Americans believe a strong military will provide better opportunity for global peace though the means to an end is viewed in a wide lens based on political partisanship, according to the Dec. 4 release of the 2025 Reagan National Defense Survey.

The public opinion poll annually conducted since 2018 by polling firms for the Reagan Institute highlights national sentiment on defense and national security issues, in turn providing public officials, policymakers and other stakeholders with Americans’ more nuanced views on key issues with global implications. Polls are released each year in the summer and winter.

This year’s telephone and online survey of approximately 2,500 U.S. adults shows Americans’ wanting for the U.S. military to be a beacon for global engagement and pushing peace through strength, including bolstering American superiority on the world stage and taking a lead on international affairs.

The poll also finds agreement across partisan lines on issues like providing more weapons to Ukraine in its years-long war with Russia, or supporting Taiwan and providing military assistance should China invade the East Asian country.

Support of Strength

Overall, Americans surveyed expressed affinity for a strong global posture and a capable military force.

Approximately 64% of respondents responded that they want the U.S. to be more engaged and lead in international affairs, with 87% saying the U.S. having the most powerful military in the world is important. Another 71% said global peace is more attainable when the U.S. is the strongest global power.

Numbers vary based on political proclivities, with support from 79% of MAGA Republicans and 57% of Democrats. But nearly every demographic group, including across age and education levels, shows increased support for greater global leadership.

“That upward trend is being driven by the Republican demographic but it has been increasing across a number of different demographics, from age demographics, regional breakdowns and the like,” Rachel Hoff, policy director at the Ronald Reagan Institute, told media members during the survey’s unveiling. “That upward trend is really something that we're seeing across the board.”

Numbers become more convoluted when factoring in military superiority plus trust and confidence in the military as an institution, and issues related to department name changes and the deployment of National Guard troops in American cities.

Confidence in Forces

The survey found that 54% of Americans have a high confidence that the military can keep the country safe, though just 49% believe it can win a war overseas. Another 45% said the U.S. military can deter foreign aggression.

U.S. service branches are viewed in a favorable light by the majority of respondents, finding superiority in air forces (68%), naval forces (58%), space capabilities (56%), and overall military strength (55%).

Numbers are smaller but still strong when asked about U.S. diplomatic influence (48%), ground forces (43%), economic strength (42%) and autonomous capabilities (40%).

Lowest Mark in Seven Years

One of the most glaring data points is related to the public’s perception of the U.S. military.

The poll shows 49% of Americans reporting a great deal of confidence—a significant decline of 21 percentage points since the first Reagan National Defense Survey in 2018. However, pollsters note that the current figure is roughly consistent with results from 2024.

“That flat line trend is sort of masking some partisan division,” Hoff said. “Just in the last year confidence among Democrats has fallen over 10 points and similarly, confidence among Republicans has increased around 10 points.

“So, even though that trend looks stable, it is sort of masking some upward and downward trends on either side of the political identification coin.”

The political and age divides are more stark.

Republicans’ high confidence in the U.S. military increased from 48% in 2023 to 67% this year, whereas high confidence among Democrats fell from 47% to 33%. And while members of both main political parties expressed a willingness to recommend military service—at a clip of 59%, up eight points from the 51% who said the same in 2023—the numbers are mixed, as 77% of Republicans would encourage service versus only 43% of Democrats.

The age gap in military trust also falls by generation, as 36% of those under 30 years of age; 44% of those aged 30–44; 53% of those 45–64; and 60% of those 65 and older have varied sentiments.

Name Changes and National Guard

Partisanship is emboldened among other aspects of the military, like the Trump administration’s decision to rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War. A total of 59% of those surveyed disapprove of the decision, but 58% of Republicans like it while only 17% of Democrats approve.

There is also a significant distinction in the way individuals on both sides of the aisle view support for using active-duty troops or federalized National Guard units to reinforce border security and assist local police in major civil disturbances. Approximately 61% overall said they approved regarding the border (87% of Republicans and 33% of Democrats) and numbers remained consistent regarding civil disturbances (55% overall and 85% of support from Republicans but 28% in opposition by Democrats).

When it comes to issues like diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in the Pentagon, the partisan differences could not be more clear: Roughly 75% of Republican respondents said they approve its elimination while about 75% of Democrats feel the opposite.

NATO and Ukraine Numbers Spike

Americans view NATO in a favorable light at its highest ever levels across all Reagan Institute polling at 68%. That goes across bipartisan lines, with 80% of Democratic approval and 60% from Republicans—up from 50% in June, prior to the 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague.

“This is one [example] where clearly the Trump administration—President [Donald] Trump's embrace of NATO, a result of the policies that he's championed being adopted by NATO—what it's done is that it's increased Republican support. … There are some other issues where you see Republican enthusiasm and support at the same time results in a loss of enthusiasm and support on the part of Democrats. NATO is not one of them,” said Roger Zakheim, director of the Ronald Reagan Institute, in a conference call.

