More Americans are choosing the label—even when they favor one party. That distance deserves a closer look.
When Americans describe their politics, a growing share choose a label that leaves a great deal unexplained: independent.
A record 45% of U.S. adults identified that way in 2025, according to Gallup’s annual findings, compared with 27% each identifying as Democrats or Republicans. Independent identification stood at 43% in both 2023 and 2024. Before 2011, its annual average had never reached 40%.
That is a substantial change in how Americans describe their relationship with politics. What it means for how they want to be governed is a more complicated question.
Does independence signal a preference for moderation? Disagreement with a party’s policies? Discomfort with political tribalism? Or a desire to keep some distance from institutions that have failed to earn lasting allegiance?
Those questions are the starting point for Independent Ink, a new Minneapolis Times series examining politics and policy beyond the party line.
The generational evidence makes the subject particularly worth watching. Majorities of Gen Z adults and millennials identified as independent in 2025.
It would be easy to dismiss that as the familiar uncertainty of youth. People grow older, develop firmer opinions and settle into a political home. But the evidence complicates that explanation.
In a 2022 examination of generational trends, Gallup found that Gen X’s independent identification had remained approximately stable over three decades. Millennials’ identification had increased as they aged. These surveys track generations rather than the same individuals, but they suggest that independence can persist well into adulthood.
That raises a question for the parties: If people can spend decades voting, working, raising families and developing political views without adopting your label, what would it take to earn their allegiance?
Understanding these Americans requires care with another familiar assumption—that independent means centrist.
Among independents in Gallup’s 2025 findings, 47% described themselves as moderate, 27% as conservative and 24% as liberal. Moderates were the largest group, but less than half.
Even “moderate” leaves much unanswered. Someone might favor conservative fiscal policies and liberal social policies. Another person might hold strong views that fall outside the packages offered by either party. The label alone cannot tell us what either person thinks about housing, immigration, policing or health care.
For journalists, that should be an invitation to ask better questions. Where do these Americans find common ground? Which disagreements matter most to them? What would persuade them that a policy deserves support?
The relationship between independence and party preference is equally important.
Gallup’s independent total included, as shares of all adults, 20% who leaned Democratic, 15% who leaned Republican and 10% who leaned toward neither party.
The gap between preference and identity may be the most revealing part of the story. A voter can decide that one party offers the better available choice while remaining unwilling to adopt its label. A vote can express a practical judgment without becoming a declaration of belonging.
Research from Pew gives that distinction substance.
In a report published October 2, based on a May–June 2026 survey, Pew found that 41% of Republican leaners and 40% of Democratic leaners cited disagreement on important issues as a major reason they declined to identify with their preferred party. Those figures were up from 31% and 30%, respectively, in 2022.
Roughly four in ten leaners on each side cited frustration with party leadership. About a quarter cited not caring enough about politics. Respondents could give multiple reasons; Pew’s leaners included independents and people identifying with another party.
These findings suggest that parties should be cautious about interpreting electoral support as broad approval. Winning someone’s vote leaves open how much confidence that person places in the party’s leadership or agenda.
They also suggest that independence encompasses different relationships with politics, from substantive disagreement to limited engagement. Understanding those differences is more useful than assigning everyone who chooses the label a common outlook.
Voting results illustrate the point.
Pew’s analysis of the 2024 electorate, using validated turnout records and reported candidate choices, found that independents, including leaners, divided evenly: 48% supported Kamala Harris and 48% Donald Trump.
An evenly divided group can contain people with deeply different and firmly held commitments. It does not follow that every independent is an undecided voter waiting to be persuaded.
Dissatisfaction with the parties provides additional context. In an April 2026 survey, Pew found that 58% of Americans viewed the Republican Party unfavorably and 59% viewed the Democratic Party unfavorably. The share viewing both unfavorably was 26%.
Dissatisfaction helps explain the appeal of distance. It leaves the harder question of what people want government to do—and which ideas can deliver.
Independent Ink will pursue that question through news, analysis and commentary spanning policy, public opinion and political movements. We will examine promising ideas wherever they originate, asking what evidence supports them, what they would cost and what trade-offs they require. Independent organizations will receive the same scrutiny as established parties.
Readers with party affiliations belong in that conversation, alongside those who have never found a comfortable political home. Everyone should be able to question an ally’s proposal, acknowledge an opponent’s sound argument and reconsider a position when the evidence warrants it.
The growth in independent identification gives us a reason to pay attention. Learning what these Americans believe—and how their ideas might translate into better government—gives us work to do.
Independent Ink
Politics and policy beyond the party line
News, analysis, and commentary informed by ideas and evidence from across the political spectrum—questioning assumptions and examining what works.
Open primaries! Voters shouldn’t have their options limited by strictures of party primaries.
This is an insightful analysis. I have been a lifelong Dem but have been thinking about switching to Independent.
Thank you, Jean. As both “sides” have moved further apart, I wonder how many are thinking the same thing, and why.
I have, David, and I think it’s a complicated thing. I’m old enough to remember when Americans complained bitterly that there was “effectively no difference between the parties”. (Both parties recruited Eisenhower, which is a bit before my time, but illustrative.) That’s a distant memory now, of course. Later, there WAS a clear difference, but one had some Dems who still favored limitations on abortion (for example) and some in GOP who supported, say, positive health care reforms. That was the era in which I was most active, often making the argument to voters at doors that they should put the greatest weight in their voting decisions on deciding which party they wanted to be “more in charge than the other” and vote for all its candidates – and then make their feelings on individual issues known to their office-holders. Then we got to the heavy polarization, and the near-disappearance of Dems who didn’t toe the line on ALL issues that the most vocal activist Dems wanted, and vice versa for the GOP. So now my old door-knocking argument is a non-starter. It would actually be dangerous to one’s own interests to vote that way. Now, I see things really as: One needs to carefully choose one’s candidates based on NOT allowing a party (either) – that is hell-bent to do something you really abhor – get full control of any given level of government. The 2023-4 DFL Trifecta in MN was sobering to me. After they decided what the agenda was, they didn’t even allow the Committee Hearing process to lead to amendments which would clearly have improved many Bills. As I recall, Sen. Ron Latz was the ONLY DFLer in that session who publicly “revolted” from the pre-agreed party position on any issue – and he only did that on one issue! …and was vilified by many DFLers for doing so! I stay with the national Dems / MN DFL because there are still things I care deeply about that I cannot envision the GOP ever enacting. But when the DFL seems determined to enact something I truly abhor, it’s hard to be “full throttle” for them, either. This doesn’t quite make me an “independent”. Will look forward to how you define, and what you have to say about, feeling “politically homeless”, since that *sounds* different – perhaps (?) more like how the present day *feels* to me…
Thanks Jim, great insight, as usual. Your comment about >remember when Americans complained bitterly that there was “effectively no difference between the parties”< fits beautifully into the follow up to tomorrow's Politically Homeless installment, which will explore the tipping point for switching to Independent.
Love this idea. I voted for candidates of four different parties this election (early voted), and when I tell people this they look at me like I have a third eye. Kudos to you for exploring our concerns.
I suspect more people are thinking this way, but are unwilling to voice it. My next article in the pipeline will explore the politically homeless.