• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
{
  "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 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 Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Why Has Kazakhstan Started Deporting Political Activists?

    The current U.S. indifference to human rights means Astana no longer has any incentive to refuse extradition requests from its authoritarian neighbors—including Russia.

      Temur Umarov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Why Are China and Russia Not Rushing to Help Iran?

    Most of Moscow’s military resources are tied up in Ukraine, while Beijing’s foreign policy prioritizes economic ties and avoids direct conflict.   

      • Alexander Gabuev

      Alexander Gabuev, Temur Umarov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    What Does War in the Middle East Mean for Russia–Iran Ties?

    If the regime in Tehran survives, it could be obliged to hand Moscow significant political influence in exchange for supplies of weapons and humanitarian aid.

      Nikita Smagin

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    How Far Can Russian Arms Help Iran?

    Arms supplies from Russia to Iran will not only continue, but could grow significantly if Russia gets the opportunity.

      Nikita Smagin

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    The Kremlin Is Destroying Its Own System of Coerced Voting

    The use of technology to mobilize Russians to vote—a system tied to the relative material well-being of the electorate, its high dependence on the state, and a far-reaching system of digital control—is breaking down.

      Andrey Pertsev

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.