COLUMN: With 33% approval, Trump is discovering the political cost of a protracted war

The number at the bottom of the tank

Thirty-three

33%. For the second consecutive Reuters/Ipsos poll, this is the percentage of American adults who approve of Donald Trump’s job performance. The poll, which closed on August 24, puts the disapproval rating at 65%. This number is not an electoral verdict. It does not predict a winner or a loser. It says something more immediate: the president is waging a long war with political capital that has become very limited.

In the same poll, 31% support U.S. military action in Iran. That’s down from the 34% recorded earlier in August and the 37% in March. The shift remains within the margin of error and depends on different samples. But its direction aligns with another powerful signal: 83% now believe the war will last a long time.

The war is becoming part of everyday life

A military operation can remain popular as long as it seems distant, under control, and brief. It changes in political nature when its duration becomes a constant presence. It then creeps into gas prices, family conversations, concern for soldiers, budget debates, and that simple question that no power can evade forever: What is it all for?

The danger for Trump is not just that a majority rejects the war. It is that a majority stops believing he has control over its end.

A war begins with a map. It is then judged by a timeline and a bill.

A Presidency Caught Between Two Promises

The man who was supposed to avoid wars

Trump built part of his authority on rejecting endless commitments, vague objectives, and elites who ask the public to be patient. This promise was not pacifist. It was transactional: strike hard, achieve a result, and come home. Iran is now turning this logic against him. The longer the conflict lasts, the more each week becomes an indictment of his own political brand.

The paradox is cruel for his supporters. They may believe Tehran is dangerous, support American military force, and yet still ask why the end is nowhere in sight. This doubt is not a betrayal. It is the test that Trump himself imposed on previous presidents: what is the goal, what is the cost, and where is the limit?

Force Without Definition

Polls in July already showed that a majority of Americans felt the president’s objectives had not been sufficiently explained. In August, the expectation of a protracted conflict took even deeper root. An administration can maintain military superiority while losing the political purpose of its actions. Power destroys targets; it does not automatically produce an acceptable conclusion.

The president who promised to end ongoing wars now risks being defined by the one from which no one can clearly see a way out.

The heaviest burden of a war is not always what it strikes. It is what it can no longer bring to an end.

The poll measures a shift, not a prophecy

What the Numbers Say

The Reuters/Ipsos poll surveyed 1,215 American adults over four days and has a margin of error of three percentage points. It found 33% approval, 65% disapproval, 31% support for military action, and 83% expecting a prolonged conflict. Two weeks earlier, a broader poll put approval of the war at 35%.

These discrepancies do not allow us to isolate a pure causal relationship. The president’s popularity also depends on inflation, tariffs, employment, immigration, Trump’s temperament, and dozens of other events. A poll is a weighted snapshot, not an X-ray of every individual’s motivation. We must resist the temptation to turn a politically telling correlation into conclusive proof.

What They Cannot Promise

Midterm elections do not take place in a national survey of adults. They are decided in districts, with candidates, voter turnout rates, and local campaigns. A 33% approval rating can change. A ceasefire, a diplomatic success, a drop in gas prices, or a competing crisis can shift the landscape.

But uncertainty does not erase the alarm: an unpopular president is asking his party to defend a war that is even less popular than he is.

A poll does not determine the outcome of November. It merely reveals the slope the candidates must run up.

Gas Prices Become a Ballot Issue

The conflict reaches the gas pump

In early August, the Energy Information Administration put the national average price of regular gasoline at $4.079 per gallon, nearly 94 cents more than a year earlier. The price had edged down slightly over the week, proof that no upward trend lasts forever. It remained high enough to make geopolitics visible on every gas station sign.

The link between the war and the exact price paid in each state is never straightforward. It involves crude oil, inventories, refineries, margins, seasonality, transportation, and taxes. But the conflict over Iran and disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have squeezed global flows and inventories. Strategic risk has turned into a daily premium.

A price that repeats itself every week

Presidents can explain the global market. The motorist, however, sees the total bill. He cannot easily distinguish a supply disruption from a refining margin, nor a barrel of Brent from a military decision. He associates the cost with the current period, and then links that period to the administration in power. It’s imperfect. It’s also real politics.

A distant war becomes personal when it keeps showing up on the receipt, fill-up after fill-up, without delivering a victory that households can point to.

