Why Americans Want Global Leadership but Doubt Military Readiness: Insights from the 2025 Defense Survey

Why Americans’ Dual View of Global Leadership and Military Doubt Matters

The 2025 Reagan National Defense Survey highlights a critical paradox shaping U.S. foreign and defense policy debates: a strong public desire for the United States to lead on the global stage coincides with growing skepticism about the military’s ability to effectively deter or win major conflicts abroad. This tension reveals deeper questions about American identity, strategic priorities, and institutional trust at a pivotal moment of great power competition.

The Bigger Picture: Historical Context of American Global Leadership

Since World War II, the United States has anchored the international order through its military, economic, and diplomatic power. Periodic threats—from the Soviet Union’s Cold War challenge to post-9/11 terrorism—have tested public consensus on U.S. engagement abroad. The post-Cold War unipolar moment fostered confidence in American military superiority, but the 21st century has seen rising geopolitical competitors, particularly China and Russia, challenge this dominance.

Public support for global leadership has traditionally waxed and waned with perceived threats and military successes, but this survey shows an enduring consensus favoring engagement even in the face of skepticism about military readiness. This unfamiliar mix marks a departure from previous eras where military capability confidence underpinned public support for intervention.

What This Really Means: Navigating Competing Public Attitudes

The survey's findings expose a nuanced American mindset shaped by competing impulses. Sixty-four percent of respondents want increased U.S. international leadership, indicative of an underlying belief in America’s unique role as a global stabilizer. Yet, with only 49% confident that the military can win wars overseas and effectively deter aggression, there is a clear undercurrent of doubt about whether the tools of that leadership remain adequate.

This skepticism may stem from recent protracted conflicts that have cost significant resources without clear-cut victories, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, combined with the rapid evolution of new types of warfare—cyber, space, and economic coercion—which traditional military strength may not fully address. This reflects broader questions about how American power should be projected and what form it should take.

The dramatic decline in trust of the armed forces, dropping 21 points since 2018, signals institutional challenges, especially related to concerns about the politicization of the military. The military as an institution has long been a rare source of bipartisan trust in America — erosion here suggests deeper social and political fractures affecting national security confidence.

Expert Perspectives: Voices From Defense and Strategic Communities

Rachel Hoff, policy director at the Reagan Institute, contextualizes the survey as a message that the public wants robust leadership while also wanting the military to remain apolitical and focused on its core warfighting mission. Strategist Andrew Krepinevich has long argued that modern warfare demands adapted doctrines and resources, warning that the U.S. military risks losing its edge without fundamental reforms to address peer-to-peer conflicts.

Meanwhile, international relations expert Dr. Elizabeth Saunders highlights the growing support to defend allies such as Taiwan reflects rising awareness of China’s strategic challenge. The increased willingness to commit forces or impose sanctions signals an American public more attuned to great power rivalry than isolationist impulses.

Data & Evidence: Public Opinion Meets Strategic Reality

• 64% of Americans desire greater U.S. international leadership.
• Only 49% believe the U.S. military can win overseas wars or deter aggression.
• Confidence in the military plummeted 21 points since 2018, now at 49% reporting "a great deal" of trust.
• Support for sending U.S. weapons to Ukraine rose to 64%, marking bipartisan backing for involvement.
• 60% now support committing forces to defend Taiwan—a 12-point jump from last year.

These figures illustrate a public consensus leaning towards engagement but questioning current military and institutional capacities to execute that engagement effectively. The increase in support for Ukraine and Taiwan also underscores the salience of specific geopolitical flashpoints in shaping perceptions.

Looking Ahead: Strategic and Political Implications

The United States finds itself at a strategic inflection point. The public wants credible global leadership but is wary of overstretching or relying on military tools that may no longer guarantee favorable outcomes. Policymakers must reconcile these dynamics by reimagining deterrence, alliance management, and military modernization under fiscal and political constraints.

The surge in popular support for Ukraine and Taiwan defense signals potential bipartisan momentum for sustained U.S. engagement in these theaters, possibly implying more resources and risk tolerance despite public doubts about outright warfighting capacity. At the same time, concerns about military politicization raise alarms about morale, recruitment, and readiness that Pentagon leaders must urgently address.

Ultimately, the survey reveals an American public eager for a secure, stable world order supported by robust leadership—yet understandably cautious about the means to achieve it. This gap presents both a challenge and an opportunity for strategic innovation, transparency, and national dialogue on the future of U.S. global roles.

The Bottom Line: Navigating a Complex Mandate

The 2025 Reagan National Defense Survey encapsulates a pivotal moment of strategic self-reflection for the U.S., where public expectations for leadership abroad clash with doubts over military readiness and institutional integrity. Meeting this dual mandate demands adaptive defense policies, renewed investment in alliances, and a sustained effort to rebuild trust—not only in weapons and platforms, but also in the military as a nonpartisan institution.

If America is to lead in an era defined by ascent of authoritarian rivals, hybrid warfare, and shifting geopolitical fault lines, it must reconcile the public’s call for engagement with their call for credible capability. Ignoring this complex message risks both diminished international influence and cascading domestic divisions.