2025 Carnegie California Global Affairs Survey

Summary

The Carnegie California Global Affairs Survey examines how Californians think about the intersection of domestic and international affairs and their priorities for global engagement. This is the third annual release of the survey. The latest findings reflect how the views of Californians have changed or, just as importantly, stayed the same amid rapid shifts in trade and migration policy, climate action, and democracy advocacy. Key findings include: 

• On essential questions of foreign policy—encompassing the importance of diplomacy and development, and the regions of most importance—the views of Californians have held largely stable over the last twelve months. Overwhelming majorities of Californians continue to express the belief that international affairs and domestic affairs are interconnected.
• Californians are anxious about democratic backsliding. The majority of Californians think the way that democracy and governance work in Washington, DC, is having a negative impact on their state and local governments.
• Californians believe federal policies are not benefiting, or may in fact be doing damage to, California. Nearly half of respondents believe that the actions of the U.S. government with regard to climate change are not economically beneficial for their state. Six in ten believe that the federal government’s imposition of trade tariffs will harm the U.S. and Californian economies. Half think that the federal government is not doing enough to respond to the benefits and risks of artificial intelligence.
• The views of Californians on migration have proven especially dynamic over the last twelve months. For the first time in three years, a plurality of Californians believes the federal government is doing too much to respond to immigration challenges. And over half of Californians favor the California state and local governments making their own policies when it comes to protecting the legal rights of undocumented immigrants in California.
• A subtle but important shift has occurred in how Californians think about subnational diplomacy. Two out of three Californians report feeling at least somewhat concerned over potential disconnects between U.S. foreign policy and the priorities of Californians. And when asked whether California officials should pursue global engagement with leaders from other nations, 42 percent of Californians responded yes, an increase from 34 percent in 2024.

The survey report is broken into four sections: California’s Consistent Global Priorities; Global Challenges and Local Impact; California and Transpacific Affairs; and California and Global Engagement. It also features a new annex, which provides an overview of the survey’s findings broken down along partisan, gender, and geographic lines. Taken together, they capture a California holding a steady view of its place in the world and the value of global connections, and acutely aware of the intense renegotiation happening almost daily in domestic and international politics.

Survey

The 2025 Carnegie California Global Affairs Survey findings are based on 1,600 adult California residents, including an oversample of 100 California adults who attended community college. The survey was conducted via YouGov between July 28 and September 2, 2025, in English and Spanish according to respondents’ preferences. The questions in four topic areas were designed by the Carnegie California survey team. The Carnegie California survey team invited input, comments, and suggestions from policy experts and its own advisory group—including advisers from state and local government, California universities and community colleges, think tanks, industry, and civil society—during a workshop in May 2025. However, survey methods, questions, and content were solely determined by the Carnegie California survey team.

YouGov fielded two separate surveys for this project. The first interviewed 430 Californian adults, with the goal of screening for and surveying 100 current or former community college students. The 430 were then matched down to a sample of 181, yielding a target subsample of 100. The respondents were matched to a sampling frame on gender, age, race, and education. The sampling frame demographics are based on the 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) public use microdata file. The matched cases were weighted to the sampling frame using propensity scores. The matched cases and the frame were combined, and a logistic regression was estimated for inclusion in the frame. The propensity score function included age, gender, race/ethnicity, years of education, and region. The propensity scores were grouped into deciles of the estimated propensity score in the frame and post-stratified according to these deciles. The weights were then ranked on gender, age, race, and education. The weighted dataset of 181 was then subsetted on 100, and the weights were trimmed and recentered around 1, to produce the final weights for 100. In the second survey, YouGov interviewed 1,585 Californian adults who were then matched down to a sample of 1,500. The respondents were matched to a sampling frame on gender, age, race, and education. The sampling frame demographics are based on the 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) public use microdata file. The weights were then post-stratified on 2020 and 2024 presidential vote choice and weighted along a four-way stratification of gender, age, race, and education, and a two-way stratification of age and education. The two datasets were then combined into a dataset of 1,600 and post-stratified on the weighted incidence rate in the main sample.

The YouGov panel includes information about each respondent’s demographic and political profile, used in this paper. We present results for four racial/ethnic groups: Asian, Black, Latinx, and White. Residents of other racial and ethnic groups are included in the results reported for all adults, but sample sizes for these less populous groups are not large enough to report separately. We present results for five geographic regions, accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state population. “Central Valley” includes the counties Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba. “San Francisco Bay Area” includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. “Los Angeles” refers to Los Angeles County; “Inland Empire” refers to Riverside and San Bernardino Counties; and “Orange/San Diego” refers to Orange and San Diego Counties. Residents of other geographic areas are included in the results reported for all adults, but sample sizes for these less populous areas are not large enough to report separately. We also report the results for those who identify as Democratic, Republican, independent, and other voters, but sample sizes for other voters are not large enough to report separately. Lastly, we reported the results for members of a union and non-union members, as well as adults who have or have not attended a community college.

