Follow us on social

google cta
52228546612_bb9a630ae3_k

Here's why America's trust in the military is still in the dumps

After a precipitous decline in confidence, the Ronald Reagan Institute poll asked for reasons. The answers are illuminating.

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
google cta
google cta

The Ronald Reagan Institute has released its annual poll on Americans' trust in its military, and not surprisingly, it's still in the dumps. While the organization says the free fall from 70 percent just five years ago is "stabilizing," the fact is that only 48 percent of respondents expressed "a great deal of trust and confidence" in the institution — just three points up from 2021.

I wrote about the possible reasons for this last year. The organization's head, Richard Zakheim, had acknowledged that the 2021 poll did not drill down on the reasons why respondents had lost faith in the one institution that up until then had still been held in high esteem by most Americans. He speculated that it was due to over-politicization, like the National Guard being used to crack down on protesters during the George Floyd protests in 2020. I thought that was ignoring the role our 20-years of failed wars had played in the perception of the military's honesty and competence.

Well this year, the institute did ask the question, and the results are more mixed than either of us had anticipated.

According to the poll, 62 percent of respondents blame politicization. We don't know what that means exactly, but it is interesting that there is no real split here between Republicans (65 percent), Democrats (60 percent) or independents (60 percent). Politicization appears to be the biggest culprit and could be blamed on politicization today under Biden, or yesterday, under Trump, or a culmination of recent administrations dating back through he Global War on Terror.

Next, nearly 60 percent said it was the performance/competence of the commander-in-chief that depressed their trust and confidence. Some 55 percent said it was the civilian leadership, and slightly fewer (52 percent) said it was the uniformed leaders.

What did run along party lines was the number that said "woke" policies in the military have degraded their trust (50 percent, mostly Republicans) versus those who blamed far-right extremism in the military (46 percent, mostly Democrats).

What about the failures of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Some 47 percent said it was a reason for their decreased confidence. Not a majority, like I had argued, but it definitely played a big role in damaging perceptions of the institution. That's especially clear when you see that only 50 percent of those polled have great confidence in their military to keep them safe, down from 57 percent last year. As for whether the ability to win a future war is a reason for their lack of confidence, 52 percent said yes.

Perhaps even more damning is the question of whether the military is seen as able to perform in a "professional and non-political manner." This number took a nosedive year-over-year, from 40 percent to 35 percent.

Sadly, this hasn't been lost on the young. The institute also asked 18-29 year-olds about recruitment. Only 38 percent said they would be willing to join, along a range of very likely to somewhat likely.

The military used to be the most trusted institution in a culture that had already lost faith in its courts, its church, and its politicians. There needs to be a much deeper dive to explore where, when, and how things went so terribly wrong. One theory is that the professional military — with its perverse promotional incentives; its co-dependency on private industry and Washington politics for survival; and its own rules and culture, disconnected from the rest of American society — has become corrupt and incompetent at the same time.

There is a lot to be done to right this ship, but until then, the American people seem more clear-eyed than ever about what the military can or cannot do. All the better reason for Washington to recognize its limits, de-militarize its foreign policy, and get its national defense back in order.


Secretary of Defense, Lloyd J. Austin III and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley answer questions during a press conference at the Pentagon, July 20, 2022. (DoD photo by Chad J. McNeeley)
google cta
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
US foreign policy
Top photo credit: A political cartoon portrays the disagreement between President William McKinley and Joseph Pulitzer, who worried the U.S. was growing too large through foreign conquests and land acquisitions. (Puck magazine/Creative Commons)

What does US ‘national interest’ really mean?

Washington Politics

In foreign policy discourse, the phrase “the national interest” gets used with an almost ubiquitous frequency, which could lead one to assume it is a strongly defined and absolute term.

Most debates, particularly around changing course in diplomatic strategy or advocating for or against some kind of economic or military intervention, invoke the phrase as justification for their recommended path forward.

keep readingShow less
V-22 Osprey
Top Image Credit: VanderWolf Images/ Shutterstock
Osprey crash in Japan kills at least 1 US soldier

Military aircraft accidents are spiking

Military Industrial Complex

Military aviation accidents are spiking, driven by a perfect storm of flawed aircraft, inadequate pilot training, and over-involvement abroad.

As Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D- Mass.) office reported this week, the rate of severe accidents per 100,000 flight hours, was a staggering 55% higher than it was in 2020. Her office said mishaps cost the military $9.4 billion, killed 90 service members and DoD civilian employees, and destroyed 89 aircraft between 2020 to 2024. The Air Force lost 47 airmen to “preventable mishaps” in 2024 alone.

The U.S. continues to utilize aircraft with known safety issues or are otherwise prone to accidents, like the V-22 Osprey, whose gearbox and clutch failures can cause crashes. It is currently part of the ongoing military buildup near Venezuela.

Other mishap-prone aircraft include the Apache Helicopter (AH-64), which saw 4.5 times more accidents in 2024 than 2020, and the C-130 military transport aircraft, whose accident rate doubled in that same period. The MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopter was susceptible to crashes throughout its decades-long deployment, but was kept operational until early 2025.

Dan Grazier, director of the Stimson Center’s National Security Reform Program, told RS that the lack of flight crew experience is a problem. “The total number of flight hours U.S. military pilots receive has been abysmal for years. Pilots in all branches simply don't fly often enough to even maintain their flying skills, to say nothing of improving them,” he said.

To Grazier’s point, army pilots fly less these days: a September 2024 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report found that the average manned aircraft crew flew 198 flight hours in 2023, down from 302 hours flown in 2011.

keep readingShow less
Majorie Taylor Greene
Top photo credit" Majorie Taylor Greene (Shutterstock/Consolidated News Service)

Marjorie Taylor Greene to resign: 'I refuse to be a battered wife'

Washington Politics

Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia’s 14th district, who at one time was arguably the politician most associated with Donald Trump’s “MAGA” movement outside of the president himself, announced in a lengthy video Friday night that she would be retiring from Congress, with her last day being January 5.

Greene was an outspoken advocate for releasing the Epstein Files, which the Trump administration vehemently opposed until a quick reversal last week which led to the House and Senate quickly passing bills for the release which the president signed.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.