American voter support for the war in Iran is eroding rapidly following the collapse of the ceasefire process, with public opposition reaching historic levels in a remarkably short timeframe.

According to a survey conducted by Reuters/Ipsos, four out of five respondents anticipate that the hostilities will persist for a long time. Meanwhile, nearly half of those surveyed in a The Economist/YouGov poll estimate that the war will last for a year or longer. As public backing for the military campaign disintegrates, Donald Trump’s net approval rating for his decision to attack Iran has plummeted to minus 30%.

While it took six years of active involvement in the Vietnam War for public opposition to reach such a critical threshold, the war in Iran has generated a comparable level of rejection in just six months.

Speaking to The Economist, Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia emphasized that the key takeaway is not merely the depth of the opposition, but the unprecedented speed with which it has formed. Sabato noted that the conflict in Iran has registered the lowest level of public support of any American military engagement since polling on such interventions began, a trend that has remained constant since day one. Warning that a prolonged conflict will inevitably drive up costs, Sabato projected that this dynamic will translate into a severe political penalty for Trump and the Republican Party in the upcoming midterm elections.

Historically, US military interventions have initially enjoyed robust public support before gradually decaying over time. For instance, the US-led operations launched against the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001 initially secured the backing of approximately 90% of the public.

At the time, President George W. Bush presented a clear, direct justification for the invasion, targeting the Taliban for harboring the terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks. According to Gallup data, it took 13 years for public support for the occupation—which ultimately claimed the lives of more than 2,000 US service members and wounded another 20,000—to fall below 50%.

Economic consequences directly impact voters

Thus far, 17 US service members have been killed in Trump’s war in Iran. While this figure is low from a strictly military standpoint, the economic ramifications of the conflict have directly and rapidly disrupted the daily lives of American consumers.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which was fully open prior to the military operations, has triggered a sharp rise in fuel prices. Although Trump has asserted that the US military presence has broken the regional blockade and enabled oil to flow at higher volumes than ever, concrete economic data does not support his claims.

The price of Brent crude oil has climbed from $72 to $88 per barrel since the beginning of July. In the domestic retail market, the average price of gasoline in the US has risen from approximately $3 per gallon before the war to nearly $4 per gallon.

Gallup historical data shows that during the Vietnam War, which involved large numbers of American ground troops, voters consistently identified the conflict as the most important problem facing the nation.

While the war in Iran has not yet been designated in those exact terms, voters consistently identify the high cost of living and a lack of leadership as their primary concerns in current polling. This shift indicates that despite the relatively low number of military casualties, the war in Iran is poised to become a major electoral liability for the Republican Party.

Support for the military campaign is also sharply polarized along political lines. Among Democratic voters, the net approval rating for the war stands at minus 84%, while among independents it rests at minus 52%.

Even within the “MAGA” Republican base—the only major demographic group to back the initiative, with a 72% approval rating—cracks are beginning to appear. According to a Washington Post/Ipsos poll, more than half of Trump’s core supporters indicated for the first time that they approve of his job performance only “partially” rather than “strongly.” Among Republicans who do not self-identify with the MAGA movement, support for the war has swung from a positive net approval of 26% in April to a net negative of 25%.

Budgetary debates in Congress

In response to the shifting public mood, Democratic lawmakers are intensifying their opposition. During the July 14 confirmation hearing for Jules Hurst, the nominee to oversee the Pentagon’s budget, Democratic senators accused the administration of systematically understating the financial toll of the conflict.

The Pentagon has put the cost of the war at approximately $30 billion, asserting that the figure primarily reflects spent munitions and fuel.

However, Senator Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat from Michigan, estimated that the true cost is more than six times that amount when factoring in the repair costs for American bases and the broader economic damages suffered by consumers. Slotkin also criticized the Pentagon’s commercial relationships with companies in which Trump’s sons hold business interests.

Conversely, Representative Mike Lawler, a Republican fighting to retain his seat in a highly competitive district in New York, dismissed the opposition’s criticisms as “nonsense.”

Lawler argued that Trump made a difficult but necessary decision to eliminate the threats posed by Iran’s nuclear program and its active sponsorship of terrorist groups. While acknowledging that he does not know how long the conflict will last, Lawler maintained that the Iranian regime is untrustworthy and only understands the language of military force. His Democratic opponent, military veteran Cait Conley, countered that Trump has dragged the United States into a conflict lacking clear military objectives or a viable exit strategy.