The overall margin of error is +/- 3.5 percent. The margin of error is calculated at the 95 percent confidence interval. When applicable, we compare the current survey findings to the 2023 and 2024 Carnegie California Global Affairs Survey results that were conducted with the same methodology and a number of national and regional surveys. This survey references surveys from Pew Research Center,¹ Public Policy Institute of California,² Ipsos,³ the Chicago Council on Global Affairs,⁴ and Gallup.⁵

Section 1. California’s Consistent Global Priorities

In late September 2025, President Donald Trump addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York, offering an extended description of his foreign policy.⁶ His vision exalted national sovereignty. He advocated for economic policies that are purported to advance such sovereignty, and he criticized institutions, megatrends, and even global challenges that link people, regions, or nations. The speech, and more importantly, the policies and diplomatic tone being adopted in support of it, are rapidly ushering international affairs into a tumultuous new age, leaving behind the post-World War II international order and the presumption of U.S. leadership on the global stage.

California has long served as an essential hub for the diverse set of activities that informed and benefited from that order: global commerce; scientific research; technological innovation; the movement of people and talent; and entertainment as art and product. As the 2025 Carnegie California Global Affairs Survey shows, in the face of a profound disruption in U.S. diplomacy and foreign policy, Californians continue to believe that engagement with the world delivers economic well-being and security for Americans. Leadership, engagement, and stability, rather than antagonism, isolation, and disruption, are the cross-cutting values of the foreign policy preferences.

Stable Support for Diplomacy and Development

For three years now, we have asked Californians: “To what degree do you consider diplomacy, humanitarian aid, and development support essential to American security and prosperity?” In 2023, 46 percent answered a “great deal.”⁷ That number inched up to 48 percent in 2024.⁸ In 2025, half of all Californians answered in the affirmative. Amid this trendline, there is a stark partisan divide. Sixty-six percent of Democrats in 2025 responded a “great deal” as opposed to only 34 percent of Republicans.

In a continuation from previous years, a majority of Californians continue to believe that the United States should play a leading role in combating climate change and in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. And their areas of focus and concern have remained largely consistent, centered around: the economy and jobs; inflation; healthcare; and the environment and climate change.

Section 2 of this survey includes findings related to Californians’ deep concerns over the state of U.S. democracy. Democratic backsliding, a striking feature of U.S. democracy today, is a global phenomenon.⁹ For Californians, the high value placed on democracy and democratic processes extends to foreign policy priorities. A growing share of respondents believe that the United States should play a leading role in promoting human rights and democracy around the world (47 percent in 2023, 53 percent in 2024, 57 percent in 2025). Notably, 75 percent of Democrats report wanting the United States to play a leading role in 2025, a ten-point increase from 2023.

Foreign Policy

The alliances, bilateral relationships, and multilateral institutions that have long comprised the foundations of U.S. foreign policy across presidencies, Republican and Democrat, have been put under intense pressure in 2025. Through tariffs, policy shifts, or rhetoric, long-standing partners, such as Canada, and bedrock institutions, such as the United Nations, have found themselves back at the bargaining table. Section 3 further details findings on bilateral relationships. Thinking in a slightly broader sense, the contours of Californian priorities across the globe remain the same.

The U.S. relationship with its Asian and European partners continues to be of top importance according to Californians. A plurality of Californians (30 percent) continues to believe that Asia will be the most important region for the United States’ economic prosperity in the future (37 percent in 2023, 43 percent in 2024).

On China policy, a consistent share of Californians believes in the promotion of human rights efforts in China even if it harms economic relations (43 percent). These findings echo previous years’ surveys.

The proportion of Californians who believe the United States should help strengthen regional militaries as a check against China has also remained the same (43 percent in 2023, 43 percent in 2024, 42 percent in 2025). Pluralities exist across demographics, regions, and party lines, though variations exist between parties (41 percent of Democrats, 59 percent of Republicans, 39 percent of independents).

Europe continues to remain the most important region to the United States’ military security, with a slight decrease from previous years (32 percent in 2023, 34 percent in 2024, 27 percent in 2025). Opinions on the United Nations have steadily increased in favorability, with a majority of Californians viewing it favorably (56 percent in 2023, 57 percent in 2024, 60 percent in 2025).

Section 2. Global Challenges and Local Impact

The federal policy landscape has dramatically shifted in the global affairs arena through a series of executive actions in 2025. The movement away from global cooperation toward unilateral actions by the U.S. government is in stark contrast to California’s long-standing focus on global engagement. The tectonic shifts in federal policies thus have implications for economic, environmental, political, and social issues in California. Meanwhile, Californians have been reminded of the state’s connections to global and national affairs this year through confronting issues such as climate change, transnational migration, tariffs, shipping and international trade, and the use of emerging AI technologies and social media. How do Californians view global challenges and their local impacts on California today and in the future?

Connection of Global-Local

In the wake of shifting federal policies, overwhelming majorities of Californians continue to express the belief that international affairs and domestic affairs are interconnected (38 percent a great deal, 39 percent a fair amount). This response was similar to the 2024 survey (36 percent a great deal, 45 percent a fair amount), while fewer held this view in the 2023 survey (25 percent a great deal, 45 percent a fair amount). Today, most Californians hold this perception across partisan and demographic groups and state regions. The belief that international affairs and domestic affairs are interconnected increases with age, education, and income. About half of Democratic voters (49 percent), San Francisco Bay Area residents (47 percent), and Asian Americans (48 percent) think that international affairs and domestic affairs are interconnected “a great deal.”

Today, majorities across partisan and demographic groups and regions hold the view that the spread of misinformation is a major threat to California.

