before a senate subcommittee regarding antitrust enforcement reform. both of these events live here c-span3. also, i tried what app or mobile app, or our website, c- span.org. c-span is your unfiltered view of government . we are funded by these television companies and more, including cox. would connection is needed most. cox is there to help. are you a nonfiction lever looking for a new podcast? this holiday season, try listening to one of the podcasts

c-span has to offer. you listen to interviews with people at authors writing history and subjects that matter. learn something new on book notes plus through conversations with authors and historians. afterwards brings together selling authors with influential interviewers, for wide ranging, hour-long conversations. what about books , about the importance of books with the nonfiction industry at authors. find all of our podcasts by downloading the free c-span app now, or whatever you get your podcast. washington director of the focuss on a new survey of what americans' views on international spending, international engagement. i guess, washington director of the ronald reagan foundation and institute, a group whose mission is what? >> to advance president reagan's legacy broadly speaking in washington, d.c., the director of the reagan

institute, as you mentioned. here, we work on taking reagan ideas, principles and values, making sure those involved in public policy, whether it be congress, not leaders here in town are looking at reagan's ideas and principles as evidenced public policy. the foundation, it is a 501(c)(3), since they started the library back in 1991, the institute in d.c. has been around about six or seven years. we have our presence right next to the hotel across the street from the white house on 16th street. >> and wendy decide to start surveying americans or their views on international engagement and the ravings we will talk about? >> president reagan had a strong influence on american leadership in the world, particularly on advancing strength. and we for some time had been engaging with america's thought leaders and american officials on this issue and felt there was a gap in where the views are because the american people

often times you hear elected officials talk about the american people x, american people believe y, but not backed up by a lot of evidence. what we sought to do with our survey is make sure when it comes to foreign policy, national defense issues, there was an annual survey that was a pretty deep dive into the issues, and make sure our elected officials and policymakers make sure they know where the american people actually are on those questions. people did u rvey? >> we were in the field just after the election. november, 2500 people were reached out to buy our ing servicessome questions were just over 1500, ovit was 2500 respondent >> and topline numbers from the server this year, including 61% of trump voters who prefer a quote, engaged internationalist american leadership approach on the international stage, 79% strongly support an increased defense spending, the highest level ever recorded on one of

the surveys, and 71% supported more defense spending in the institute's summer 2023 polling. >> that was really the one that got our attention, as you mentioned. 57% of the american people believe america should be leading in the world. nothing surprising to many of those who have looked at our survey, 61% of trump voters, there is a big, broad coalition that put president trump back into office. there is certainly a pockets of those voters, a slice of those voters who look to reduce america's role in the world. as a survey bears out, the majority are actually in line, the very reaganesque worldview, 61%, that is up significantly, not just from where we were as you mentioned in our last survey, where we so where trump

voters were, but there are some demographics that stand out, in addition to trump voters, young voters want to see america leading the world. significant jump i would say about 30% since our last survey. >> that 61% engaged in your american leadership approach, is that at odds with a campaign slogan, a campaign platform that is america first? >> i think it is the question how do you have america first? what is america first? what is survey bears out both in terms of what leadership is and what president trump campaign order, peace, you can stitch together how the american people are interpreting that. american leadership in the world needs to first about america's national interest. you will not hear the trump supporters, folks going into the trump administration talking about america supporting the rules-based international order, that is not a part of their lexicon. what you want to see in the world is america is living and their interests are being advanced. that is what 61% of those trump voters were probably getting behind. there is a recognition that from american interests, american security, american prosperity to be preserved, it

can't be done simply by fortress america. to preserve those equities, i think that is the contribution to survey this question. >> we will dive more into the survey. roger zakheim is our guest. go ahead and start calling in, our phone numbers are split this way. democrats 202-748-8000. independence, 202-748-2002. and a special one for active and retired military, 202-748- 8003. especially want to hear from you in topics related to the second part, confidence in the u.s. military was one of the subjects that was polled with 51% of respondents with a great deal of confidence in the military with another 31% stating that they have at least some confidence, that is up, as you pointed out the results from a historic low 45% who had a great deal high confidence in