According to The Economist‘s midterm election forecasting model, Lawler faces a 68% probability of losing his seat in November. The same model projects an 82% probability that Democrats will win a majority in the House of Representatives, and a 45% chance of taking control of the Senate.

Aaron David Miller of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace observed that Trump’s compounding difficulties in extricating the US from Iran recall the famous lament of former US President Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War: “I feel like a hitchhiker caught in a hailstorm on a Texas highway. I can’t run, I can’t hide, and I can’t make it stop.”

The five largest banks in the United States have reported record profits, driven by an artificial intelligence boom and market volatility triggered by conflict involving Iran.

JPMorgan, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup generated a combined profit of $49 billion in the second quarter, according to data released last week.

SpaceX’s $85 billion initial public offering drew retail investors in waves, generating approximately $500 million for the underwriting banks involved in the transaction.

Market volatility surrounding the repeated opening and closing of the Strait of Hormuz, alongside ongoing debates over whether artificial intelligence represents a brighter future or an existential threat, also boosted bank revenues.

Revenues from significantly higher investment banking fees during a surge in mergers and acquisitions, alongside deals with artificial intelligence companies upgrading their infrastructure, further contributed to the gains.

However, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon tempered expectations during the bank’s earnings announcement.

While praising the “resilience” of the US economy and noting that business conditions were almost “as good as they can get”, Dimon also issued a warning.

“Several risks, including geopolitical tensions and wars, stubborn inflation, large global fiscal deficits, and high asset prices, are shifting beneath the surface like tectonic plates,” Dimon said.

“We cannot predict how these forces will ultimately play out,” Dimon added.

During Goldman Sachs’ earnings call, CEO David Solomon stated that the banking sector is “in the midst of an AI capital expenditure supercycle” driven by investments in artificial intelligence infrastructure.

Further artificial intelligence initial public offerings are also on the horizon. Anthropic’s upcoming listing will be led by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, while OpenAI has yet to decide which banks will lead its own process.

The latest capacity auction conducted by PJM Interconnection, the largest electrical grid operator in the United States, has revealed that surging energy demand from data centers will add billions of dollars to electricity bills across 13 states in the coming years.

PJM released the results of its recent auction, which secures electricity capacity for a 13-state region for the period spanning June 2028 through May 2029.

Monitoring Analytics, the independent market monitor for PJM, determined that of the $16.4 billion in total capacity market costs resulting from the auction, approximately $6.3 billion is directly driven by the demand generated by data centers.

According to data from the market monitor, the demand from data centers has added a cumulative $29.4 billion to electricity costs across the last four PJM capacity auctions.

Joseph Bowring, the president of Monitoring Analytics, stated that the market watchdog’s position is that “data center load should be removed from the capacity market and procured through a special auction.”

“This method would allow data centers to access capacity through a market mechanism while ensuring they pay their own capacity costs, thereby preventing these costs from being shifted to other consumers,” Bowring said.

Consumer advocacy groups also expressed deep concern over the impact of data centers on electricity pricing following the release of the auction results.

“Right now, we are facing a wave of extreme and very rapidly growing demand driven by data centers, and the market was not prepared for this,” said Clara Summers, campaign manager for Consumers for a Better Grid.

Summers noted that while prices in this auction remained at levels similar to other recent auctions, consumers can expect their utility bills to remain comparably high for the foreseeable future.

Julia Kortrey, director of strategic initiatives for the state program at Evergreen Action, stated that the high prices have now become “largely locked in.”

“We are unlikely to see any relief until the 2030s from any moves PJM could make to improve the situation,” Kortrey said.

PJM operates the power grid serving 67 million people across the eastern and midwestern United States, covering Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

The grid operator announced that, as was the case in the previous auction for the 2027–2028 delivery year, it was unable to procure a sufficient amount of electricity capacity to meet its reliability targets.

To address this shortfall, PJM is requesting authorization from federal regulators to conduct a special “Backstop Procurement Auction.”

“These auction results demonstrate that electricity demand continues to grow faster than electricity supply,” David Mills, president and chief executive officer of PJM, said in a written statement.

“PJM is aware of the impact this supply and demand imbalance has on system reliability and consumer costs. We are working on multiple fronts with government and industry leaders to restore this balance by bringing new generation online as quickly as possible and managing the growth of new load on the grid,” Mills added.

While the statement did not reference data centers directly, PJM has recently reported that electricity demand from data centers represents the fastest-growing sector of load growth on its system.