Analysis Archives - Americans for a Stronger Navy

October 26, 2025October 26, 2025

Maritime Security and the Shifting Strategic Landscape: Why the Caribbean Still Matters

What held true in the 1970s when I served in the U.S. Navy remains true today: the sea—its lanes, chokepoints, and often hidden logistics networks—is where national power meets commerce and security. As founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy, I’ve watched the Caribbean region shift from a legacy theater of interdiction to something far more strategic and volatile. The United States must stay anchored to its enduring maritime interests, while soberly recognizing how the threat environment has evolved. The piece that follows lays out those stakes and changes in straightforward terms.

The security of the United States has always been tied to the sea. From the earliest days of the Republic, American prosperity has depended on open waterways, secure maritime trade routes, and the prevention of hostile powers establishing influence near U.S. shores. These principles are not abstractions. They are the foundation of American national strategy.

Recent naval actions in the Caribbean, including the deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford and the use of lethal force against suspected drug-trafficking vessels, have reopened a debate about the role of the U.S. Navy in the Western Hemisphere. Some see decisive action against destabilizing criminal networks. Others see a dangerous shift away from established maritime law and precedent.

This post does not seek to argue either side. Instead, it lays out the strategic facts that Americans must understand before forming an opinion.

I. Enduring U.S. Interests in the Western Hemisphere

For more than two centuries, American maritime strategy in the Caribbean has centered on three core objectives.

Freedom of Navigation
The Caribbean connects the Atlantic and Pacific trade systems. The majority of U.S. trade, energy transit, and commercial shipping depends on unobstructed access through these waters.

Security of Strategic Chokepoints
The Panama Canal remains a critical artery of global commerce. Any disruption—whether from instability, coercion, or foreign control—would have immediate and far-reaching economic consequences.

Prevention of Adversarial Influence Near U.S. Shores
From the Monroe Doctrine through the Cold War, American policy has consistently sought to prevent rival powers from establishing military or strategic footholds in the region. Today, this concern increasingly centers on the growing presence of the People’s Republic of China in ports, telecommunications, and financial networks throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, China Merchants Port now holds full ownership of Jamaica’s Kingston Freeport Terminal, one of the region’s key shipping hubs, and Beijing has invested billions in dual-use maritime infrastructure across the hemisphere.

These interests are longstanding. They are not partisan. They are structural.

II. The New Strategic Landscape: Crime, State Actors, and Maritime Security

What has changed is the nature of the threat.

The Synthetic Drug Crisis as a National Security Issue
The U.S. is experiencing a mass-casualty public-health emergency, with tens of thousands of deaths annually attributed to synthetic opioids. Major criminal organizations responsible for production and distribution have developed transnational financing, manufacturing, and logistics networks.

The China Connection
Multiple U.S. agencies have identified two critical dependencies.

Chemical Precursors and Equipment
Key components used to manufacture synthetic opioids are sourced overwhelmingly from Chinese firms.

Financial Networks
Laundering operations linked to PRC-based intermediaries move cartel funds through international markets at scale.

Strategic Presence in the Region
Simultaneously, the PRC has invested heavily in dual-use ports, intelligence-collection infrastructure, and economic footholds across the Caribbean and South America. By 2023, direct Chinese investment in island nations reached $3.3 billion, while infrastructure contracts totaled $32 billion.

As one recent illustrative example, the U.S. guided-missile destroyer USS Gravely docked in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago on 26 October 2025 as part of joint exercises with regional partners near Venezuela—a vivid symbol that U.S. maritime posture in the Caribbean is expanding from interdiction to forward presence.

The issue is no longer purely criminal. It is geopolitical.

III. The Question Before the Country: Method, Law, and Strategic Consequence

The central debate is not whether the United States should defend its interests in the region. It should and always has. The debate is how that defense should be conducted.

Argument for Military Kinetic Action
Supporters argue that the scale of the synthetic-drug crisis qualifies as a national-security threat, enabling the use of military force in self-defence. They contend that criminal networks operating with state-linked support may be treated under the laws of armed conflict.