the military after the withdrawal from afghanistan late 2021. >> this is actually the more important discoveries we have had since we have done our survey. we had it as far back as 2018. when we started in 2018, 70% of those surveyed had trust and confidence in the military. we divided that up into somewhat a great deal. total count was 70%. we saw this precipitous decline. and that decline bottomed out in 2021. this year's survey, the one we are talking about that was carried out in november of this year, we saw that number going up a bit to the north of 50%. institutions as a toll have taken a hit. we have seen that in our survey over years. it is a positive indication of the american people certainly have expressed, certainly in response to the survey, have increased their confidence in the u.s. military. >> what do you do with these numbers? confidence in the military, u.s. role in the world, take

these two rivers of congress, policymakers, and say, what? >> first, we make them aware and we make sure those that have a point of view, and they are doing it with the american people, they are of informed of how their views are aligned with our survey. we cannot with a reagan national defense for, which takes place every weekend in december. california valley, where the reagan library resides. there, we have secretary of defense, leaders of congress who focus on the armed services committee, the appropriations committees industry leaders, they all gather, about 700 people annually. the server is a big part of the question that drives the discussion. we want to make sure that those who are advocating for an increased u.s. role in the world are pushing for u.s. presidents in

some of those critical regions, such as the indo pacific, europe, and the middle east. they understand where the american people stand with those issues. it gives a richer conversation importantly, this is where the legacy of president reagan comes in, and he was always quite focused on the american people's voice, and then penetrate into the halls of the city and we see themselves do that through this survey. >> do you see it as a measure of americans, 51% have a great deal of confidence the u.s. can fight and win the wars of the future, or 51% have a great deal of confidence in the decision-makers leading us in fights we can win? >> it is a great question. it is hard to parse the survey, we used other questions, subsequent to converts conference questions to answer that. generally, in terms of leadership, we have other things to talk about, you ability to prevail in conflict, one of which importantly was a view of the american people, whether the u.s. can prevail with the u.s. republic of china. the people liberation, that is avidly the focus of national defense policymakers. a peer competitor in the conversation with the prc.

they are just over have to believe the u.s. can prevail. in that respect, it does kind of parallel trust and confidence numbers were just talking about a 51% of trust and confidence in the u.s. military. >> more numbers in the survey i want to get to them over the course of the segment. roger zakheim with us until our program is at 10:00 eastern. and i want to get to your calls, a republican, good morning. >> good morning. everyone is talking about the budget. why is it they can't pass-- have not done it in seven years, and most importantly, no one is held accountable for failing neurotics? how do we address that? >> great question on the audits . i think there are two things, you brought up a, this is an enterprise that is appropriate on an annual basis, just about $900 billion. we should be able to have a

clean audit. we have certain pockets in the department of defense that actually do have that audit, the marine corps stands out in terms of military services carried out and all of that. overall, the department of defense has struggled to have a comprehensive audit. the process of realizing-- and this is not survey, it does actually connect, though, to support for increased defense spending the process of carrying out an audit does actually reveal a lot of new information that helps the department of defense execute its responsibilities more efficiently. the promise of a pursuit of an audit is going on with renewed focus and purpose, releases the last trump administration, and i think that will continue in the coming trump administration , as to when the department will have a clean audit operatively, i think we are years out from that and that is a problem our caller is right to highlight it.

>> how big of a deal is this to the policymakers that you talked to, how much they care? >> policymakers care deeply about it. there is of course a variety of players, certain members of congress who have prioritized this over the years. senator grassley comes to mind in the u.s. senate. it makes the department more efficient as it pursues audit. i think i know in the previous session, we were taking calls. a lot of folks have intention department of government efficiency. you have to know where you have and where you have it. i heard in one story that because of the marine corps audit, for example, they found spare parts that were necessary for the f-35, our fifth- generation fighter article for our navy and marine corps, and of course our air force because of the audits and the result was, about 55 that were grounded were able to be put in use. the results of the process of the audit. he does have material impa on the operations for the mitary. >> use of u.s. weapons of our

last to this form survey, 43% suort giving weapons to allies. that is down 5% from last year. within that group, 54% support sending weapons to israel, 55% support sitting weapons to ukraine. what he wanted notes on that. >> a big story on military support, israel, and military support to ukraine is a deep, partisan divides. notably, when it comes to ukraine, harris voters support that by 74%, whereas, trump support is supported by 42%. the overall majority of the american people, as it is noted, the department really bears out. you almost have the flipside when it comes to support for israel in terms of assistance. that is critical, of course, because ukraine is at work now trying to defend against russian aggression and restore it solitary over all.