We asked respondents if they believed four international issues posed a major, minor, or no threat to California. Majorities of Californians say that the spread of misinformation through social media channels (64 percent), global climate change (60 percent), and supply chain disruptions (51 percent) are major threats. By comparison, 41 percent think that the development of generative artificial intelligence (AI) is a major threat to California. There is a growing share of respondents who think that the spread of misinformation is a major threat to California (54 percent in 2023, 61 percent in 2024, 64 percent in 2025). Today, majorities across partisan and demographic groups and regions hold the view that the spread of misinformation is a major threat to California. There is little change over time in perceptions of global climate change, supply chain disruptions, and AI as major threats to California. Today, partisans are divided in their perception of global climate change and supply chain disruptions, with Democrats more often than Republicans viewing them both as major threats. Across the state’s regions, San Francisco Bay Area residents (32 percent) are the least likely to view AI as a major threat to California.

Transnational Issue 1: Climate Change

This has been an eventful year for climate change issues in California, including the Los Angeles wildfires in January,¹⁰ the executive actions taken in opposition to the state’s climate change policies,¹¹ and legislation this summer that reaffirms the state’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gases and a clean energy future.¹²   

Three in four Californians view global climate change as either a major or minor threat, while just 16 percent think that this is not a threat to California. When asked which level of government is doing the most to respond to the challenge of climate change, the state government (46 percent) is chosen much more often than the federal government (15 percent) or local government (10 percent). Compared to a year ago, the share naming the state government has increased by 15 points (31 percent in 2024), while fewer are naming the federal government. Today, pluralities believe that the state government is doing the most to respond to climate change across partisan and demographic groups and regions of the state.

Moreover, nearly half of Californians (47 percent) believe that the actions of the U.S. government with regard to climate change are not economically beneficial for the state of California. In our 2023 and 2024 surveys, 25 percent believed the global leadership position of the United States vis-à-vis climate change is not beneficial to California. Today, pluralities across partisan and demographic groups and state regions view the federal government’s actions on climate change as not economically beneficial to California.

Yet six in ten Californians think the federal government should bear the most responsibility for climate emergency response. Majorities across demographic groups and state regions and pluralities across partisan groups hold this view, while relatively few say that state and local governments should take the lead in a climate emergency. Regarding the Los Angeles wildfires, majorities say the response of FEMA and federal agencies was very or somewhat efficient—and 64 percent in Los Angeles have this view. Six in ten think that the state and local government’s response was very or somewhat efficient—including 66 percent in Los Angeles.  

Most Californians continue to believe that the needs and interests of different generations, including young people and the elderly, should be considered in decisions about emissions reductions and adaptation (68 percent) and for infrastructure and housing plans (77 percent). Overwhelming majorities of Californians also believe that considerations around reductions, emissions, and adaptations should take into account the needs and interests of generations yet to come (70 percent). These three perspectives about planning for the future were similar in our 2023 and 2024 surveys. Today, majorities across demographic and partisan groups and regions of the state think that the needs and interests of different generations and future generations should be taken into account today in planning for climate change.

Transnational Issue 2: Workforce Training and Education

California’s leadership in the global economy requires a deep commitment to workforce training and education. How do Californians feel about making investments in skills training and higher education? 

Most Californians (63 percent) believe that it is very likely or somewhat likely that they would pursue additional training or upskilling in response to job market changes or labor shortages. The share who think that it is very likely that they will pursue additional training or upskilling tends to increase with income and education and is higher among men than women and highest among labor union members (45 percent), those thirty to forty-four years old (39 percent), full-time employees (35 percent), those with a child in the home (40 percent), and immigrants (35 percent).

When asked what advice they would give to a child or young person about various post–high school options, only three percent said they would recommend going straight into the workforce. Californians were evenly divided between the post–high school option of attending a four-year college (35 percent) and vocational training such as a trade school or apprenticeship (32 percent). Pluralities in the coastal regions of Los Angeles, Orange/San Diego, and the San Francisco Bay Area chose a four-year college while pluralities in the Inland Empire and Central Valley chose vocational training. Men and women are similarly divided about these two post–high school options. Those most likely to choose a four-year college were Asian Americans (57 percent), those with annual incomes of $100,000 or more (53 percent), college graduates (47 percent), and Democrats (44 percent). Those most likely to choose vocational training were Republicans (47 percent), and rural (46 percent) and small-town residents (44 percent).

Overwhelming majorities (81 percent) think that educational institutions should operate independently from outside political pressures. Majorities hold this view across political and demographic groups and state regions. A large majority (73 percent) also believes that educational institutions should play a role in establishing democratic values and encouraging civic engagement. However, among those who believe that educational institutions should have this role, a roughly equal proportion want more regulations for free speech and protests on campus (28 percent) or think that they are regulating free speech and protests too much (22 percent) or have no comment on free speech and protests (23 percent).  

Transnational Issue 3: Democracy and Misinformation

Californians overwhelmingly believe that the spread of misinformation through social media channels is a major or minor threat, while only 7 percent say it is not a threat to California. Moreover, about half say digital news media (for example, social media, podcasts, apps) is their primary source of news, while about one in three choose traditional news media (for example, broadcast television and radio), and just 4 percent are naming print publications. How are residents feeling about the state of democracy and the role of social media?

