An April survey of swing, or moderate, voters in six battleground states suggests the impacts of an open southern border is concerning them more than events in Ukraine.
Commissioned by the conservative Heritage Foundation and executed by the non-partisan RMG Research, Inc., the poll revealed that 56 percent of those voters felt the $113 billion price tag for Ukraine support thus far was either too much or far too much. Just 14 percent thought the United States had not spent enough on military aid for Ukraine, while 16 percent rated the spending about right.
When asked to compare the importance of border security with that of Ukraine funding, 50 percent chose the border, while only 11 percent chose Ukraine; 29 percent said both were equally important.
“Heritage’s latest polling reveals that not only are moderate voters in battleground states more interested in securing our own borders, they believe we have already spent enough helping Ukraine—and rightfully so,” Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, said in a statement accompanying the survey.
RMG interviewed 1,000 swing voters in Nevada, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Michigan between April 2 and April 4.
Out of the voters surveyed, the majority—54 percent—were independent. 25 percent were Republicans and 20 percent Democrats.
“Swing voters were defined as likely voters who are either undecided on the presidential election, undecided on the generic congressional ballot, or expressed a different partisan preference on the presidential and congressional races,” a statement accompanying the survey read.
The voters RMG surveyed were tracking the border situation more closely than the conflict that heated up more than two years ago with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Also, 22 percent reported following news from America’s southern border “very closely,” while just 10 percent described a similar level of attention to news from the Ukraine-Russia war.
The results come amid a fight in the legislative branch over further military aid to Ukraine. Republicans and conservatives have argued that additional funding for the country must be conditioned on additional border security spending.
“Most of House GOP WILL NOT vote for another dollar to Ukraine unless our border is SECURED,” Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on April 11.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers is pushing House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to advance a $95 billion aid package to Ukraine and Israel, citing Iran’s attack on Israel in their April 14 letter to the lawmaker. But some House Republicans have objected to the lack of border-related funding in that package, as well as the linkage of funding for Israel and Ukraine in the same bill.
“It’s antisemitic to make Israeli aid contingent on funding Ukrainian Nazis. These should be separate bills,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) wrote on X on April 14.
In a recent press conference with Mr. Johnson, former President Donald Trump suggested Ukraine should be funded through a loan rather than aid.
The White House has rejected any standalone bill to fund Israel.
Republicans could be more likely to hold the line against the Biden administration and Democratic lawmakers if they perceive border funding as a winner, and Ukraine funding as a loser, among coveted swing voters. But the fight is far from over, with countervailing pressures on Mr. Johnson from his party’s Freedom Caucus and from top Democrats.
“The best way to help Israel against Iran and to help Ukraine against Russia is for [Speaker Johnson] and the House to pass the bipartisan, Senate-passed National Security Supplemental this week,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) wrote on X on April 14.