it is the of course of the war in gaza continues. stories today, folks know what is happening in syria with the threat for hamas, stability in gaza continues to be the focus. one thing i note, you have to delineate, not just in terms of the american people, their willingness to have your security assistance in this country, you israel and ukraine, but overall, the united states, through this survey we see with the american people a strong support for israel and ukraine. 75% of those surveyed viewed ukraine as an ally, as a partner at 74% view israel as a partner, as an ally. and just to contextualize that, 73% view japan as a partner and ally. really strong support for those countries, specific policies in terms of security assistance, is where you see the divide. >> the majority not supporting the audience of sending weapons to allies. there are some that did not answer. for that majority, what is the reason not to do arms

transfers? is it weakening the united states' weapon supply? we are not ready to fight our own battles if we are giving these weapons away, what does it say? >> we know a little about this in terms of the follow-up questions we have as it relates to ukraine. there is definite concern that the mere cost, this idea that we have our priorities, our needs, our fiscal situation here that costs too much. also concerned beyond that in terms of whether or not the u.s. stockpiles are sufficiently supplied that were able to deliver munitions, and security assistance. other countries, we need it for the u.s. military. that is contributing to concerns about security assistance, military assistance to ukraine. that for sure will be there concerns with other countries. but as you know, the majority of the american people as it relates to those particular conflicts want to see this continue. >> more calls for you. jeff is it port angeles,

washington independent. good morning. >> hey, good morning, guys. i really believe that we are wildly over spending on defense, and we always have. who is going to fight a war these days? there is no economic to fit for anybody, china-- they are going to shut down and cut their own throats on trade, or russia, how are they going to project? they can't even beat ukraine. so, i would like to see 10% slashes in defense spending, and let's get it down to a reasonable level. i think threats to the united states are wildly overblown. and obviously, we could use that money much better at home.

thanks, guys. >> well, caller has a point of view. we are wildly understanding overspending on defense. if you take a closer look, certainly not the case. now, we are hovering about 30% of gdp dedicated to defense to actually go lower to about 2.5% if you look out in the defense program out to 2030 or so. by historical standards, during the height of the cold war, when president reagan was in office, we were at 6% during korea. it was about 12% world war ii, it was about a third of what we are spending. what we have today in terms of defense spending as a percentage of gdp, gross domestic product, is actually what we were spending roughly at the end of the cold war. it surprises a lot of people. now is a moment when truly there was no competitor. we had the feet of the soviet union. we were taking a piece

of it, and luckily the same level of defense spending. in my view, this is where i disagree with the caller about a look at the world into the united states as a safer competitor, that we have not seen generations in china, but that means militarily, china is engaged in the largest military buildup in generations. you have to go back to what the soviet union did after the cuban missile crisis to the military buildup that we are witnessing out of beijing. if you ask yourself, we all have to ask ourselves, what are they building toward? what are they seeking to do? if you look at defense leaders, and this was the trump administration, a view of the biden administration. what they are doing is actually attacking our interests, not just in the pacific, which of course as the caller noted, actually globally more and more in the western hemisphere, actually even the continental united states. we saw the blue gate not too

long ago. and you add to that, what russia is doing assertively, they have been bogged down by ukraine. that is a result of your security support. ukrainians have fought nobly in ukraine, fending off russian aggression. at the same time, they would not have been able to do that without security assistance of the united states . that is important, not just for ukraine's sovereignty and the freedom on the part of ukrainians, that is important for u.s. national security interests. vladimir putin, as we know, is an aggressor who have been able to capture ukraine, you would likely have gone on to weakened native nato allies, that would have put the u.s. in a constant position. in 2008, invaded georgia, 2014, he annexed crimea. i think the caller is perhaps too optimistic about the security situation globally. and i think as u.s. defense spending, my view, and the view

of the american people frankly, is overfunded. think back did ronald reagan ever face a defense cut from congress? >> president reagan when he was in office rent on a platform going into office of peace, strength, and rebuilding our national defense is. it got so bad during the tenure of president jimmy carter, that he actually had an election mandate to build up and there was bipartisan support in congress to do so. he did that from the time he entered office january 1991, --1981 , and much throughout his time in office when he left in 1989. by 1986, 1987, members of congress started pulling back a bit, but overall, it was net increase year-over-year, as i mentioned, just over 6% of gdp, seven to 10% growth annually, 81, 82, 83. that was the strait that really allowed for the peace that resulted by the time he left office in 1989. floyd is in iowa. a line from republicans.

