Trump’s Approval Falls to 33% as 68% of Americans Disapprove of His Handling of U.S. Allies

35,000+ smart investors are already getting financial news, market signals, and macro shifts in the economy that could impact their money next with our FREE weekly newsletter. Get ahead of what the crowd finds out too late. Click Here to Subscribe for FREE.

Donald Trump is facing a sharp verdict on both his presidency and his treatment of America’s partners. Findings released October 18, 2026, by ABC News, The Washington Post and Ipsos put his overall approval at 33%, while 68% of Americans disapprove of his handling of relations with U.S. allies.

The results arrive amid dissatisfaction over war, household costs and the country’s direction. For an administration that presents pressure on foreign partners as a way to strengthen America, the allies rating poses a particular challenge. The ratings measure public judgments, not diplomatic outcomes—but they suggest that many Americans remain unconvinced by the president’s approach.

A New Low in a Major National Poll

Trump’s 33% approval rating is his lowest in the ABC News/Washington Post polling series. Overall disapproval stands at 66%, including 52% who strongly disapprove. His approval was 37% in July and 41% in October 2025. The intensity matters alongside the headline decline: more than half of adults are expressing strong opposition, rather than simply withholding enthusiasm. That is a difficult backdrop for any president trying to persuade the public that controversial decisions will eventually pay off.
The finding is not an average of every national poll, nor the lowest rating any organization has ever recorded for Trump. Pew Research Center’s separate October 8 report placed his approval at 30%, using different interviews and fieldwork dates. Those results should not be treated as interchangeable. Taken together, however, they provide evidence of broader weakness rather than a problem appearing in only one organization’s numbers. Comparing like-for-like results remains the clearest way to assess the direction of change.

What the 68% Allies Rating Actually Says

The question behind the headline asked whether Americans approved or disapproved of Trump’s handling of relations with U.S. allies. Thirty percent approved, 68% disapproved and 2% skipped the question. It did not name Canada, Britain or another individual country. The result therefore measures a broad judgment of presidential performance, not public support for a particular ally’s position in a trade dispute or security negotiation.

That distinction leaves room for very different objections. Someone who wants Washington to cooperate more closely with partners could answer negatively, but so could someone who believes an ally receives too much American support. The question alone cannot separate those motives. Nor does dissatisfaction establish that respondents agree on a replacement policy. The strongest conclusion is also the most straightforward: a large majority is unhappy with how Trump manages these relationships. Explaining why requires looking at more specific questions rather than assigning all dissatisfied Americans the same foreign-policy outlook.

Iran and Israel Expose More Specific Disagreements

On Iran, the ABC/Post/Ipsos findings are particularly negative: 27% approve of Trump’s handling of the situation and 70% disapprove. Separately, 65% say the United States made a mistake in using military force against Iran. Those are judgments about both the president’s performance and the decision to fight. Pew’s October research adds a human dimension: 71% of Americans were extremely or very concerned about American troops being wounded or killed in the conflict.

Views on Israel show why the broad allies question needs careful interpretation. Twenty-five percent favour reducing U.S. military support, while 33% favour ending it, producing a combined 58% who want less assistance. That is not the same as saying 58% want all support terminated. These separate findings suggest dissatisfaction can encompass both opposition to military intervention and a desire to change assistance to a partner. They help describe the political pressures surrounding Trump without proving which concern caused any individual respondent’s overall disapproval.

America’s Partners Are Losing Confidence, Too

The domestic findings sit alongside a separate deterioration in America’s international standing. Pew’s June 2026 report, covering 36 countries, found a median of 23% expressing confidence in Trump’s handling of world affairs. That median describes the middle country result, not the share of the entire world’s population. In Canada, the proportion describing the United States as a reliable partner fell from 83% in 2022 to 35% in the spring of 2026.

Reliability and presidential approval are different measures, and the Canadian figures were gathered months before the October U.S. poll. Even so, the distinction is revealing: neighbours were being asked about the dependability of the country, not simply whether they liked its president. For governments contemplating a long-term partnership, trust involves expectations about future cooperation as well as today’s agreement. The Canadian finding adds an important outside perspective to the American debate, while stopping short of demonstrating that one policy or diplomatic confrontation explains the decline.

The White House Points to Greater NATO Burden Sharing

The administration’s argument is that tougher dealings with allies can produce results, even when the process is uncomfortable. The White House celebrated NATO’s June 2025 Hague agreement as a victory for Trump’s pressure to share defence responsibilities more evenly. The declaration committed allies to defence and security-related spending equivalent to 5% of gross domestic product annually by 2035, including at least 3.5% for core defence and up to 1.5% for broader security-related investment.

Those are national spending commitments, not payments into the U.S. Treasury, and the 2035 deadline makes them future targets rather than proof that the full increase has already occurred. Still, the agreement gives the administration a concrete result to cite when defending its approach. Public approval and alliance capability answer different questions: one concerns confidence in leadership, while the other concerns resources and preparedness. The political challenge for Trump is to demonstrate that the gains his administration claims outweigh the costs Americans associate with his approach.

