• Research
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie India logoCarnegie lettermark logo
AI
{
  "authors": [
    "Christopher S. Chivvis",
    "Christopher Shell"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "americanStatecraft",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "ASP",
  "programs": [
    "American Statecraft"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Military",
    "Civil Society",
    "Defense"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Commentary

Two Sides to African American Views on U.S. Defense and Security Issues

Support for the U.S. military is strong, but many want greater caution in using force abroad.

Link Copied
By Christopher S. Chivvis and Christopher Shell
Published on Sep 11, 2023

The annual debate over the nearly $900 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), alongside the seventy-fifth anniversary of former president Harry Truman’s watershed decision to integrate the armed forces, offers a chance to reflect on African American views on defense and security issues. We polled a representative sample of African Americans to try to grasp how they view national security and defense issues of the mid-twenty-first century. What emerged was a complex picture that has echoes in the history of the twentieth century. In general, support for the U.S. military is strong among African Americans, but many want greater caution in how the United States uses military force overseas.

Our previous research found that 80 percent of African Americans view the U.S. military favorably. The high regard the community has for the institution could be a function of the military being one of the first federal institutions to formally rid itself of segregationist policies, a move that pushed the nation to act on its promise of equality for all.

African Americans are 14 percent of the U.S. population but make up 17 percent of the armed forces. They have an especially high representation among enlisted service members, at 19 percent—down from 30 percent several decades prior. Support for the military also reflects this tradition of national service, as well as the social, economic, and other benefits military service has provided many African Americans and their families.

However, our survey found that national security is far less salient, relative to economic and racial issues, when African American voters choose a presidential candidate. Sixty-seven percent of respondents listed domestic issues such as jobs, racial discrimination, or healthcare as the top priority when voting, while only 5 percent reported national security as their top concern. Similar to non-Black voters, African Americans are paying attention to major global developments yet primarily vote on kitchen-table issues.

Our most recent survey also showed substantial African American support for military spending. Only 28 percent of African Americans felt defense spending should be cut back, while 37 percent say that defense spending should increase. These are views that are broadly similar to those of the general American public.

Notably, however, support for military spending is in line with African Americans’ support for higher levels of government spending across the board, and there is actually less African American support for increasing military spending than for increases in spending in several other areas.

Our survey also revealed that respondents show stronger support for increasing federal spending for domestic programs such as improving public infrastructure (67 percent), education (78 percent), healthcare (80 percent), and social security (75 percent).

African Americans, especially those on the lower rungs of the income bracket, are far less likely than the general population to favor overseas military interventions, according to our research. To illustrate this point, only 21 percent of African Americans expressed support for sending troops to assist Ukraine against Russia, compared to 38 percent of the general American public. When asked about trade-offs between domestic spending and financial assistance to Ukraine, Black Americans have proven less likely to support sustained aid to Ukraine if it results in increased material costs to American households, according to a separate study conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. 

Views like these are long-standing in African American communities, and the logic is encapsulated in Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous critique of the Vietnam War at Manhattan’s Riverside Church. King was initially supportive of the Vietnam War effort, perhaps because of his broader support for then president Lyndon B. Johnson’s civil rights and economic justice efforts. Eventually, however, King began to believe that the war would distract from America’s domestic problems. At Riverside Church in 1967, he declared that a nation that spent “more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift” would approach a “spiritual death.”

Although King delivered the Vietnam speech during a tumultuous period in U.S. race relations, his words serve as a harbinger of potential future sentiments. Although African American support for defense spending sits relatively high, in a budget-constrained environment and as civil rights legislation meant to remedy past harm comes undone, support for defense or the continued financial support of Ukraine might plummet.

The unique relationship between African Americans and the national security apparatus presents a complex picture. The socioeconomic benefits of military service and belief in a strong military may explain the support for increasing the defense budget. However, concern about the human and material costs associated with overseas military engagements could explain the relatively low importance certain national security issues hold for the community.

About the Authors

Christopher S. Chivvis

Senior Fellow and Director, American Statecraft Program

Christopher S. Chivvis is the director of the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Christopher Shell

Fellow, American Statecraft Program

Christopher Shell is a fellow in the American Statecraft Program at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Authors

Christopher S. Chivvis
Senior Fellow and Director, American Statecraft Program
Christopher S. Chivvis
Christopher Shell
Fellow, American Statecraft Program
Christopher Shell
SecurityMilitaryCivil SocietyDefenseNorth AmericaUnited States

Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie India

  • Commentary
    The Coming of Age of India’s Nuclear Triad

    The induction of INS Aridhaman, which features several technological enhancements, now gives India the third nuclear ballistic missile submarine to ensure continuous at-sea deterrent.

      Dinakar Peri

  • Article
    India’s Oil Security Strategy: Structural Vulnerabilities and Strategic Choices

    This piece argues that the present Indian strategy, based on opportunistic diversification and utilization of limited strategic reserves, remains inadequate when confronting supply disruptions. It evaluates India’s options in the short, medium, and long terms.

      Vrinda Sahai

  • Article
    What Could a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement Do for U.S.-India Ties?

    India and the United States are close to concluding a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement (RDPA) that will allow firms from the two countries to sell to each other’s defense establishments more easily. While this may not remedy the specific grievances both sides may have regarding larger bilateral issues, an RDPA could restore some momentum, following the trade deal announcement.

      Konark Bhandari

  • Commentary
    India Signs the Pax Silica—A Counter to Pax Sinica?

    On the last day of the India AI Impact Summit, India signed Pax Silica, a U.S.-led declaration seemingly focused on semiconductors. While India’s accession to the same was not entirely unforeseen, becoming a signatory nation this quickly was not on the cards either.

      Konark Bhandari

  • Commentary
    The Impact of U.S. Sanctions and Tariffs on India’s Russian Oil Imports

    This piece examines India’s response to U.S. sanctions and tariffs, specifically assessing the immediate market consequences, such as alterations in import costs, and the broader strategic implications for India’s energy security and foreign policy orientation.

      Vrinda Sahai

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
Carnegie India logo, white
Unit C-4, 5, 6, EdenparkShaheed Jeet Singh MargNew Delhi – 110016, IndiaPhone: 011-40078687
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.