What This Report Is
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace published this survey in 2026. It asked Indian American adults about their political views, experiences with discrimination, and attitudes toward immigration during the second Trump presidency. Carnegie partnered with YouGov, a polling firm, to survey a representative sample of Indian Americans.
What We Looked At
How a study is done determines whether you can trust what it found. The Citation Integrity Dashboard (CID) evaluates methodology — how the research was conducted — not conclusions — what the research found. We classified this report as a Survey (a study that asks a defined group of people structured questions). That classification determines which of our eight scoring dimensions (categories we grade) apply and how we weight them.
What We Found
The biggest problem: you can’t check their work. Verification Standards measures whether an outside researcher could access the data and confirm the findings independently. Carnegie scored 5 out of 10 on this dimension (which means significant gaps exist). The survey data is not available for download. Carnegie does not describe any formal process for requesting access. This is the second Carnegie survey we scored with the same gap — the 2020 Indian American Attitudes Survey had the identical problem. Pew Research Center, by contrast, archives its data and documents how researchers can request it. That difference is why Pew reached Research-Grade (the highest grade band, which means the methodology meets peer-reviewed science standards) and Carnegie did not.
A smaller gap: who paid for the survey? Transparency and Governance measures whether you can identify who funds the research and who controls it. Carnegie scored 6 out of 10 here. The report names its authors and their affiliations. But it does not disclose who funded the YouGov data collection. This survey covers politically sensitive topics — Trump approval, immigration enforcement, attitudes toward DOGE. Knowing who paid for it matters.
The strong points are genuinely strong. Coverage Symmetry measures whether the survey treats all groups equally. Carnegie scored 9 out of 10. The questions apply the same structure to every religious and political subgroup. No group gets loaded questions while another gets neutral ones. Definitional Precision (whether key terms are defined clearly enough for someone else to replicate the study) scored 8 out of 10. “Discrimination” is measured through specific behavioral questions, not vague self-classification. Case Capture and Sampling (whether the people surveyed actually represent the population being studied) also scored 8 out of 10. Carnegie matched its sample to Census benchmarks and reported denominators (the total number of people who could have answered) for 89 percent of its findings.
The 2020–2026 pair is the most reliable comparison in our scored corpus. Carnegie used the same team, the same polling method, and the same demographic weighting in both surveys. That means differences in findings between 2020 and 2026 reflect real changes in Indian American attitudes — not changes in how the questions were asked.
The Bottom Line
Carnegie’s 2026 survey scored 7.4 out of 10: Adequate (which means usable with caveats — gaps exist but no structural failures detected). A non-compensatory cap was applied (a rule that prevents a high overall score from masking a serious problem in one area). Because the Verification Standards score fell below 7, the report cannot reach Research-Grade no matter how well it scores everywhere else. If Carnegie documents a formal data access process, we would reassess both the 2020 and 2026 surveys for a higher grade. The score reflects methodology only. The report’s findings about Indian American political attitudes may be entirely accurate even with these gaps.