The price at the pump is an editorial that no one can stop from being displayed.

The Strait of Hormuz Holds U.S. Policy Hostage

A Narrow Artery

The EIA estimates that petroleum liquids transported through the Strait of Hormuz fell from an average of 21.6 million barrels per day in the fourth quarter of 2025 to 4.9 million in the second quarter of 2026. This chokepoint links the war to global markets. As long as flows remain disrupted, prices will carry part of the crisis all the way to the United States.

The August report forecasts Brent crude at around $85 per barrel in the third quarter and emphasizes the uncertainty surrounding a return to normalcy. A forecast is not a guaranteed outcome. It depends on the resumption of production, maritime traffic, and inventory levels. But it illustrates why the political timeline cannot be separated from the energy timeline.

Imported Vulnerability

The United States produces enormous amounts of oil. Yet it is not immune to global prices. A disruption in the Middle East ripples through markets, refined products, and expectations. Trump may boast about U.S. production; he cannot abolish the geography of the oil trade by executive order.

Energy sovereignty reduces certain dependencies. It does not eliminate the power a strait wields over people’s wallets, public sentiment, and the political duration of a war.

The Strait of Hormuz is narrow on the map, but immense in an election campaign.

The Republican coalition is beginning to demand a price

Support remains strong, but it’s declining

The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll still shows 69% support for the war among Republican respondents. That’s not a collapse. It’s a drop from 77% in March. The shift matters because Trump’s political strength relies less on winning over the center than on the extraordinarily stable loyalty of his base.

A Republican majority therefore still supports the action. But a growing minority could become decisive if it doesn’t vote, refuses to defend the issue, or distinguishes Trump from congressional candidates. Political dissent doesn’t always take the form of a party switch. It can take the form of silence.

The party must bear the burden of what it does not control

Republican elected officials do not set the day-to-day military objectives or the diplomatic agenda. Yet they will have to answer to voters about the cost and duration. The longer the White House delays in providing a clear end goal, the more each local candidate is saddled with a national issue they cannot resolve.

Trump can retain his supporters while making their defense more difficult, their message more narrow, and their mobilization less certain.

A coalition doesn’t just fall apart when its members leave. It also falls apart when they stop being persuasive.

The Democrats haven’t won anything yet

Rejection is not endorsement

Trump’s weakness offers Democrats an opening, not a victory. Americans may disapprove of a war without believing the opposition is better suited to handle Iran. They may punish the White House while still harboring reservations about the cost of living, security, or immigration. Anger does not automatically come with a partisan ballot.

In the August 6 poll, registered voters gave Democrats a slim lead for the first time on handling the war and terrorism, 37% to 36%. One percentage point is not a mandate. It’s a symbolic shift in an area where Republicans previously held a clear lead.

The Temptation to Celebrate Too Soon

If the Democrats reduce the war to a mere anti-Trump slogan, they may miss the central issue: what policy are they proposing? Supporting Israel’s security, containing Iran, protecting shipping, and avoiding an indefinite war require more than just a stance. The opposition must present a credible exit strategy, not just count the president’s missteps.

Those in power lose ground when they can no longer explain the war. The opposition fails if it cannot explain the peace it claims to offer.

A lack of trust in one area does not automatically translate into trust elsewhere.

Time erodes authority

Eighty-three percent

83%. This is perhaps the most telling figure in the poll. It transcends political camps, nuances, and standard margins. More than eight out of ten respondents expect a prolonged conflict. They do not all know what outcome they want. They share a common intuition: the promise of a short war no longer holds.

Duration reshapes judgment. A strike can be evaluated based on its target. A six-month war is judged by its strategy. Each new week, then, increases the burden of proof: why continue, why now, what progress has been made, what are the limitations, and under what conditions can we say the objective has been achieved?

Time becomes the adversary

Tehran does not need to defeat the United States militarily to increase the political cost to the U.S. It need only survive, prolong the uncertainty, disrupt the flow of resources, and ensure that every outcome is only partial. An authoritarian power can accept hardships that a democracy must explain openly.

When the adversary relies on endurance, the White House must demonstrate that time is working in its favor rather than against the nation’s patience.

War sometimes wears down the presidency before it wears down the enemy.