About half of respondents say digital news media is their primary source of news, while about one in three choose traditional news media.

Large majorities and increasing shares of Californians are holding negative views about U.S. democracy. Sixty-nine percent of Californians believe that the way U.S. democracy is working “has gotten worse” compared to five years ago, while 60 percent held this gloomy perspective in our 2024 survey. Today, only 13 percent say it is working better, and 10 percent say it is working the same as it was five years ago. Majorities across all demographic groups and regions of the state believe that the way the U.S. democracy is working has gotten worse. While partisans continue to have differing views on this topic, pluralities across party lines think that the way the democracy is working in the United States has gotten worse (46 percent of Republicans, 84 percent of Democrats, 72 percent of independents) compared to five years ago.

Majorities of Californians now think that the way democracy and governance are working in Washington is having a negative impact on state and local government in California. There is a 17-point increase from a year ago (38 percent in 2024 to 55 percent in 2025). Today, relatively few Californians (13 percent) believe that there has been a positive impact on state and local governments in California. Majorities across regions of the state and pluralities across demographic groups hold the perception of a negative impact. Partisans are deeply divided on the perceived impacts of the way that democracy and governance are working in Washington on state and local government in California.

Social media platforms play an important role as information sources for democracies around the world, and there are concerns about their role in spreading misinformation. Yet Californians have mixed views when asked about the impacts of social media on democracy, with 25 percent saying it is a good thing and 25 percent saying it is a bad thing (44 percent are neutral, and 6 percent say they do not know). Similarly, one in four Californians thought that social media was a good thing for democracy in our 2023 and 2024 surveys. Three in ten or fewer adults across education, gender, income, and partisan groups and state regions say that social media is a “good thing” for democracy. In a noteworthy trend on this topic, Californians under thirty years old are by far the most likely to say that the digital news media is their primary source of news (66 percent) and they also have the most favorable views of the impacts of social media on democracy (31 percent good thing, 17 percent bad thing, 42 percent neutral, 10 percent don’t know).

Transnational Issue 4: Trade and the Economy 

Most Californians believe that supply chain disruptions are a major or minor threat to California, while only 7 percent say that they are not a threat. How are Californians feeling about the state’s shipping, ports, and trade and executive actions around tariffs and federal efficiency efforts this year?

Sixty-one percent of Californians say that they are very concerned or somewhat concerned about operations and capacity at California’s ports. The results were similar a year ago, although there is a slight increase in the share who say they are very concerned (19 percent in 2024; 23 percent in 2025). Today, a similar 64 percent also say they are very concerned or somewhat concerned about shipping and trade relationships between Asia and California. Compared to a year ago, more Californians say they are very concerned about this particular issue (18 percent in 2024; 25 percent in 2025). About half or more across partisan groups, demographic groups, and state regions continue to express concerns about the operations and capacity of California ports and shipping and trade relationships between Asia and California.

Six in ten Californians believe that the federal government’s imposition of trade tariffs will harm the U.S. economy (62 percent) and the California economy (63 percent). About one in four think that the tariffs will help the U.S. economy and the California economy. Majorities across income groups and state regions think that tariffs will harm the U.S. economy and the California economy. There are stark differences across partisan groups in views about the federal government’s imposition of trade tariffs helping the U.S. economy (71 percent of Republicans, 8 percent of Democrats, 22 percent of independents) and helping the California economy (59 percent of Republicans, 8 percent of Democrats, 14 percent of independents).   

When asked a general question about the overall impacts of efficiency efforts of the federal government, about half of Californians (48 percent) think they are having a negative impact on state and local government, while just 18 percent believe they are having a positive impact. Pluralities hold this negative view of federal efficiency efforts across demographic groups and regions. Partisans vary in this perception, although fewer than half across voter groups think there are positive impacts of the efficiency efforts of the federal government (40 percent of Republicans, 9 percent of Democrats, 16 percent of independents).  

Transnational Issue 5: Artificial Intelligence

AI is one of the most important economic and policy issues today. In September 2023, California emerged as a vanguard of AI policy with the AI Executive Order (N-12-23).¹³ The release of the White House AI Action Plan in July 2025 called for the removal of federal regulations to further quicken the pace of AI development.¹⁴ The California legislature passed SB53,¹⁵ and the governor signed this bill in September 2025 to address both safety and innovation issues. How are Californians viewing the rapid development of AI?¹⁶

About three in four Californians view the development of AI as a major or minor threat to California. The overwhelming majority of Californians say they are very familiar or somewhat familiar with the concept of generative AI. The share who are familiar with AI has increased in our surveys (68 percent in 2024; 72 percent in 2025). Today, the proportion who say they are very familiar with AI rises with education and income and it is higher among men (29 percent) than women (17 percent)¹⁷ and is highest among adults under thirty years of age (42 percent) and lowest for those sixty-five years of age and older (5 percent).

Half of Californians say they are “worried” or “pessimistic” about AI, while fewer than four in ten are “excited” or “optimistic.”

Half of Californians say they are “worried” (31 percent) or “pessimistic” (19 percent), while fewer than four in ten are “excited” (7 percent) or “optimistic” (31 percent) about AI. The share who say that they are optimistic about AI has been increasing in our surveys (27 percent in 2023, 26 percent in 2024, 31 percent in 2025). Optimism about AI is higher among men than women and increases with education and income and decreases with age. The respondents who are most likely to say they are optimistic about AI are those with annual incomes of $100,000 or more (43 percent) and full-time workers (40 percent).

