2025. announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we're funded by these television companies and more. including midco. >> where are you going? or maybe a better question is, how far do you want to go? and how fast do you want to get there? now we're getting somewhere. so, let's go. let's go faster. let's go further. let's go beyond. announcer: midco suprts c-span as a public service, along with these other tevision providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. ournal continues. >> a focus now on a new survey

on the views on military spending and international engagement, our guest is the washington director of the washington reagan as a dental foundation institute. >> to advance president reagan's legacy broadly speaking in washington dc. the director of the reagan institute mentioning here we work on taking reagan's ideas principles and values and making sure that those engaged in public policy, thought leaders here in town are really looking at reagan ideas and principles as they advance u.s. public policy. >> how are you funded and how long has the foundation been around. >> it's a 501(c)(3) since they started the library back in 1991. the institute in d.c. has been around for about seven years. we have our presence right next to the white house on 16th street. >> when and why did decide to start surveying americans on these defense issues we are

talking about. guest: president reagan had a strong legacy on leadership in the world particularly on advancing peace through strength and we for some time have been engaging with american thought leaders and elected officials on these issues and found it really was a gap in the discussion of where the views are the american people. oftentimes your elected officials talk about americans believe x or y but it is not backed up by a lot of evidence. we sought to do with our surveys to make sure when it comes to foreign policy, and national security and defense there is a survey with a pretty deep dive to make sure elected officials and policymakers understand where the american people were. host: how money people are surveyed. guest: we did this in early november, 2500 people were reached out to buy our polling services, some questions were over 1500. overall 2500 respondents.

>> there were talking about 50% overallluding 51 percent trump voters prefer a "engaged leadership approach on the international stage. 79% struggling on increasing defense spending at the highest level ever reported on one of these surveys and 71% for more defense spending in the summer of 2023 polling and so what stuck out from you. >> the first one you mentioned was the one that got our attention. 57% of the american people believe american should be leading in the world and i think surprising to many of those who looked at our survey, 61% of trump voters. there is a big broad coalition the put president trump back into office, there is certainly a pocket of those voters who actually look to reduce america's role in the world. but the survey bears out the majority of them actually are in

line with a very reaganesque worldview. that is up significantly not just to where we were on the last survey as we saw her trump voters were but some demographics that really stand out. this is trump voters, young voters want to see america leading the world. a significant jump in the last survey. host: want to get engaged international american leadership approach is that at odds in your mind with a campaign slogan, a campaign platform that's america first. >> how you have america first, what is america first and what this survey really bears out in terms of what american leadership is and what president trump often campaigned on and you kind of stitched together how the american interpreting that. american leadership in the world should first and foremost be about america's national interest. i don't think you will hear the trump supporters going through.

that's not -- what they want to see in the world is america is leading america's interests are being advanced and that is what i think 61% of those trump voters were probably getting behind. there is a recognition for american interests, american security, american prosperity it can be done simply by fortress -- to observe those acnes require americans leading the world. >> we will dive more into this. go ahead and start calling in, phone numbers are split this way. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents 202-748-8002 and a special line for active and retired military, 202-748-8003. especially want to hear from you especially in topics related to the second part of the survey,

confidence in the u. military was one of the subjects that 51% of respondents had a great deal of confidence in the military than of the 31% saying they had at least some confidence that is up as you pointed out from the historic low of 45% who had a great deal of confidence in the military after the withdrawal from afghanistan late 2021. >> this is one of the more important discoveries we've had since we've done our survey we had it as far back as 2018 and we started the survey in 2018 70% of those surveyed had trust and confidence in the military. someone or a great deal but total count was 70% and we saw this decline and we noted that decline really bottomed out in 2021. this year survey that was carried out we saw that number going up a bit, going north of