Military success is no longer enough

Destruction is not victory

An army can achieve tactical objectives, degrade capabilities, and impose real costs. These successes must be acknowledged when they are documented. But politics demands a translation: which threat has diminished, which stability has increased, which negotiation has become possible? Without this step, the accumulation of strikes resembles a demonstration that refuses to deliver its conclusion.

The June poll found that only 23% of Americans believed their country was stronger against Iran than before the war, while 35% considered it weaker. This unease does not deny the power of U.S. forces. It questions how that power is being used.

Victory Must Take Shape

A victory can be a verifiable agreement, a sustainably reduced threat, restored freedom of navigation, or a consolidated coalition. It cannot remain a succession of announcements. If the administration continually changes the definition of success, each step resembles a prolongation justified after the fact.

A president can win every military battle but lose the political war if he cannot articulate what those victories have achieved.

Force answers the question “Can we?” Power must still answer “To what extent?”

The cost of living overshadows geopolitics

The hierarchy of concerns

Voters do not categorize their fears into separate departments. Iran, gas, groceries, tariffs, and jobs all contribute to a single impression: Is life becoming safer and more affordable? Reuters/Ipsos already noted in April that Trump’s approval rating on the cost of living was dropping to 22% as gas prices rose.

This link in public opinion does not prove that the war accounts for all of the inflation. Rather, it reveals how the public assigns blame. An administration can cite ten global factors; if its most visible decision coincides with a price hike, it bears some of the political cost.

The Receipt Versus the Press Release

The White House controls its message. It does not control when a household fills up its gas tank. Every payment reinforces an experience that official communications cannot erase. At four dollars a gallon, the strategic issue becomes a budgetary one even before the voter has read an analysis.

The war must not be reduced to gasoline. But a president who ignores gasoline reduces his own ability to sustain the war.

The wallet doesn’t explain everything. It reminds us of everything.

Congress Inherits a Presidential War

The November Candidates

Midterm elections turn every seat into a partial referendum on the administration. Republican candidates will talk about their districts, their votes, and their priorities. Yet Trump’s name will still hang in the room. A low national approval rating can weigh on voter turnout, fundraising, and message discipline, though it does not automatically determine the outcome of every race.

The risk is greater when the issue combines two vulnerabilities: an unpopular war and a daily financial burden. An elected official can defend the strategic necessity while calling for a limit. But the longer this nuanced stance is delayed, the more it resembles a distancing under pressure rather than timely control.

Constitutional Responsibility

Congress should not limit itself to calculating electoral risk. It possesses powers of funding, oversight, and debate. Demanding objectives, timelines, and exit conditions does not weaken the military. It compels civilian authorities to align the resources committed with the desired outcome.

A majority that refuses to question the war out of loyalty to the president ultimately finds itself having to defend it without having had a say in defining it.

Congress’s silence becomes a voice on election day.

The president still holds some leverage

Finally Defining the End

A low approval rating is not a death sentence. Trump can regain the initiative if he publicly defines limited objectives, verifiable criteria, and a coherent diplomatic strategy. He can explain what has been achieved, what remains necessary, and what will not be pursued. Clarity does not guarantee support. It at least reduces the suspicion that the mission is shifting.

He can also acknowledge the cost without treating concern as a sign of weakness. Asking Americans to accept higher gas prices requires a proportionate rationale, a clear timeline, and measures to limit the shock. Sacrifice becomes politically unsustainable when it is presented as proof of loyalty rather than as a burden that must be justified.

Taking Responsibility Before the Polls

The best response to a poll is not to attack the poll. It is to answer the questions it raises. Why do 83% see a long war ahead? Why is Republican support declining? Why does the cost of living remain a breaking point? These questions are not fabrications by hostile media outlets. They are reflected in the results.

Trump can still convert military authority into political legitimacy, but only if he treats public doubt as a call for accountability, not as disloyalty.

Leadership isn’t about demanding patience. It’s about giving people a reason to be patient.

The alternative scenario exists

Things could improve

Energy prices may fall. The EIA’s August report forecasts a gradual resumption of supply, a return of some production, and a decline in Brent prices toward the end of the year. These projections have already shifted in step with the conflict. They serve as a reminder that an energy crisis is not necessarily permanent.

A diplomatic breakthrough could also quickly shift public opinion. Americans often separate their judgment of a war from their judgment of the president. If Trump achieves a visible result without further escalation, he will be able to argue that his perseverance has yielded results. The narrative of failure is therefore not yet set in stone.

