Young men may not be isolationists. They certainly don’t want war.

YMRP’s May Poll reveals mixed attitudes on Iranian regime change

Like most Americans, young men want nothing to do with another endless war in the Middle East. How they’re thinking about regime change is more complicated.

–

Since Israel’s unexpected attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities last Friday, President Trump has fluctuated but gradually creeped toward a hardline stance. At the time of writing, he is toying with the prospect of striking Iran and pursuing regime change, claiming that a decision will be made within two weeks. With new updates flowing minute-by-minute, a chasm within the GOP is widening, unlikely political alliances are forming, and prominent media voices are rallying against further escalation.

Trump’s disdain for military adventurism is well-established. His bashing of the Iraq War, and the politicians who backed it, set him apart from the GOP primary field in 2016. Throughout his political career, he has largely maintained an “America First,” quasi-isolationist veneer.

In his first term, Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Accords, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and World Health Organization. He disparaged our NATO allies and questioned the value of long-standing alliances. But he also ordered the assassination of Iranian officer Qasam Soleimani, brokered the Abraham Accords, and delayed withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan.

Trump 47 has been less obedient to status quo internationalism. His tariffs have unraveled long-standing friendships, and his tepid support for Ukraine has exasperated Democrats and neoconservatives alike. Much of this shift can be attributed to the ascension of figures like J.D. Vance, Peter Hegseth, and Tulsi Gabbard, alongside the ousting of officials deemed unloyal to the president.

Today’s “America first” Republicans–a term that harkens back to the anti-war, isolationist-friendly movement in the early 1940s–have good reason to be optimistic about the party’s foreign policy trajectory. But the unfolding Iran-Israel conflict poses a true test, and MAGA’s top voices are letting Trump hear it.

Tucker Carlson called the prospect of war with Iran “suicidal,” and garnered praise on both sides of the aisle for grilling Ted Cruz about his calls for regime change. Hasan Piker quote tweeted the clip, asking why Carlson is more “capable of conducting an adversarial interview about the dangers of American intervention” than “everyone else in legacy media?”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene lambasted those “slobbering” for full U.S. involvement in the Israel/Iran War as “not America first/MAGA”– her sentiments have been echoed by the likes of Matt Gaetz, Steve Bannon, and Carlson himself.

Unlikely alliances have emerged. Rep. Massie (R-KY) and Rep. Khanna’s (D-CA) recently introduced a bipartisan War Powers Resolution that blocks U.S. forces from “unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Opposition is growing in the media as well, especially among influencers with large audiences of young men. On Tuesday, Joe Rogan tweeted the song “Geto boys – F**k a war,” with an image of Mark Twain saying “History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes.” Andrew Tate wrote on X: “The wars aren’t meant to be won … They’re meant to be endless … Brown people die? … Who cares.”

Charlie Kirk, CEO of Turning Point USA and the informal figurehead of Trump’s youth base, is a longtime skeptic of foreign engagement who describes himself as “a lot closer to the isolationists than the war hawks.” As with the Liberation Day fallout and the Trump-Elon feud, Kirk finds himself mediating between dueling conservative factions– warning about the dangers of regime change on Fox News while defending Trump’s long standing insistence that Iran must not attain nuclear status.

But Kirk knows where his base stands, and he’s said as much publicly. He has tweeted that MAGA “will never stand for regime change,” and on on the Jesse Watters Show warned:

“The population I represent … the under 30 crowd, they absolutely are very war weary … many of them … did not want to see a Joe Biden or George Bush philosophy where we get into endless conflict.”

–

Young Men Research Project’s (YMRP) recent survey, conducted in partnership with YouGov and based on a nationally representative sample of 1,079 American men aged 18-29, offers a more nuanced view of how this demographic views U.S. engagement in Iran. We asked respondents whether they supported or opposed “Committing U.S. military support to America’s allies to support regime change in the nation of Iran,” or if they were unsure.

A few caveats are worth noting. The survey was fielded at the end of May 2025, shortly before Israel’s airstrikes and any serious consideration of U.S. involvement. The question frames U.S. support for regime change as a way to assist our allies–it does not explicitly mention American boots on the ground or unilateral action. More direct wording likely would have yielded different results. Finally, a high number of “not sure” responses suggests many respondents were unfamiliar with the issue or possibly influenced by acquiescence bias.

Even so, we found a split but moderately favorable support for regime change in Iran when framed as backing our allies. The results showed a +12 margin of support (39% support vs. 27% oppose), with 34% unsure.

Party-line differences were marginal: Democratic-identifying young men showed a +20 margin while Republicans showed a +18 margin. There were similar levels of unsure respondents (26% and 29%, respectively).

Support was particularly high among those who value physical strength and/or identify as Trump Republicans. Respondents who valued physical strength showed a +33 margin in favor, with only 25% unsure. Trump-identifying Republican young men showed a +36 support margin, with a similar level of uncertainty. One possible explanation is that this group has higher trust in the policy if they believe Trump was the one driving it.

By contrast, respondents facing economic hardship were far less supportive. Among young men who reported financial instability, the support margin shrunk to just +1. Among those who believe the economy is getting worse, support dipped to -1. Both groups had high levels of uncertainty (41%). Meanwhile, financially stable respondents backed the policy by +24, and those who thought the economy is improving had a +36 margin in favor.

These patterns suggest that young men pessimistic about their financial futures may be less inclined to support tax dollars going to foreign military engagement, even when framed as backing our allies. And while valuing physical strength correlated strongly with support for regime change, the larger association between traditional masculinity and hawkish policy is less straightforward. While young men valuing physical strength are overwhelmingly approving, those pushing for men to become more masculine showed a notably lower margin (+16).

–

Most recent polling suggests intensifying hesitation toward military action. In an Economist/YouGov survey from June 13-16, just 16 percent of 18-29 year olds responded “yes” to the question: “Do you think the U.S. should get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran?” That compared to 53 percent who said “no” and 31 percent who were unsure. Young people weren’t alone–their support reflected the overall national average. While the crosstabs on young men weren’t available, the message was clear.

Young men are not unlike most Americans. They value U.S. alliances and believe in our military’s capacity to protect national security. But as Trump hints at airstrikes and even regime change, young men and most Americans– “America first” or not–want him to pump the brakes.