Another 76% overall, including nearly 8-in-10 Republicans and Democrats, said they support a U.S. military response if a NATO ally was attacked.

Also, support for the use of Article V—which is the NATO creed that an attack against one NATO nation is an attack on all of them—rose 5% since June.

“It reflects the durability, the bipartisan support of NATO,” Zakheim said. “And irrespective, at least from a Democratic standpoint, of who is the president—Republican President Donald Trump or Democratic President Joe Biden—they're going to support NATO.

“There's always been that same durable Republican support but skeptical Republicans did not favor NATO under Joe Biden's leadership. [They] now have been swayed to support NATO as a result of President Trump's policies and support for NATO. I think that's a pretty unique story that we're seeing.”

Ukraine, a country that has tried for NATO entry since Russia launched its invasion in February 2022, continues to receive strong U.S. support from both Republicans and Democrats.

A majority of Americans (62%, including 57% of Republicans and 72% of Democrats) responded that they want Ukraine to be victorious, including a nine-point jump to 64% among those who think the U.S. should continue sending weapons overseas. That latter figure includes 59% of Republicans.

The strategy behind the war’s conclusion also reached levels of unison. Both parties’ members favor full territorial sovereignty on Ukraine’s behalf.

“Overall, our Ukraine numbers have shifted across the board toward more support,” Hoff said. “Sixty-two percent of Americans, including a majority of both Republicans and Democrats, say they want Ukraine to win the war. Americans…perceive Russia as an adversary; they perceive Ukraine as an ally.”

She mentioned newer questions this year, including one on sending long-range cruise missiles such as Tomahawks in particular which is supported by 65% of Americans. Another 68% support sending American-made weapons to European allies, and then in turn those allies providing those weapons to Ukraine.

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) on Wednesday announced a new task force for the U.S. military’s first one-way-attack drone squadron based in the Middle East, as part of the Defense Department’s wide-ranging push to accelerate domestic drone acquisition and implementation.

The launch of the Task Force Scorpion Strike (TFSS) is designed to attain low-cost and effective drones and field them to warfighters, following Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s directive earlier this year to boost affordable drone technology. A squadron of Low-cost Unmanned Combat Attack System (LUCAS) drones are already based in the Middle East.

“This new task force sets the conditions for using innovation as a deterrent,” Adm. Brad Cooper, CENTCOM commander, said in a statement. “Equipping our skilled warfighters faster with cutting-edge drone capabilities showcases U.S. military innovation and strength, which deters bad actors.”

A CENTCOM spokesperson referred Military.com^[1] to their press release. Military.com^[2] reached out to the Pentagon for comment.

Challenging Iran

CENTCOM-deployed LUCAS drones are designed to operate anonymously and can be launched by multiple mechanisms including catapults, rocket-assisted takeoff, and mobile ground and vehicle systems. They are designed to operate autonomously and cost roughly $35,000 per platform.

In June, Hegseth was present when 18 American-made drone prototypes were on display at the Pentagon. The LUCAS kamikaze drones are designed to be a cheaper but formidable alternative to Iran’s Shahed-136^[3] drones.

Today’s announcement comes more than two months after CENTCOM announced the Rapid Employment Joint Task Force (REJTF), led by CENTCOM’s chief technology officer to fast-track processes for outfitting deployed forces with cutting-edge capabilities.

U.S. Special Operations Command Central (SOCCENT) oversees TFSS.

Billion-Dollar Plans

The CENTCOM announcement comes one day after Hegseth and the Defense Department outlined their long-term “Drone Dominance” program that will purchase hundreds of thousands of drones in the next few years to boost American military superiority.

The plan will begin early next year and take place over four phases or “gauntlets,” per Hegseth, with the federal government offering $1 billion to build roughly 340,000 small unmanned aerial systems capable of conducting one-way attack missions. 

He said the first of those four gauntlets runs from February-July 2026 when 12 vendors will be asked to collectively produce 30,000 drones at a cost of $5,000 per unit, totaling $150 million in department outlays.

The number of drones ordered will increase from 30,000 to 150,000, and the price per drone will drop from $5,000 to $2,300, over the course of the remaining three gauntlets that will see vendor numbers decrease from 12 to five.

"I will soon be meeting with the military services to discuss transformational changes in warfighting doctrine," Hegseth said Tuesday. "We need to outfit our combat units with unmanned systems at scale. We cannot wait. The funding provided by the Big Beautiful Bill is ready to be used to mount an effective sprint to build combat power.

“At the Department of War, we are adopting new technologies with a 'fight tonight' philosophy—so that our warfighters have the cutting-edge tools they need to prevail." 