Argument for Maintaining Traditional Maritime Law and Interdiction Precedent
Legal scholars and military ethicists warn that conducting lethal strikes against vessels without warning may erode long-standing maritime norms. Precedent matters. If the U.S. asserts the right to destroy vessels at sea based on national-security claims, adversaries could use the same justification in other contested waters—potentially including the South China Sea.

The strategic risk is that a short-term response to an urgent threat may weaken the very system of maritime stability the United States has spent generations defending.

Conclusion: The Need for Strategic Clarity

The United States cannot afford to lose stability, access, or influence in the Caribbean. The region matters today for the same reasons it mattered in 1823, 1947, and 1989: geography does not change. What has changed is the strategic environment, the nature of violence, and the actors capable of shaping the maritime domain.

As Americans, we now face a difficult question:
How do we defend our interests in the Western Hemisphere without undermining the maritime rules and partnerships that underpin global stability?

The answer requires seriousness, informed public understanding, and national unity.

That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.

Let’s roll.

October 20, 2025October 20, 2025

The Fork in the Sea

An Open Letter to Silicon Valley and the American People

If you’re confused by all this, you’re not alone. By “this,” I mean the tangle of headlines, policies, and talking points that have defined America’s relationship with China for the past decade — tariffs and trade wars, tech bans and chip controls, speeches about “decoupling,” and endless debates between the so-called hawks and doves in Washington. There’s a lot to unpack. The truth is, most Americans are burnt out. After years of rising prices, supply chain chaos, and political talk about tariffs and trade wars, people are tired of trying to figure out who’s right, who’s bluffing, and who’s actually working for them. They hear about new restrictions on chips, debates over TikTok, or tariffs on Chinese steel — but they don’t always see how any of it helps put food on the table or keeps the country safe.

Here’s the reality: for years, Washington and Wall Street were divided into two camps. The “China doves” believed that trade, investment, and partnership would bring peace—that if we did business together, China would grow more open and the world would grow more stable. The “China hawks”, on the other hand, warned that the Chinese Communist Party was using that same economic engagement to build leverage, dominate industry, and prepare for confrontation.

The tariffs you’ve heard about—the ones that started during the Trump administration and carried through in various forms—were part of that battle. They weren’t just about steel, aluminum, or semiconductors. They were about whether America would keep surrendering its manufacturing and shipbuilding capacity to a regime that has made no secret of its ambitions in the Pacific.

Most Americans didn’t pick a side. They were too busy working, paying taxes, and hoping someone in Washington would finally get it right. But the truth is, both parties let this happen. We were told that engagement meant peace—when in reality, it built dependency. And now, the same country we helped enrich is threatening our allies, our trade routes, and our future.

That’s why voices like Shyam Sankar’s matter. Over the past week, the Palantir CTO and Hudson Institute trustee laid out a hard truth that America can no longer ignore. In his essay “Why the China Doves Are Wrong,” he calls out a generation of business and technology leaders who misread Beijing’s intentions. These so-called “doves” believed engagement and profit could buy peace. They were wrong.

Sankar singles out Nvidia’s CEO, Jensen Huang, who recently said the future “doesn’t have to be all us or them; it could be us and them.” Sankar’s answer is clear: the Chinese Communist Party doesn’t believe that. Its rise depends on America’s decline—and our own money, technology, and industrial retreat helped make that possible.

He’s right. For decades, U.S. capital and know-how flowed into China, building the very industrial and military capacity that now threatens the free world. America’s overreliance on Chinese supply chains—from semiconductors to shipyards—has turned interdependence into a weapon aimed back at us.

Rebuilding our domestic base—our factories, shipyards, and maritime strength—isn’t nostalgia. It’s national security. Sankar’s warning echoes what many of us have been saying for years: hard power and industrial resilience are the foundation of peace.

At Americans for a Stronger Navy, we believe this isn’t just a policy debate. It’s a call to every citizen. This moment demands that Americans—not just policymakers—take responsibility, stand together, and act before it’s too late.