50%. institutions are taken a hit. we've seen that in our survey over the years so i think the positive indication that the american people responding to this survey have now increased their confidence in the u.s. military. host: what do you do with these numbers. confidence in the military, taking these to members of congress policymakers and say what. guest: first we make them aware and we make sure that those who have a point of view and are doing that are actually informed as to how their point of view aligns with our survey. we just came out of our reagan and national defense which takes place every year in the first weekend december out in california with the reagan library resides, leaders in congress focusing on national security and the armed services committee the appropriations committee industry leaders gather about 700 people annually at the reagan national defense forum and it drives the

discussion because again we want to make sure that those were advocating for increased u.s. role in the world were pushing for u.s. presidents and some of those critical reasons such as the indo pacific, europe and the middle east, they understand where the american people stand with those issues that gives them a conversation importantly this is what elect -- present ringers focused on the american people, and we see ourselves doing that. >> confidence in u.s. military do you see the measure of that americans have a great deal of confidence that the u.s. can fight and win the wars the future or is it 51% of a great deal of confidence in the decision-makers leading us in fights that we can win. >> it's a great question and it's hard to parse the survey. we have to use other question subsequent competence questions trying get at that. i think generally it is about the focus in terms of the

leadership. we have other questions to talk about the u.s. military in its ability to prevail in our conflict one of which importantly viewing the american people in terms of whether the u.s. can prevail in the conflict the people's republic of china. obviously that is the focus of national defense policymakers, the peer competitor in the competition with arc. just over half believe the u.s. actually prevail in a conflict and it does kind of parallel the trust and confidence numbers we talked about in terms of 51% have trust and confidence. >> getting to those over the course of the segment, roger with us till the end of the program, but want to get to your calls. howard is waiting in chicago first. republican p howard >>, good morning. >>good morning. everyone is talking about the defense budget but why they can't pass one trade and most importantly no one is held

accountable for failing their audits. how do we address that? host: -- guest: great question on the audit. first of all there's what you bring up, this is an enterprise that is appropriated about $900 billion and it should be able to have a clean audit. we have certain pockets of the department of defense that actually do have that audit. the marine corps stands out in terms of military service, but overall the department of defense is struggling to have a comprehensive audit. the process of realizing and this is not bear out in our survey, it does actually connect though course to the support for increased defense spending. the process of carrying out an audit as i mentioned does actually reveal a lot of information that helps the department of defense execute its responsibilities more efficiently so the process of the pursuit of an audit is going

on with renewed purpose and focus. and i think that will continue in the coming trump administration. as to when the deparle will have a clean audit comprehensively i think we are years out from that and that is a problem. >> the pentagon, how big of a deal is it to the policymakers you talk to, how much do they care. >> policymakers care deeply about it there is of course a variety of players here to certain members of congress have priorities. demographically comes to mind. in the u.s. senate. but it makes the department more efficient as they pursue this audit and i think in the previous session a lot of folks intent -- attention on the department of government efficiency thing the audit will be a big part of that. what you have the more you have it. i heard one story just the other day but because of the marine corps audit for example, they found some spare parts that were

necessary for the f-35 or a fifth-generation fighter that's critical for a navy marine corps and of course our air force because of the audit and the result was f-35's were grounded we were able to be put to use, that was the result of the process of the audit. it does have a material impact on the operations. host: u.s. weapons to allies from the survey, 46% support giving weapons to allies, that is down 5% from la year with 54% sending weapons to israe 55 percent for sending weapons to ukraine. guest: the big story on military support to israel and ukraine is the deep partisan divide. notably when it comes to ukraine , harris voter support that at 74% were strong voters support by 42% so the overall average

and the majority of american people but it's a partisan divide really bearing out. you must have a flipside when it comes to support for israel enters military assistance. that's critical because ukraine is at war right now trying to defend against russian aggression and restore over its territory great israel the same with the war in gaza continuing. folks talk what was happening in syria in this debility of gaza continues to be israel's focus. one thing i know and you have to delineate. in terms of their willingness to have u.s. security assistance, israel and ukraine, but overall the united states through this survey we see the american people have strong support for israel and ukraine. 55% of those surveyed view ukraine as an ally as a partner, 74 percent view israel as a partner and ally and to contextualize that, 73% view

