkenauer

The Alliance for Diplomacy and Justice survey, conducted by Change Research, reached 2,106 registered voters between June 28 and July 2, 2026, and finds that Americans agree on far more than the current political climate suggests. At a moment when Americans are often portrayed as deeply divided and increasingly skeptical of engagement with the world, the findings complicate both assumptions. Americans recognize this disconnect: 79% of those polled agree that Americans are more divided by how politics is discussed than by their actual values and priorities.

Read the report

Review the key takeaways

Executive Summary

The survey reveals remarkable consensus around human rights, human dignity, and the values Americans believe should guide U.S. policy at home and abroad. Across nearly every measure tested—safety, equal opportunity, fair treatment, and basic needs—agreement reaches at least 88% across the political spectrum. That support extends across fundamental principles at the heart of human rights. Ninety-four percent agree that people should be free from violence and harassment, 90% believe everyone should be treated with basic dignity and respect, and 82% agree that people should not lose their jobs or housing because of who they are.

But that agreement on values does not always translate into agreement on policy, priorities, or terminology. Americans differ sharply on whether these principles are upheld in practice, and agreement diminishes when broad rights are applied to specific issues, identities, and circumstances.

Similar complexity emerges when the survey turns to the United States' role abroad. The data show that support for human rights extends beyond expectations for voters’ own communities: Americans want the United States to reflect these principles in its engagement with the world. Ninety-two percent say leading by example on human rights is important to the United States' image abroad, including 75% who say it is very important. Seventy-nine percent agree that the U.S. government has a responsibility to set a good example for the rest of the world, while 82% believe America is strongest when it sets an example that other countries want to follow.

Americans also see value in working with other countries to address humanitarian and global challenges. Eighty-nine percent say it is important for the United States to work with other countries to provide humanitarian assistance to people in crisis, and 76% agree that helping people abroad is consistent with American values. Eighty-eight percent recognize that problems originating abroad can affect Americans at home, and 81% agree that the United States needs to work with other countries to address them.

While these findings challenge the idea that Americans want to retreat from the world, they also reveal an important disconnect between reactions to “international engagement” as an abstract concept and support for the concrete actions that engagement entails. Even as 35% say the United States should eliminate international engagement when asked broadly, 91% to 95% support specific forms of international partnership, such as combating terrorism and cybercrime, holding war criminals accountable, and responding to global health threats. This contrast suggests that skepticism toward international engagement should not necessarily be interpreted as opposition to international cooperation. It may instead reflect different understandings of, and attitudes toward, different kinds of international engagement—including potential associations with political and military intervention abroad. This survey did not establish what drives the difference, but future iterations of this project could explore that.

Taken together, these findings question the framing of a country too divided to find common ground and increasingly uninterested in the world beyond its borders. Americans may disagree sharply about political parties, policies, priorities, and terminology, but underneath those divisions lies broad agreement on many of the values that should form the basis of how the United States engages with the world. Americans believe people deserve dignity and safety, want the United States to lead by example, and overwhelmingly support cooperation with other countries when it is connected to concrete problems that affect American concerns and priorities.

The results suggest that the challenge is not simply to persuade Americans to care about human rights at home or abroad, because much of the underlying foundation already exists. The findings instead point to an opportunity to connect the values Americans already hold to a clearer understanding of the concrete ways that human rights and principled international cooperation affect people’s lives, advance American interests, and improve the United States' standing in the world.

The study also shows that language, context, and specificity are critical to engaging Americans on policy choices. Americans may share principles while using different words to describe them or reconsider a policy choice when given additional factual context. More broadly, for policymakers and advocates, this means looking beyond conventional partisan divisions to understand what drives disagreement and to better understand the values, language, information, and priorities of different constituencies. Building a broader and more durable constituency for human rights and international engagement will require meeting different constituencies where they are, listening to them, and turning that understanding into a more tailored and effective engagement strategy.