Household Costs Complicate the Foreign-Policy Picture

Foreign policy is not being judged in isolation from everyday expenses. An AP-NORC poll released October 15 found that 85% of registered voters considered the economy among the most important issues affecting their vote, while 84% said the same about the cost of living. Those priorities offer an essential counterweight to the allies headline. Americans may have strong views about diplomatic conduct while still placing their immediate financial circumstances at the centre of their political decisions.

Pew’s October research found that 73% were extremely or very concerned about higher gas and fuel prices resulting from the Iran conflict. For a household working out commuting costs or a heating budget, an overseas confrontation can become a domestic concern without any interest in diplomatic protocol. That connection is plausible and consistent with the questions asked, but it does not prove how much war-related anxiety caused Trump’s approval to fall. The evidence shows overlapping concerns, not a precise division of responsibility among foreign affairs, prices and other issues.

Frustrated Trump Voters Are Not All Abandoning Republicans

Weak national approval does not mean every dissatisfied Trump voter has changed political sides. Pew found that 67% of his 2024 voters still approved of his performance, down from 75% in July. That is a meaningful erosion within his own electoral coalition, but it also leaves a substantial majority supportive. Presidential approval, party loyalty and a choice between congressional candidates are related judgments, not identical ones.

Associated Press reporting illustrated that tension through DonnaJean Weber, a 72-year-old Republican from Manistee, Michigan. She expressed frustration with prices and some of Trump’s tariffs but said she intended to keep supporting Republican candidates. “Everything’s going up,” she told AP. Her experience is one person’s account, not a statistical explanation for millions of voters. It nevertheless captures something a single approval percentage cannot: disappointment can coexist with loyalty. For Republicans, the challenge is preventing frustration from weakening support; for Democrats, it is earning trust rather than assuming criticism of Trump automatically becomes support for them.

Democrats Have an Opening, Not a Guaranteed Victory

The ABC/Post/Ipsos results give Democrats a 52% to 44% advantage over Republicans in likely voters’ preferences for the House of Representatives. That national lead is politically significant, but it is not a forecast of the number of seats either party will win. Congressional control depends on individual races, and a nationwide preference cannot by itself show where support is concentrated or how competitive particular districts will become.

There is also little basis for treating dissatisfaction with Trump as unqualified enthusiasm for the opposition. AP-NORC found that only about four in ten registered voters held a favourable opinion of the Democratic Party. Those findings point to an opportunity accompanied by a credibility problem. A party can benefit when people dislike the incumbent president without persuading them that it offers better answers. The practical contest is therefore broader than a referendum on personality: candidates must address the concerns behind dissatisfaction while competing with opponents whose local appeal may differ from Trump’s national standing.

How the Poll Was Conducted Matters

Ipsos interviewed 2,545 U.S. adults from October 9 to 13 through its probability-based KnowledgePanel, with interviews conducted in English and Spanish. The full sample carries a margin of sampling error of approximately two percentage points. Participants were not simply people who chose to click on an open website poll. The panel uses address-based recruitment, and households lacking internet access can receive equipment and service so that being offline does not automatically exclude them.

The headline approval figure describes adults, not just registered voters or people considered likely to vote. Those groups can produce different results, which is why an approval rating should not be read as a projected election share. Sampling uncertainty also is not the only possible source of error: wording, participation and weighting matter. The methodology makes the findings more useful than an informal online tally, but no poll can establish an exact, permanent percentage of public opinion. It captures attitudes during a defined period, before subsequent events have unfolded.

New Decisions Will Test Whether Confidence Can Recover

A fresh dispute over Russia illustrates why the dates matter. On October 16, Trump put newly enacted Russia sanctions on hold, citing the national interest. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the administration would take up to 60 days to assess economic consequences. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy criticized the waiver, warning that it could embolden Moscow. The disagreement brings the tension between economic considerations and support for an international partner into view again.

The ABC/Post/Ipsos interviews had ended on October 13, so their results cannot measure a reaction to that later decision. Future polling may capture it, but any effect remains unknown. For now, the evidence supports a narrower conclusion: Trump is confronting substantial dissatisfaction with his presidency and his management of allied relationships. Whether confidence recovers will depend on judgments still to be made about security, costs and diplomatic results. The numbers are a warning about the public’s current assessment, not a guarantee of political defeat or an inevitable change in policy.

This Options Discord Chat is The Real Deal

While the internet is scoured with trading chat rooms, many of which even charge upwards of thousands of dollars to join, this smaller options trading discord chatroom is the real deal and actually providing valuable trade setups, education, and community without the noise and spam of the larger more expensive rooms. With a incredibly low-cost monthly fee, Options Trading Club (click here to see their reviews) requires an application to join ensuring that every member is dedicated and serious about taking their trading to the next level. If you are looking for a change in your trading strategies, then click here to apply for a membership.