Californians who feel excited or optimistic about AI most often cite its positive impact on science (24 percent), healthcare (21 percent), jobs and the economy (15 percent), and education (12 percent). Those who feel worried or pessimistic most often cite its negative impact on jobs and the economy (28 percent), national security (26 percent), and social stability and community (19 percent). Few name climate action as the AI issue that makes them excited and optimistic (7 percent) or worried and pessimistic (4 percent).     

When asked which level of government is doing the most to respond the challenges of AI, half of Californians say they don’t know (33 percent) or “none” (18 percent). Twenty-six percent name the federal government and 19 percent choose the state government while only 4 percent say that local government is doing the most to respond to AI challenges. Across all groups, Republicans (47 percent) and conservatives (48 percent) are the most likely to report that the federal government is doing the most to respond to AI challenges.

Moreover, half of Californians think that the federal government is “not doing enough” to respond to the benefits and risks of AI. Five percent say it is doing “too much,” and 19 percent say it is doing “the right amount” to respond to the potential benefits and risks of AI. An increasing share of Californians are saying that the federal government is “not doing enough” in our surveys (44 percent in 2023, 45 percent in 2024, 51 percent in 2025). Pluralities across demographic groups and state regions think that the federal government is “not doing enough” in the realm of AI. The perception that the federal government is “not doing enough” on AI issues varies sharply across partisan groups (64 percent of Democrats, 34 percent of Republicans, 50 percent of independents) and increases with age and education.  

Section 3. California and Transpacific Affairs

The year 2025 has seen dramatic shifts in relations with allies and partners. The Trump administration has applied tariffs and threatened tariffs on goods from Japan, India, South Korea, China, and many other countries. Bilateral relations between the United States and India, steadily advancing for the last twenty years, have come under intense strain as the United States applies tariffs on Indian exports and India engages in diplomatic gestures with China, Iran, and Russia.

Amid the tariff disruption, the United States has also entered into a number of new trade deals with the European Union,¹⁸ Cambodia, and Malaysia.¹⁹ Additionally, during an October 2025 trip to Asia, the administration sought to shore up investment in U.S. manufacturing to counter China as a manufacturing competitor, leading to updated trade deals with Japan and South Korea.²⁰ Notably, the trip also resulted in a trade truce between the United States and China.²¹ Elsewhere, tariffs were threatened on imports of all Mexican goods, however Mexico was granted exemptions for goods compliant with the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), which helped many Mexican exports remain tariff-free.²² Nevertheless, threats of tariffs loom unless Mexico meets the U.S. demands in terms of border security and drug control, further interlinking the Trump administration’s trade policy with its immigration agenda.  

Moving to the domestic United States, migration issues and policy have been at the forefront of local and national politics. The deportation of undocumented immigrants (discussed later in this section), as well as the stripping of legal immigrant status in the United States, remains a contentious transnational issue that has dual effects for the U.S. and the countries from which immigrants come. The September 2025 “Presidential Proclamation on Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers”²³ required new H-1B petitions to be accompanied by a $100,000 payment. India is among the countries hardest hit by this new rule,²⁴ as around 70 percent of H-1B visa holders are Indian,²⁵ and the highest percentage of Indian immigrants lives in California. Indian tech firms based in the United States are increasingly concerned, given their reliance on H-1B visa holders to fill their employment needs. New Delhi described the change in H-1B visa rules as likely to have “humanitarian consequences by way of the disruption caused for families,” and has further fueled tensions between the two countries.²⁶

California, in particular, appears committed to its relationships with China, Canada, and Mexico. California’s manufacturers, workers, farmers, businesses, and supply chains rely heavily on trade with those countries. Governor Gavin Newsom called for long-standing trade partners to make California-made products exempt from retaliatory efforts,²⁷ and even went so far as to file a lawsuit to end the Trump administration’s tariffs.²⁸ California remains one of the most, if not the most, outspoken subnational entities when it comes to the current federal foreign policy practices.

Asia

In the face of U.S. tensions with allies, a majority of Californians (52 percent) believe that U.S. security alliances benefit both the United States and our allies. This is true across all demographics, including bipartisan support, with 57 percent of Democrats, 52 percent of Republicans, and a plurality of 42 percent of independents agreeing that U.S. security alliances are mutually beneficial. 

In 2023 and 2024, when Californians were asked “how would you rate the current state of relations between the United States and China,” and given the options of “excellent,” “good,” “fair,” or “poor,” they tended to rate the relationship as either fair or poor. In 2025, Californians are once again split about the nature of the U.S.-China relationship, in believing the U.S.-China relationship is either fair (38 percent) or poor (38 percent). In 2024, a plurality of Democrats found the relationship to be fair (46 percent), and 55 percent of Republicans and 49 percent of independents found the relationship to be poor. In 2025, a plurality of Democrats flipped to finding the relationship between the U.S. and China to be poor (45 percent). In 2025, a plurality of Republicans and independents also flipped their answers. Forty-six percent of Republicans and 43 percent of independents believe the relationship is fair. As in 2023 and 2024, in 2025, a majority (88 percent) of Californians continue to believe relations between China and the United States are important. This belief has steadily increased throughout the years. 