The Tide Is Turning

For years, Americans for a Stronger Navy has been saying what Shyam Sankar just put into print: we didn’t lose ground to China overnight—it happened one contract, one shipment, one investment at a time. When someone from inside Silicon Valley finally says it out loud, it means the conversation is shifting.

This isn’t about pointing fingers. It’s about facing facts. The same innovation hubs that built the digital future also hollowed out America’s industrial core. And now, even the insiders see it: the CCP isn’t looking for balance—it’s looking for dominance. Sankar’s words confirm what we’ve been warning all along.

Sankar didn’t pull punches. He wrote:

“The U.S. is partially to blame for turning China into a juggernaut. American companies have invested vast sums over decades to build China’s industrial base. … Chinese military contractors securitize weapons contracts in global capital markets, meaning that American pension funds and 401(k) investors have financed missiles aimed at U.S. ships.”

That’s the uncomfortable truth. We financed the very threat we now face. While many Americans were working hard and trusting their savings to grow, their own retirement dollars were indirectly funding China’s military expansion.

This isn’t a partisan issue or a Wall Street issue—it’s an American issue. And fixing it means facing it head-on.

Call to Silicon Valley and the Financial Sector

If there’s one thing Americans know how to do, it’s rebuild. We did it after the Great Depression, after World War II, and after every storm that’s hit this country. But this time, the rebuilding must start with those who helped hollow out the core—our own financial and tech elites.

Silicon Valley didn’t mean to weaken America. Wall Street didn’t set out to fund our rivals. But good intentions don’t excuse bad outcomes. The truth is, while innovators were chasing the next big breakthrough, and investors were chasing the next big return, our shipyards rusted, our supply chains moved offshore, and our industrial base became dependent on the very system now aligned against us.

That’s why this open letter isn’t just a warning—it’s an invitation. We need the same creativity, drive, and innovation that built the digital world to help rebuild the physical one. The next frontier isn’t in code; it’s in steel, in sensors, in shipyards, and in the men and women who keep the seas open and the nation free.

We’re calling on America’s tech and finance leaders to put their talent and capital back to work here at home—where it matters most. Invest in shipbuilding. Partner with maritime innovators. Reimagine logistics, automation, and infrastructure. Help America regain the ability to build, move, and defend.

Because the same companies that helped wire the world now have a moral obligation to help secure it. And if we do this right, we won’t just restore our strength—we’ll rebuild trust between Main Street, Wall Street, and the American people.

Closing: The Hard Truth and the Hope

The American people have every right to feel weary. We’ve been told for decades that global integration would make the world safer, that cheap goods would make us richer, and that innovation alone would keep us ahead. But somewhere along the way, we lost sight of something simple and sacred—the idea that America must be able to stand on her own.

Shyam Sankar reminded us that while our leaders talked about partnership, the Chinese Communist Party was planning for dominance. And he’s right—we built part of that machine. But now we have a chance to build something better: a stronger, more united, and more self-reliant America.

That’s why this isn’t just a letter to policymakers—it’s a letter to all of us. To the shipbuilder and the software engineer. To the machinist and the venture capitalist. To every citizen whose pension, paycheck, or passion helped shape this nation. The future of American power depends on our willingness to face what’s broken and fix it together.

Rebuilding our shipyards and restoring our maritime strength isn’t about preparing for war—it’s about securing peace. It’s about ensuring that no foreign power can hold our economy, our sailors, or our future hostage. It’s about remembering that deterrence isn’t aggression—it’s readiness.

So yes, Americans are tired. We’ve been misled, overextended, and divided. But fatigue is not failure—it’s a signal. A signal that it’s time to get serious, to get focused, and to get back to work.

That’s what Americans for a Stronger Navy stands for—peace through strength, transparency through accountability, and unity through shared responsibility. Together, we can rebuild the strength that keeps us free.

Let’s roll.