But there is a limit to how reversible the situation is

Each month adds costs, precedents, and expectations. Even a future drop in gas prices won’t instantly erase budgets that have already been squeezed. Even an agreement doesn’t automatically restore confidence if its terms remain vague. The administration can regain ground; it doesn’t reset the political clock to zero.

Withdrawal can still save the strategy. It can no longer make people believe that the duration of the conflict has cost the country or the president nothing.

A reversible war on the markets sometimes leaves irreversible scars on confidence.

The world is also watching the numbers

Allies are gauging endurance

A democracy that doubts is not necessarily a democracy that gives up. Allies are, however, observing the stability of support, the president’s ability to fund the effort, and the consistency of his objectives. A 33% approval rating does not dictate their policy. It narrows the political space in which Washington can promise a long-term commitment.

Partners need to know whether the U.S. commitment will survive elections, rising costs, and shifts in messaging. The more the war becomes personalized around Trump, the more his domestic weakness becomes a strategic variable on the international stage. Opponents understand this as well.

Tehran Reads the Signs

Iran may interpret the decline in support as an invitation to wait. This calculation may be wrong; U.S. pressure may intensify despite its unpopularity. But a credible strategy must take this adversarial perspective into account. Democratic cohesion is not merely a domestic formality. It is a component of power.

The poll does not merely gauge voter sentiment. It informs both allies and adversaries about how long Washington can sustain its political stance.

In a war of attrition, public opinion is part of the battlefield without becoming a legitimate target.

What 33% Forces Us to See

Legitimacy Cannot Be Decreed

Trump can command the armed forces. He cannot command support. Support must be earned through clarity of purpose, proportionate use of resources, protection of citizens, and the ability to bring matters to a successful conclusion. The latest poll does not strip him of his constitutional powers. It indicates that his exercise of those powers is meeting deep and persistent resistance.

The responsibility is all the heavier because the war was presented as a choice of controlled force. If it becomes endless, costly, and politically isolating, Trump will not be able to blame it entirely on bureaucrats, the media, or his predecessors. A president who claims credit for every decision must accept that their cumulative effect bears his name.

The Test of Sustainability

The real question is not whether Trump can survive a bad week in the polls. He has weathered far worse. The question is whether a presidency with 33% approval can sustainably ask the country to fund, support, and believe in a war approved by 31%, while 83% expect it to drag on.

Force can prolong the conflict. Only restored legitimacy can prolong consent—and that consent cannot be bombed back into existence.

33%. That’s not yet the end of a presidency. It may be the end of the blank check.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist’s Transparency Box

Editorial Position

I am not a journalist, but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analyzing the geopolitical, economic, and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work consists of dissecting political strategies, understanding global economic trends, contextualizing the decisions of international actors, and offering analytical perspectives on the transformations that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim to possess the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which is limited to factual reporting. I strive for analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation, and a deep understanding of the complex issues that affect us all. My role is to make sense of the facts, place them within their historical and strategic context, and offer a critical analysis of events.

Methodology and Sources

This text respects the fundamental distinction between verified facts and interpretive analyses. The methodological rule is consistent: factual information is published only if it is supported by a verifiable source, and the sources actually used in this article are listed under “Sources,” never here.

Categories of primary sources used by the publication, when applicable: official press releases from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organizations, and dispatches from recognized international news agencies.

Types of secondary sources: specialized publications, internationally recognized news media, analyses from established research institutions, and reports from sector-specific organizations.

When an article cites statistical, economic, or geopolitical data, it is sourced from data-producing institutions (intergovernmental organizations, central banks, national statistical institutes), and the specific institution is listed under “Sources.”

Nature of the Analysis

The analyses, interpretations, and perspectives presented in the analytical sections of this article constitute a critical and contextual synthesis based on available information, observed trends, and expert commentary cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, contextualize them within the framework of contemporary geopolitical and economic dynamics, and give them coherent meaning within the broader narrative of the transformations shaping our era. These analyses reflect expertise developed through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a situation documented as of its publication date, not a prediction: subsequent developments may alter these perspectives. No updates are promised in advance; when an article is corrected or supplemented, the change is dated within the text.

COLUMN: With 33% approval, Trump is discovering the political cost of a protracted war