Economic issues remain the priority for Californians with regard to the U.S.-China relationship. In 2025, Californians believe economic issues (36 percent) and cooperation on regional and global issues (31 percent) are most important when it comes to U.S.-Japan relations. This is similar to responses in 2023 and 2024, when they were split between cooperation on regional and global issues (35 percent in 2024), as well as economic issues (27 percent in 2024). As for relations between the United States and South Korea, in 2024, Californians believed cooperation on regional and global issues (28 percent) and security issues (22 percent) to be the most important issues (cooperation on regional and global issues was also the top pick in 2023). In 2025, Californians rank cooperation on regional and global issues (30 percent) and economic issues (22 percent) to be the most important when it comes to U.S. relations with South Korea. In 2025 Californians are again split, like in 2024, between believing both economic issues (34 percent) and cooperation on regional and global issues (29 percent) with India are important; however, Californians are more likely to answer economic issues in 2025 than in 2024, when Californians believed economic issues (25 percent) and cooperation on regional and global issues (31 percent) to be the most important to U.S. and India relations.

Notably, the topic of Taiwan sovereignty was absent from Trump’s October 2025 conversation with Chinese President Xi Jinping.²⁹ In previous years, we asked Californians if they supported Taiwan’s sovereignty from China, and Californians indicated a significant level of support. In 2025, we ask Californians which U.S. policy they are most supportive of in regard to Taiwan’s sovereignty from China: security assistance to Taiwan; official support of the One China Policy; or that the U.S. should shift its focus away from the China-Taiwan issue to other policy priorities. Overall, Californians (41 percent) are most supportive of security assistance to Taiwan.

Mexico

Claudia Sheinbaum became Mexico’s first female president shortly before Trump was elected. In committing to helping the United States secure the southern border and to curbing the trafficking of drugs and firearms into the United States, while also complying with trade restrictions, Mexico and its president are striking a balance between maintaining its sovereignty and sustaining its economy. California residents appear cognizant of this balancing act.

Californians’ answers, when thinking about the United States’ relationship with Mexico, varied throughout the last three years. In 2023, a plurality of Californians (34 percent) felt economic issues were the most important. In 2024, with the addition of the “security issues” option, a plurality (34 percent) felt “security issues” were the most important issues when it came to U.S.-Mexico relations. In 2025, Californians’ views are more varied. Their top concern is with “economic issues” (30 percent), closely followed by “cooperation on regional and global issues” (25 percent) and “security issues” (24 percent). This split is also seen across age groups and California regions. However, there is a notable partisan divide in that Democrats believe “economic issues” (37 percent) and “cooperation on regional and global issues” (31 percent) are most important. Independents are also split between those two options, with 31 percent selecting “economic issues” and 27 percent selecting “cooperation on regional and global issues.” A plurality of Republicans, on the other hand, are most concerned with “security issues” (45 percent).

Migration

On inauguration day, the president signed ten executive orders and proclamations relating to U.S. immigration policy and law.³⁰ These EOs, as well as those that have since been issued, seek to expand efforts to arrest, detain, and remove undocumented immigrants nationwide and revoke several Biden-era immigration policies, including those focused on protecting and expanding legal status. The policy changes around legal status put documented immigrants at risk of being in violation of U.S. immigration laws. Tightening policies around legal pathways such as asylum, refugee admissions, parole,³¹ Temporary Protected Status (TPS),³² Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA),³³ green cards, and work permits and visas, like H-1Bs, are among these efforts. The administration’s immigration policies have even gone so far as to contest long-standing constitutionally guaranteed rights, such as birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.³⁴

Several subnational jurisdictions have sought to slow the administration’s anti-immigrant agenda. Sanctuary cities, Los Angeles among them, are under particular scrutiny.³⁵ Starting in June 2025, the federal government sent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to LA, circumventing local government objections, to arrest, detain, and deport undocumented immigrants. City residents responded with large-scale protests. In response to the protests, the Trump administration deployed active-duty Marines and National Guard. The deployment of troops prompted California Governor Gavin Newsom to sue the Trump administration over what he believes to be an unconstitutional deployment.³⁶ In October 2025, the Trump administration called off plans to send federal troops to San Francisco in part due to objections from tech leaders.³⁷

This year’s events around immigration, in particular, reveal the historical complexity of relationships between the federal government and subnational jurisdictions, especially that of California.

This year’s events around immigration, in particular, reveal the historical complexity of relationships between the federal government and subnational jurisdictions, especially that of California.³⁸ Home to over 10 million immigrants, or about 27 percent of the state’s population (double the national average), California’s economy, culture, and identity are inextricably linked to its immigrant communities.³⁹ The deportation and restrictions of those communities jeopardize the many parts that make California, California, which is why the Golden State is among the staunchest of opponents to federal interference.

American Values, Migration Levels, and the Southern Border

A near majority (48 percent) of Californians feel the deportation of undocumented immigrants is inconsistent with American values. There are regional differences to the question. Californians who are rurally located are split on believing deportations are inconsistent (30 percent), consistent (26 percent), or unrelated (28 percent) to American values. A majority of big city and small city residents and a plurality of suburban area and small-town residents believe overall that deportations are inconsistent with American values.