October 13, 2025October 13, 2025

A Response to Defeatism: Why America’s Navy Must Stay Strong

By Bill Cullifer, Founder Americans for a Stronger Navy

Today, October 13, 2025, marks the 250th anniversary of the United States Navy. It’s a moment to celebrate two and a half centuries of service, sacrifice, and dedication to protecting freedom of the seas. It’s also a time to reflect on the challenges ahead—and to clarify what I mean when I advocate for a Stronger Navy.

For some, the phrase “a stronger Navy” may sound like a call to arms or empire-building. It’s not. My advocacy has always been rooted in one simple truth: a strong Navy preserves peace, protects prosperity, and prevents wars.

And by “stronger,” I don’t mean the Navy is weak. Far from it. The men and women serving today are the best-trained, best-equipped, and most capable sailors in the world. But they’re being asked to do more—to cover more oceans, deter more threats, and respond to more crises with fewer ships and tighter resources than ever before. “Stronger” means giving them what they need to succeed: modern tools, sufficient numbers, and unwavering public support.

Strength is not aggression. It’s deterrence. It’s readiness. It’s the quiet assurance that when freedom is threatened, the United States and its allies can respond decisively and responsibly.

Recently, a prominent economist claimed the “Western era is over,” that American leaders are “delusional” for maintaining global commitments, and that we should accept a “multipolar world” dominated by nations like China and Russia. His argument deserves a response—not because debate is unwelcome, but because democratic principles and freedom of the seas are at stake.

The Dangerous Myth of Inevitable Decline

The Argument: The West represents only 12 percent of the world’s population and can no longer lead.
The Reality: Power has never been about population alone. If it were, India would dominate China, and Indonesia would be a superpower. What matters is:

Technological Innovation: The United States leads in AI, semiconductors, biotechnology, aerospace, and space.
Alliance Networks: Over 30 treaty allies choose to align with us—authoritarians coerce; we attract.
Economic Dynamism: The dollar still anchors ~56–58 percent of global reserves (IMF COFER Q2 2025).
Naval Projection: We operate globally; our competitors remain largely regional powers.

The U.S. Navy doesn’t maintain 11 carrier strike groups because we’re “delusional.” We maintain them because freedom of navigation matters, our allies depend on us, and deterrence works.

The False Choice Between Strength and Diplomacy

The Argument: Maintaining a strong Navy is provocative; we should just “talk” to our adversaries.
The Reality: Weakness invites aggression. History proves it.

Finland joined NATO on April 4, 2023, and Sweden on March 7, 2024—proof that accommodation fails.
China continues to build aircraft carriers and overseas bases.
Pacific allies—Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the Philippines—want more U.S. presence, not less.

Peace through strength isn’t a slogan. It’s the most successful deterrent model in modern history. The post–Cold War era of American naval dominance was also the most peaceful.

What’s Really at Stake: Democratic Principles

This isn’t about dominance—it’s about the kind of world we want to live in.

Authoritarian Model:

Borders redrawn by force
“Might makes right”
International law ignored
Smaller nations coerced

Democratic Model:

Sovereignty respected
Sea lanes open to all
Collective security honored
Law upheld

When we maintain a strong Navy, we’re protecting a system that has lifted billions from poverty through free trade and open seas.

The China Challenge: Clear-Eyed Assessment

China has grown, but its vulnerabilities are glaring.

Geographic Disadvantages:

Roughly 80 percent of its oil imports pass through the Strait of Malacca—a chokepoint and wartime liability.
Trapped behind the First Island Chain with few friendly overseas bases.

Economic Fragilities:

Over $13 trillion in local-government debt
Property sector collapse
Shrinking population since 2015
No immigration, worsening demographic decline

Military Limitations:

No combat experience since 1979
Carrier operations still rudimentary
Submarine fleet far noisier than ours
No ability to sustain power projection beyond Asia

Alliance Deficit:

North Korea is its only treaty ally
India remains a rival
ASEAN partners are wary
Russia is a partner of convenience, not trust

Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy operates from 80 years of combat experience, forward bases on every ocean, interoperable fleets with allies, unmatched logistics, and the world’s most advanced submarine force.