'Drone Dominance' In Motion

In June, President Donald Trump signed an executive order, "Unleashing American Drone Dominance,” intended to invigorate the commercial and military drone sectors by making inexpensive and American-made drones that can be equipped by military units across the globe.

Hegseth followed Trump’s executive order with his own memorandum in July, saying his department “is going above and beyond” the directive by rescinding what he described as restrictive policies that hinder production and limit access to vital technologies.

His outlined memorandum included three major sticking points: leveraging private capital flows that boost the U.S. drone manufacturing industry; powering a “technological leapfrog” that gives the U.S. an edge in a new era of warfare; and “overcoming the bureaucracy's instinctive risk-aversion” on budgeting, weaponization and training to simulate battlefield scenarios at the ready.

"Lethality will not be hindered by self-imposed restrictions, especially when it comes to harnessing technologies we invented but were slow to pursue," Hegseth said in July. "Drone technology is advancing so rapidly, our major risk is risk-avoidance. The Department's bureaucratic gloves are coming off."

Senator Mark Kelly sits at an unusual point where civilian office and military law intersect. His appearance in a recent video^[1] urging U.S. service members to refuse “illegal orders” prompted the Department of Defense to open a formal review. The Pentagon relies on statutory authority allowing certain retired officers to remain subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and to be recalled for potential discipline under 10 U.S.C. § 688^[2]. The review places Kelly in a rare position for a sitting senator and raises questions about how far military obligations extend once a service member steps into elected office. Coverage of the announcement emphasizes the core issue is the point where political speech meets the command structures that maintain discipline in the armed forces.

The Video That Triggered the Review

The video featured six lawmakers with either military or intelligence backgrounds addressing U.S. service members. Kelly’s comments included the phrase that troops “can refuse illegal orders.” According to reporting from Politico^[3], the Pentagon viewed the message as potentially harmful to “loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline.” Although five other lawmakers appeared in the video, Kelly stands alone as the subject of the review because the Department of Defense determined he remains under UCMJ jurisdiction as a retired Navy captain. The other lawmakers either never retired from service or come from intelligence agencies outside the UCMJ’s reach. That distinction shapes the Pentagon’s current treatment of the matter.

Legal Grounding for the Pentagon’s Authority

The Department of Defense justified its review^[4] by pointing to its recall authority over retired officers, which appears in 10 U.S.C. § 688, and to several UCMJ provisions that apply to retirees on the rolls. The Pentagon reminded service members the UCMJ presumes orders to be lawful unless they are clearly illegal, such as commands that require a criminal act. It also referenced federal statutes^[5] prohibiting attempts to interfere with the discipline of the armed forces. Kelly’s use of his military rank in the video appears to be a key factor in the Pentagon’s belief his conduct may fall within the scope of UCMJ review.

Why Kelly Stands Alone

Although the video showcased six participants, only Kelly currently faces military legal exposure. The Pentagon has stated that he is the only one whom the UCMJ still governs due to his retirement status. Other lawmakers in the video either served in the military without retiring or came from non-military national security roles, such as the Central Intelligence Agency. That jurisdictional point drives the Department of Defense’s current stance and explains why Kelly occupies a unique position in this unfolding story. The Pentagon has not publicly indicated any comparable review of the other five video participants.

Constitutional and Civil-Military Tensions

This case sits at the intersection of civilian democracy and military command structures. Kelly maintains that his message simply reminded troops of their legal obligations, as he explained in follow-up remarks reported by The Guardian^[6]. The Pentagon, however, views the video differently and frames it as a possible threat to discipline and hierarchy. That tension highlights the longstanding challenge in American civil-military relations: how to balance the constitutional right of elected officials to speak with the military’s need for a stable and lawful chain of command. The situation also creates a rarely tested legal question about whether military authority can reach into the legislative branch when the individual in question retains retired-officer status.

The Constitution assigns Congress the power to regulate the armed forces while vesting command authority in the President. When a member of Congress remains subject to recall for potential military discipline, the separation between the branches becomes less clear. Reporting notes legal scholars consider this scenario extremely rare, with few modern precedents. That rarity underscores the unsettled legal landscape around military authority over retirees who hold high civilian office.

The Stakes for Civil-Military Boundaries

The Kelly investigation invites a deeper conversation about the boundary between military service and civilian governance. If the Pentagon pursues the review further, it could set a precedent for how the Department of Defense handles retired officers who transition into national leadership roles and then speak publicly on military matters. If the review ends quietly, the case may nonetheless shape how current and former service members approach public communication, especially during periods of political tension.

As the Department of Defense continues its assessment, observers will watch closely to see whether this situation becomes a one-off episode or the start of a broader debate over military obligations that continue after uniformed service ends. The answer will influence how the United States interprets the responsibilities of those who once served and now hold civilian power, and how the armed forces maintain discipline without overreaching into political life.