>> let's talk about the military and the confidence in the military. we had a secretary-- i think we still have a secretary of defense in austin, he took time off for surgery and did not tell anybody, and as far as i know, he never appointed a second in command. that is one of first things you learn in the military. as i understand, this allstate is still there. he did not get fired. is that true? >> secretary of defense austin is still there. in fact, speaking saturday, he announced a defense forum, a new ukraine security package. let me show you a minute and a half from saturday. >> i am proud to announce today the commitment of a new ukraine security assistance addition package worth nearly $1 billion. [ applause ] now, that package will provide a framework where

drones, rockets for timer systems, and support for crucial maintenance and sustaining. that brings the total of your security assistance committed to ukraine since february 2022 to more than $62 billion. the engine of our efforts has been a ukraine defense contact group, which were spent in april 2022 at ramzi airbase in germany. the context has assured that ukraine has what it needs to defend itself and deter more russian aggression. contact route 24 times now. it's others have committed $57 billion in direct security support, or security systems to ukraine. as a percentage of gdp, more than a dozen contact group

members now provide more security assistance to ukraine that the united states does. and together, we have helped ukraine survive an all out assault by the largest military in europe. >> lloyd austin at defense for him over the weekend. >> not just any defense forum, the reagan defense forum i referenced earlier that we hold annually the first weekend in december. secretary austin has been with us each year he served as secretary of defense. of course, this was the fourth time he visited and made the news, as you noted, in terms of what the department of defense is doing to support ukraine in the final weeks of the biden administration. >> did he talk about the results of this survey, or did you get the chance to go through it with him? >> absolutely. secretary austin rep referenced the search in the speech and it was about national defense and military spending. noted that the military support

increasing the defense budget. he made a set of arguments as to how the biden administration has contributed to that. in my own view, it has not been sufficient in reference with the call earlier. >> what are your conversations like with the incoming trump administration, are you having those? >> officials, as you know, are being named and announced, of course those who require senate confirmation they just designated. they are not speaking for the trump administration. there are others, like walz, announced as national security advisor, alex wallin is deputy advisor. president trump, in response to the survey, he is the first president to run on a platform of peace strength since ronald reagan ran on that back in 1980 . i think we are pushing for the survey to show how they can stitch together a piece to strength that form that is reflective of the viewpoints and aspirations of the american people.

defense spending on the way to israel policy and ukraine policy. one of the things that came in on the survey it relates to the clip you just showed of secretary austin is what the trump administration policy will be as it relates to ukraine. president trump announced that attorney general keith kellogg will be the special envoy for ukraine. our survey shows that 59% of americans support peace negotiations, even if ukraine was required to give up or concede territory. as far as trump voters, 63% support that and harass voters it is 54% as well. you see, pretty much consensus around doing that. how they go about that is quite important. brings another element of the survey. i will wrap up with this, 75% of those surveyed believe that ukraine is an ally. 85% believe that russia is an adversary or enemy.

a certain percentage of those negotiations, he is famously said he was the conflict to come to an end the time he is inaugurated. the survey shows that the american people clearly know whatever that negotiated outcome looks like, who the friend is and who the adversary is. >> greg is next in wilmington, connecticut. you are on with roger zakheim. greg, are you with us? >> good morning. hi, good morning. i don't see any defense spending. i see an offensive spending. starting with vietnam, going to afghanistan in the 80s, the late 80s, early 90s, and then to iraq, syria, afghanistan, and palestine, the slaughter has been nonstop, nonstop. i don't

see any defense as slaughtering innocent palestinian children and women. that is not defensive spending. you know, my criticism is mostly of the mainstream media, because the american public is poorly informed about what its government does. most americans would not know that we are in syria right now, basically camping out, stealing oil from syria to give it to other countries. i mean, it is insane, what our military has been spending. and saying, who has all the aircraft carriers? we do. is not defensive, it is often said. and c-span have to do a better job, that's all i'm saying. thank you. >> greg in connecticut.