japan as a partner and ally so there is really strong support for those countries, specific policies in terms of security assistance >>. >>but the majority not opposed to the idea -- 43% support, some that didn't answer. the majority, what is the reason not to do arms transfers print . is it spending money overseas. >> in terms of the overall point of view we don't have follow-up questions on that we know a bit about this in terms of what they have as it relates to ukraine. there's definitely concern of cost, that we have our priorities, our fiscal situation here it costs too much, there's also concern of that whether the u.s. stockpiles are sufficiently supplied that they're able to deliver munitions and security. we needed for the u.s. military.

so i think that is contributing to the concerns about security assistance and military assistance to ukraine. that's for sure going to be there concern. but as you note the majority of american people as it relates to this conflict wanted to continue. >> jeff is in washington, independent. good morning. >> good morning guys. i really believe that we are wildly overspending on defense and we always have. who is going to fight a war these days. it is -- there is no economic benefit for anybody, china is -- are they going to shut down the straights and cut their own throats on trade. or russia, how are they going to project force.

they can even be ukraine. so i would like to see 10% flashes in defense spending and let's get it down to a reasonable level. i think the threats to the united states are wildly overblown and obviously we could use that money much better at home. thanks guys. >> the caller has a point of view that we are wildly overspending, we can take an historical look that is simply not the case. i know we are hovering 3% of gdp, its exit going to go lower to about 2.5% if you look at defense programs at about 2030 or so. and 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% at world war ii, one third of what we were spending.

what we have today in terms of defense spending as a percentage of gdp grows to mastic product is actually what we were spending roughly at the end of the cold war. that was the moment when truly there was no competitor, we had defeated the soviet union, we were taking a peace dividend and roughly about the same level defense spending. my view and this is where i disagree with the caller. i don't look at the world today and see the united states -- i see as a competitor that we have not seen in generations in china pray that means militarily. china is engaged in the largest military buildup in generations. you have to look back to where the soviet union did after the cuban missile crisis to see a military buildup that we are witnessing out of beijing and you have to ask yourself what are they building up towards, what are they seeking to do. you look at what are defense leaders and national security

leaders are, this is bipartisan, this is the view of the trump and biden administration. what they are doing is attacking our interest not just in the pacific which is we have sing of it trade interests but globally more and more, even on the continental united states, we saw this not too long ago and then you add to that what russia is doing and they have certainly been bogged down in ukraine. that's a result of u.s. securities. the ukrainians have fought nobly in ukraine fending off russian aggression. at the same time they haven't been able to do that without securing assistance of the united states. that's important not just for ukraine sovereignty and the plight of freedom on the part of ukrainians that's important for u.s. national security interest. vladimir putin as we know is aggressive. if you have been able to capture ukraine he would've likely gone on to weaker nato allies. that would put the united states in a far more costly position.

we know his conduct in 2008, he invaded georgia. in 2014. he annexed crimea. so i think the caller is perhaps too optimistic about the security situation globally and i think it's u.s. defense spending in my view is underfunded. >> did ronald reagan ever face a defense funding cut from congress? >> president reagan when he was in office ran on a platform of going into office on restrain and rebuilding our national defense. would've gone 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 the congress. they did that from the time he entered office in january of 1981 ready much throughout his time in office when he left in 1989. by 87, nevers of congress are pulling back and overall a net

increase year-over-year. just over 6% of gdp with seven to 10% real growth annually 81, 82 and 83 that was the strength which really allowed for the piece that resulted by the time he left office in 1989. >> line for republicans. good morning. >> talking about the military confidence. we had defense austin, he took some time off and took time for surgery and didn't tell anybody about it. as far as i know that's on the first things you learn in the military, if you're not to be there you give to your second-in-command and get on with your mission. as i understand that this austin he is still there. he did not get fired. is that true? host: secretary defense austin is still there. speaking on saturday he announced a defense forum, a new ukraine security package. let me show you a minute and a