However, while Californians feel the current deportation of undocumented immigrants is inconsistent with American values, a plurality (46 percent) of Californians believe that some undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. should be deported rather than all undocumented immigrants or no undocumented immigrants. A plurality (39 percent) of eighteen- to twenty-nine-year-olds believe that no undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. should be deported. However, this answer is closely followed by 33 percent answering that some undocumented immigrants should be deported. Adults older than thirty agree that some undocumented immigrants should be deported. Perhaps related to the differing generational answers, when it comes to different employment statuses, a plurality of students (47 percent) believe that no undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. should be deported. Whereas full-time and part-time workers, temporarily laid off, unemployed, retired, permanently disabled individuals, and homemakers are most likely to believe that some undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. should be deported.  

In 2024, we asked Californians whether they believed immigration should be kept at its present level, increased, or decreased, and respondents believed it should be decreased (35 percent), closely followed by kept at the present level (28 percent). In 2025, the split is even closer, with 31 percent believing immigration should stay at the present level, 29 percent believing it should increase, and 27 percent believing it should decrease. This split is seen across gender and age. Forty-nine percent of Californians remain consistent in their 2024 belief (46 percent) that migration is a transnational rather than domestic issue. 

As it comes to the southern U.S. border, a plurality (40 percent) of Californians believe that immigration is both a border and community issue. Democrats (39 percent), Republicans (45 percent), and independents (52 percent) are in agreement that immigration is both a border and community issue. Only those eighteen to twenty-nine years old are split on thinking it’s either a community issue (23 percent), border issue (23 percent), or both (22 percent). Whereas adults older than thirty believe immigration falls into both issue buckets. In 2024, when Californians saw a great deal (35 percent) or a fair amount (26 percent) of the southern border as a crisis. In 2025, the percentage of Californians who see the southern border as in crisis has decreased notably.

ICE Raids, LA Protests, and Federal v. Local

When it comes to the June 2025 ICE raids of undocumented immigrants in LA and the subsequent protests, 40 percent of Californians are supportive of the protests, while 21 percent are supportive of the ICE raids, and 23 percent oppose both. A plurality of Californians located in the San Francisco Bay Area (47 percent), Orange County/San Diego (41 percent), and Los Angeles (39 percent) are supportive of the protests. However, residents of the Central Valley, while most are supportive of the protests (35 percent), also show opposition to both the protests and ICE raids (26 percent). Inland Empire is also split, with supporting the protests (34 percent) and opposing both the protests and raids (28 percent).

In 2023 and 2024, we asked Californians whether they believe “the federal government is doing too much, the right amount, or not enough to respond to immigration challenges.” A majority of Californians in 2023 (57 percent) and 2024 (58 percent) believed the federal government was not doing enough. For the first time in three years, Californians swayed in the opposite direction in 2025, with 44 percent now believing the federal government is doing too much. This holds across gender, race, region, and education. As it comes to partisan answers, Democrats (63 percent) and independents (44 percent) believe the government is doing too much, whereas Republicans (50 percent) think the federal government is doing the right amount. As for immigration status, Californians born in the U.S. believe the federal government is doing too much (46 percent), whereas immigrants are somewhat split, with a plurality believing that the federal government is doing too much (36 percent), but this is closely followed by others believing the federal government is not doing enough (29 percent). 

In 2025, over half (37 percent strongly favor, 20 percent somewhat favor) of Californians favor “the California state and local governments making their own policies, separate from the federal government, to protect the legal rights of undocumented immigrants in California.” In 2023, about half of Californians also agreed (20 percent “strongly” and 28 percent “somewhat”) that their state government should make its own policies—separate from the federal government—to protect the legal rights of undocumented immigrants in California. Both 2023 and 2025 differ from the way Californians answered in 2024, where they were about evenly split with agreeing (18 percent strongly agree and 25 percent somewhat agree) and disagreeing (16 percent somewhat disagree and 25 percent strongly disagree).

Migration and the Economy

When Californians were asked whether they believe “immigrants contribute to the U.S./state economy or take opportunities from workers already in the country,” a majority of Californians (69 percent) indicate that they believe immigrants contribute to the U.S./state economy. This position has increased from 57 percent of Californians in 2024.

When it comes to the relationship between undocumented immigrant deportations and the cost of living, Californians are split between whether the deportations will increase (27 percent), decrease (24 percent), or have no effect (26 percent) on housing costs. This compares the national response to a Pew Research poll, in which 19 percent of U.S. residents believe deportations will increase prices, 22 percent believe housing prices will decrease, and 31 percent believe deportations will not affect prices.⁴⁰ Meanwhile, a plurality (42 percent) of U.S. residents believe deportations will increase the price of food, and U.S. residents are split in terms of the price of consumer goods (clothing, appliances, electronics, and cars), with 26 percent thinking deportations will increase prices and 33 percent thinking deportations will not affect prices. A majority of Californians believe the deportation of undocumented immigrants will increase the price of food and consumer goods. There is a notable and ongoing partisan divide on this issue. Republicans are the only demographic that is split between whether deportations will increase (29 percent), decrease (25 percent), or have no effect (30 percent) on the price of food and consumer goods. Where Democrats (70 percent) and a plurality of independents (46 percent) believe prices will increase. 

