Poll: Americans Broadly Support Investments in International Health  

As part of a recent national survey of over 7,000 Americans, the ONE Campaign asked several questions about support for international health programs. The poll showed broad bipartisan support for these efforts. It also revealed that those who oppose aid do so for different reasons, and large portion of respondents who currently oppose expressed a willingness to change their minds when presented with the returns that US investments in foreign assistance generate for Americans.

Americans Broadly Support US Global Health Leadership

The survey found that, by and large, Americans support US funding efforts to treat and eliminate HIV/AIDS: 69% said they support, in comparison to just 10% who opposed. (The remainder labeled themselves ‘unsure’).

Even among those who describe themselves as “strongly conservative” or as Republican, support for this work is 60% or above.

ONE also asked respondents whether they support investing in preventing and treating diseases in other countries to reduce the risk of international outbreaks. 65% said yes, and 13% opposed. Again, though respondents who described themselves as “strongly conservative” were the least supportive, a majority of this group – 58% – expressed support. (21% opposed.)

Select a question, hover and click on a state and/or Congressional district for more detail.

Emphasis on Returns on Investment for Americans Helps Change Minds

Participants who opposed those programs were asked a follow-up question: Would they be more likely to be supportive if they knew such aid programs purchased medicine and supplies from US companies in a way which supported American jobs?

54% percent of this group replied that this would, in fact, make them more supportive. Such framing was supported by both left- and right-leaning respondents. Only a quarter of respondents in this group, 26% were a firm no, stating that such an argument would not change their mind.

Americans Want to See Continued US Leadership Against Global Adversaries

Participants were also asked if they were concerned that reductions in US foreign assistance might create opportunities for Russia or China to expand their own influence. 60% responded that they were either concerned or very concerned by that possibility. Interestingly, self-described liberals were more likely than conservatives to be “very concerned” and, in general, those who are identified as liberal or Democratic tended to express more concern than either conservatives or Republicans. That divide may be a reflection of respondents seeing the cuts as associated with President Trump – a possible, partial explanation.

Respondents who stated they were not concerned were asked why they felt that way:

• 31% said it was because “it’s not the US’s responsibility.”
• 29% replied because aid does not affect global influence.
• 15% said that others gaining influence doesn’t harm the US. 

While these replies were spread across the political spectrum, conservatives were more likely to reject US responsibility (43%). Very liberal individuals were, at 31%, more likely to dismiss the influence of aid on global stability.

Age also stood out on this question as a point of difference: Older respondents are more likely to say it’s “not the U.S.’s responsibility” while younger respondents tend to believe “aid doesn’t affect global influence,” indicating an opening for more education targeted at those under 24 years of age.

Overall, the survey revealed points of bipartisan consensus to support aid programs, as well as opportunities and avenues for new communications efforts that have the potential to shift even more Americans to be supportive of international assistance.

Hover and click on a state and/or Congressional district for more detail.

Note: The findings represented in these charts is the result of a multilevel regression and poststratification poll conducted by Stack Data in June 2025 with a sample size of over 7,000 people.