half from saturday. >> i'm proud to announce today the commitment of a new ukraine security assistance initiative. worth nearly $1 billion. [applause] this will provide ukraine with more drones, more rockets, more systems and more support for crucial maintenance and sustaining. that brings the total u.s. security assistance to ukraine since february of 2022 to more than $62 billion. the engine of our effort has been ukraine's defense contract group whose first step in april 2022 at ram shine base in germany. the contact group insured ukraine has what it needs to defend itself and a force to

deter more russian aggression. the contact -- i've been the contact group when he four times now. they've committed more than $57 billion to direct security support. and the percentage of the gdp, more than a dozen contact group members now provide more security assistance to ukraine in the united states does. and together we have help ukraine survive an all out assault by the largest military in europe. host: lloyd austin a defense forum. >> that is the reagan national defense forum i referenced earlier we hold annually the first weekend in december and sector austin has been with us, this year he served as a secretary defense and this was the fourth time he visited and made some news is you know in terms of what the department of defense is doing for ukraine in the final weeks of the biden

administration. >> did he talk about the results of the survey or did you get a chance to go through with them. guest: absolutely. secretary austen referenced the survey in the speech and my recollection is it was about national defense and military spending. the support increasing the defense budget, he made some arguments as to how the biden administration is contributed to that. my own view is it has not been sufficient with the call earlier. >> what are your conversations like with the incoming trump administration? guest: there are officials as you know being named and announced. those require senate confirmation, they are designated so they are not speaking for the trumpet administration. alex wong is the deputy. president trump as it relates to this issue and the survey ran,

he is the first president to run on a platform of peace through strength since ronald reagan ran on that back in 1980. i think we are pushing forward the survey to show how they could pitch together that's reflective of a viewpoint that's a hope and aspiration but goes to defense spending all the way to israel policy and ukraine policy. one of the things that came out in the survey. of secretary austin is what the trump administration policy will be as it relates to ukraine. president trump announced keith kellogg would be the special envoy to ukraine. our survey showed that 59% of americans support peace negotiations even if ukraine was required to give up or see territory and as far as trump voters, 63 percent support that inherits voters 55%, so you see there is pretty much a consensus around doing that.

how they go about that is quite important and another element of the survey i will wrap up with this as i mentioned before 75% of those surveyed leave ukraine is an ally. 80% believe russia is an adversary or enemy and so however president trump will pursue those negotiations that he wanted the conflict to come to an end that will end by the time he is inaugurated, the survey shows of the american people clearly know whatever is negotiated to look like who the friend is and who the adversary is. greg is next in wilmington connecticut. you're on with roger. gregor you with us. >> good morning. good morning. i don't see a defense spending. i see an offensive spending. we have had so many conflicts,

let's start with vietnam going to afghanistan in the 80's in the late 80's and early 90's and then to iraq and syria and afghanistan and palestine, the slaughter has been nonstop john. nonstop. i don't see any defense in slaughtering that's not offensive spending. you know it's mostly of c-span and of the mainstream media because the american public is horribly informed about what its government does. most wouldn't know we are in syria right now. basically camping out stealing oil from syria to give it to other countries. it is insane our military spending. in saying we spend more money than 10 nations that spend money on military.

we do. so it's not defensive, it is offenses. and c-span has to do a better job that's all i'm saying, thank you. >> greg in connecticut, roger what do you think. guest: i respect lou disagree with the characterization. mention syria, bashar al-assad and wasn't soon enough in response to slaughtering 600,000 of his people, u.s. forces there have been engaged to protect u.s. interests and doing what they can to help the military in crisis caused by that butcher bashar al-assad who again just today is no longer in power. i think the point the caller makes about the u.s. out spending the rest of the 10 nations combined is overstated i would encourage the caller to look at work by mckenzie of the american enterprise institute

