Objectives “Issue ownership” of foreign policy, it is widely believed, gives an electoral advantage to the Republican Party, which generally adopts a hawkish posture. We test the popular proposition that Democrats should adopt more hawkish stances in order to offset this advantage. Methods We conducted experiments in which (fictional) candidates take hawkish or dovish positions in response to a real‐world threat to the United States. We complemented these studies with analyses of national survey data for the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. Results Our results consistently refute the popular proposition that Democrats stand to benefit from adopting more hawkish foreign policy stances. Conclusion While ownership of foreign policy may bestow a trust on the Republican Party to handle foreign policy, this is not necessarily a mandate for hawkish policies. We highlight the importance of the present political context, wherein the American public exhibits a marked weariness of U.S. military intervention overseas.