Section 4. California and Subnational Affairs

Since 2023, we have been surveying Californians on their support for subnational diplomacy, or the engagement by state and local leaders with their foreign counterparts, at the subnational, national, and international levels. Despite California’s diverse and deep transnational connections and despite the maturation of subnational diplomacy itself, the idea of international engagement by state and local leaders received only muted support. Reflecting the boutique nature of subnational diplomacy itself, many Californians simply didn’t know where they stood with regard to such engagement.

A Moment for Subnational Diplomacy?

In that context, a number of developments in 2025 suggest the next couple of years may be an important moment for subnational diplomacy. While U.S. foreign policy undergoes a radical shift in both policy and tone, Californians, as captured in this survey, maintain fairly stable views on the importance of diplomacy and development. What is more, federal-state tensions on a number of issues, such as migration, democracy, and climate, extend to the realm of international relations.

Two-thirds of survey respondents report feeling at least somewhat concerned over potential disconnects between U.S. foreign policy and the priorities of Californians.

This year, two-thirds of survey respondents report feeling at least somewhat concerned over potential disconnects between U.S. foreign policy and the priorities of Californians. This is a notable change from last year. In 2024, just under half of respondents reported feeling this level of concern. Tracking this sentiment, Californians are also increasingly concerned with potential punitive policy actions by the federal government against California and jurisdictions therein, a number which increased from 12 percent in 2024 to 35 percent in 2025.

A corresponding shift in support for subnational diplomacy is evident though less dramatic. When asked whether California officials should pursue global engagement, including memorandums of understanding (MOUs), joint declarations, and policy exchanges with leaders from other nations, 42 percent of Californians responded yes, an increase from 34 percent in 2024 and 33 percent in 2023. A significant partisan divide emerges around this question, with Democrats responding “yes” at 61 percent and Republicans at only 21 percent.

Support for subnational diplomacy between state and local leaders in California and their counterparts abroad has also increased. In 2023 and 2024, responses were evenly split three ways between support, opposition, and uncertainty, but in 2025, support for California leaders to engage with local leaders in other nations rose to 42 percent of all respondents. Partisan divide has also slightly increased over time around this issue, with 59 percent of Democrats and only 22 percent of Republicans in support of engagement between local leaders this year.

While support for subnational diplomacy has inched upward, the priorities Californians hold for such engagement have also shifted. Trade has risen in priority for state and local engagement with the leaders of other nations (16 percent in 2023, 21 percent in 2024, 31 percent in 2025), while climate change has been deprioritized in terms of peer-to-peer engagement (49 percent in 2023, 45 percent in 2024, 29 percent in 2025).

Looking Ahead

Whether it be extreme climate events, landmark AI legislation, or subnational climate leadership, California was in the national and international spotlight in 2025. Californians are acutely aware of policy changes being made in Washington and their local impacts. In 2026, California will find itself in the limelight once again with a crowded and high-profile governor’s race, a host of World Cup games, and as facilitator of G20 side meetings, like the U20. We look forward to once again taking the temperature on how residents of California are thinking about these notable events.

Annex 1

Advisers

Kiran Jain, chief legal officer, Replica and lecturer, UC Berkeley

Charlotte Lee, instructor, Political Science, Berkeley City College

Ryan Liu, governing board member, Pasadena City College

Jesus Murillo, New Mexico congressional delegation federal grants coordinator, U.S. Senate

Medaya Ocher, editor-in-chief, Los Angeles Review of Books

Gabe Petek, legislative analyst, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, California Legislature 

Ethan Rarick, executive director, Little Hoover Commission 

Daniel J. Sargent, co-director, Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley

Nicholas Shafer, adjunct faculty, Political Science, UC Berkeley

Moira Shourie, executive director, Zócalo Public Square

Alexis Atsilvsgi Zaragoza, community economic development coordinator and policy analyst, University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources

About the Authors

Ian Klaus is founding director of Carnegie California, the West Coast office and program of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Mark Baldassare is a nonresident scholar at Carnegie California. He is survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is also a senior fellow at the Bedrosian Center on Governance in the Sol Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California.

Marissa Jordan is the program manager for Carnegie California at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Since 2018, she has supported a wide range of institutional initiatives, including work within the Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program; the Europe Program; the Global Order and Institutions Program; the Sustainability, Climate, and Geopolitics Program; and Carnegie’s research on artificial intelligence.

Abigail Manalese is an intern with Carnegie California at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She is a recent graduate of the University of California, Los Angeles, where her research focused on intersections between international human rights law, migration, and refugee policy. Previously, she served as a research coordinator for student-led ethnographic projects at Foothill College, a research assistant for a project on organizational behavior and policymaking at Stanford University, and as a Global Affairs Fellow with Meridian International Center in D.C.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Alexander Marsolais, Kara Eytcheson, and Sarah Higdon of YouGov for conducting the survey with immense care and rigor. Special thank you to Sarah Camacho, research assistant for Carnegie’s Asia Program, and Daevan Mangalmurti, junior fellow for Carnegie’s Sustainability, Climate, and Geopolitics Program for their Spanish translation. Thank you to Carnegie’s communications team: Alana Brase, managing editor; Anjuli Das, associate editor; Helena Jordheim, assistant editor; Amy Mellon, senior graphic designer; and Jocelyn Soly, creative director, for their amazing work on editing this paper and creating the incredible graphics to go along with it.