who's done a deeper dive into the spend on defense and has actually increasingly come closer to what the u.s. spends. just approaching the $800 billion that is china and of course the way they spend their funding is command-and-control economy, civilian resources go to support the military, the u.s. fundamentally has interest globally not because it's looking to fight wars or offensive, it's protecting u.s. interest. our freedom, our security and ultimately it leads to our prosperity. that's why the survey for example big support, 62% year-over-year support having u.s. forces deployed overseas not because they are engaged in some sort of offensive attack, offensive posture because they know the u.s. presence globally is what we rely upon to provide for the season -- for the prosperity referenced a moment ago. you can see far more conflict in

this world that would cost us a lot more than we spend on an annual basis under national defense. >> this question always comes up. 11 carriers and service right now read china has three. why do we need eight more aircraft carriers than china. >> china would like to have 11 aircraft carriers and there's -- there is a critique out there the aircraft carrier is not the most relevant fighting platform for deploying our -- power overseas and it was in the past because of missile technology for example the people have and so perhaps it's not as effective. that's the military argument why they are less relevant to the indo pacific but overall this is the primary vehicle of the u.s. is used for decades now to project power overseas and for

those and have presence and particularly aircraft carrier is the best vehicle to get there and that's assuring the trade routes moving freely pray we see what happens when they're under attack even by a jv terrorist organization like who these in yemen could shut down trade in the red sea as a result, those trade patterns have to change and the cost of goods go up. that's where the aircraft carriers give you. it's a big mistake to think china only has three in the u.s. as 11. we have more than we need. china very much would like to displace us as a naval power and would love to have those carriers, they made a great down payment for the peace and prosperity we enjoy and has absolute been a benefit for security but for economic prosperity. host: 10 minutes left with roger. this morning. reagan foundation.org if you want to find them online. guest: you can go on and put in

the reagan national defense survey in your search to have and it will come up on the reagan institute page print host: this is catherine in cleveland, good morning. >> good morning. you are asking for 100% increase in the budget for military spending. my question is wherewith that money come from. are you willing to take it from people like myself who are on social security, i worked my entire life. i did not take my husband social security. so i took mine. are you willing to put people like myself on the street or would you be willing to maybe stop supporting the veterans and their needs that they have? host: roger. guest: certainly the reagan institute and the survey itself on that advocate for 100% increase in defense spending. what i was giving historical

context at the level were spending on national defense actually is the level we went to in the 1990's after the end of the cold war when president bill clinton was seeking. the view we are spending more than we have historically is actually not the case paired we are under spending and underinvest in national defense. sector defense of both parties, general officers, flag officers to sustain our defensive efforts. we need to have real growth, fund the department of defense beyond inflation pray that should be to put between three and 5% annually above inflation, that's what we came out to in the defense strategy commission released this summer. i think when you look overall federal spending this is where the caller was getting to in terms of where will come out of. it shouldn't impact anybody who benefiting from social security, people who've worked their whole lives and are now taking from social security, i don't think

anybody is advocating that. there is a need for social security reform. a need for reform an overall mandatory spending. i think people forget that when you look overall defense spending as a share of the federal spending it's roughly about 13%. we are spending more to service our national debt than we are spending on national defense, 14% servicing national debt, 13% on national defense. the issue of course is mandatory spending. social security, medicare and other mandatory programs. those need to be addressed, they are on automatic increase year-over-year. i believe it's the department of government efficiency have to look there because that is what is consuming the overwhelming majority of our spending. it is discretionary spending it is the spending it's mandatory that's an autopilot washington does little about year-over-year and needs to be addressed. >> three to 5% increase, the

u.s. debt clock has a spending 951 billion $337 million this year on defense spending so you're saying an increase of somewhere around $45 billion. >> 45 to $55 billion, the idea -- host: where did you get that. >> congress has the over the past two years, president biden underfunding national defense before. the congress recognize that these programs to continue to take care of the men and women in uniform, to modernize the force, to make investments required and increased in defense spending. we spend trillions of dollars over the past few years on programs that are far last sound to it the constitution calls for. you come down to what government should be spending on it's quite clear article one section eight is congress responsibility to build the army and navy. that's been underfunded.

given the reach and the need for our economic security that ultimately all americans prosper four is required a robust national defense. my point is it's actually historically low and increasingly smaller slice of what we spend on it in terms of the total federal budget picture. host: tom and marilyn, independent, you are next. caller: good morning john and as always you do a great job as a host here. i guess it's a little disappointing hearing the questions you are getting looking at the results of the last election and then seeing this survey saying american spend -- favor more spending and national engagement. and all we are getting are the talking points such as rush of the aggressor, etc. etc.. and we are not spending somehow enough.

and the real question here is with the bloat that we see in admirals and generals and all of this wasted spending and so many of these failures and foreign policy, how are we to believe this question in the survey and the results because those results of course naturally are quite dramatic -- favor quite dramatically everything that the organization stands for. so can you tell us a little bit about the survey and was it really objective? guest: absolutely. thank you for the question. i mentioned before, 2510 respondents in the survey estimated margin of error is plus or minus two percentage points. many of the questions went to about half of respondents. just over 1200. the margin of error there is about 2.8% plus or minus so if you look at other surveys this one is actually has more respondents than what you read

about in your favorite paper or feed you get when you're talking about the survey. what we do and we've done it year-over-year in 2018 is ask the questions the american people about national security defense and foreign policy. and we will see where the numbers go. the reality is year-over-year the american people understand and support having u.s. force presence overseas not because they're looking to gauge the u.s. military conflict. but they know that is the best guarantor of peace and i think that's what bears out in the survey. certainly if there was something in the survey that didn't, my own point of view that is fine. at this point only 52% of americans have trust and confidence in the military. i pointed that out to our service chiefs and said this is a problem. when we started it was 70% and that's a policy area that i believe the military needs to work on the comes out of the survey.

the numbers don't lie. and that's why we engage with you on it. >> president biden talked about steps the u.s. was taking in syria after the fall of assad. u.s. efforts there to support the region. and he laid that out for viewers earlier. it was saturday that president-elect trump said the united states needs to stay out of syria. the question from mark in new york, can the guest explained what u.s. interests are in syria. >> i think from a serious standpoint we don't want it to be an ungoverned space that we have the emergence of isis. i think that is something that president biden wants but it's also summing president trump wants and he was responsible in his first administration for insuring that isis was taken out. so we have experienced from 9/11 we know which terrorist organizations threaten our national security interest and look to developing capabilities

to attack the homeland. isis fits that category. that is the biggest risk profile for the united states coming out of syria. beyond that you don't want to have the rgc, the iranian revolutionary guard attack u.s. interest in the region, that could also happen in ungoverned space although i believe out of this development, iran is weaker because of israel and its policies as applied against hezbollah and lebanon. and lebanon and hezbollah interests in iran as well as in and iranian interests in syria. host: just a couple minutes left, what didn't we get to from the survey you want to talk about. guest: there was one element that stands out as it relates to israel and that is while there are strong partisan divide over u.s. security assistance israel to defend themselves post october 7, hamas massacre in israel. republicans generally support it , increasing number of

democratic voters, harris voters are opposed. as it relates to the u.s. hostages to bring them out of gaza, it is over 60% so that is an area of bipartisan support, it's been a priority for the biden administration as we saw from president-elect trump who tweeted out on social media about a week or so ago that he expects the u.s. hostages to be freed out of captivity in gaza and they will -- and there will be hell to pay, that is a direct coat -- direct quote. host: about seven americans still held hostage by hamas. guest: we think about three of those bodies are americans who perished in captivity. host: support for sending u.s. military to release those final

three? support of bringing them home and putting u.s. troops on the ground and getting them out today are two different things. guest: that is absolutely the case. the question in terms of direct action on the part of u.s. forces. my sense -- the sense president trump put out with his social media post is anybody who is not doing their all to bring those hostages out, turkey and qatar can do more. they have -- will be held accountable by the trump administration. host: the washington director there reagan foundation.org is where you can go if you want to look through the available wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: c-span viewers are familiar with marc caputo, current bulwark national political reporter.