Why We Cannot Rest

Some say multipolarity is inevitable. History says otherwise. Multipolar systems are less stable:

Early 1900s Europe: two world wars, 100 million dead
Cold War bipolarity: no great-power wars
Post-Cold War unipolarity: most peaceful period in modern history

The question isn’t whether we can maintain naval strength—it’s whether we will.

The 250th Anniversary Call

As we celebrate 250 years of service, we face a choice.

Option One: Accept decline, draw down the fleet, and hope aggressors respect our weakness.
Option Two: Recognize that deterrence requires both capability and will. Modernize with unmanned systems, AI, and hypersonics. Maintain forward presence. Stand with allies.

What “Not Resting” Means in Practice

Build the 381+ Ship Fleet
- Current fleet: ~296 ships (Dec 2024 baseline)
- Requirement: 381 manned + 134 unmanned for full readiness
- China’s PLAN: ~370 ships now, projected 395 by 2025 and 435 by 2030
Embrace Technological Transformation
- Unmanned surface and underwater vehicles
- AI-enhanced command and control
- Hypersonic weapons
- Space-based sensing and communications
- Cyber resilience
Strengthen Pacific Presence
- AUKUS and Quad partnerships
- Expanded exercises with Japan, Australia, the Philippines, and South Korea
Maintain Atlantic Vigilance
- Monitor Russia’s submarine activity
- Secure Arctic and Baltic approaches
Protect Global Commerce
- South China Sea: ~$3.4 trillion in annual trade
- Suez, Red Sea, and Persian Gulf choke points
- Panama Canal and Caribbean routes

Preserving and Projecting Democratic Values

We must do more than preserve freedom of the seas—we must project the values that make that freedom possible.

Transparency Over Opacity: We publish our strategy; authoritarians conceal theirs.
Rule of Law: We uphold international law; competitors ignore it.
Alliance Over Coercion: Nations choose to partner with us.
Innovation Over Theft: We invent; China steals ~$600 billion in IP annually.
Professionalism Over Intimidation: Our sailors serve as ambassadors of democracy.

Every humanitarian mission, disaster response, and joint exercise demonstrates what democratic power means.

A Message to Our Shipmates

To those who serve and have served—you inherit a 250-year tradition of defending freedom of the seas. From wooden frigates to stealth destroyers, the mission remains: protect the free and open oceans upon which prosperity depends.

Don’t believe anyone who says the Navy is obsolete or that we should retreat. The world didn’t become more peaceful because we withdrew—it became more dangerous.

Freedom of navigation isn’t Western dominance—it’s global stability.
Deterrence isn’t warmongering—it’s peacekeeping.

The Choice Before Us

Some argue we should accept decline gracefully. The greater delusion is believing authoritarian powers will respect weakness or that freedom can defend itself.

As we honor 250 years of the United States Navy today, let’s commit to the next 250—not through empire, but through readiness, accountability, and partnership.

Call to Action

For Shipmates: Stay strong, stay skilled, stay ready.
For Citizens: Demand full funding for the Navy that defends your freedom.
For Allies: Know that America keeps its word.
For Competitors: Understand that U.S. naval power deters aggression and protects peace.

“I can imagine no more rewarding a career. And any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction: ‘I served in the United States Navy.’”
— President John F. Kennedy

Fair winds and following seas. Stay Navy Strong.

Bill Cullifer, Founder
Americans for a Stronger Navy
October 13, 2025

That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter—a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.

Let’s roll.

October 12, 2025October 12, 2025

The U.S. Navy at 250: A Celebration — and a Reality Check

by Bill Cullifer, founder Americans for a Stronger Navy

As America marks the Navy’s 250th birthday, Captain Brent Sadler, USN (Ret.) recent essay reminds us this milestone is not just a moment to celebrate—it’s a call to action. From two ships in 1775 to the world’s most powerful fleet, the Navy has carried our flag, defended our freedom, and guarded the arteries of global commerce. But as Sadler rightly warns, the next few years will not be smooth sailing.

A Fleet Stretched Thin

Today, over a third of our fleet is more than 20 years old. Shipbuilding delays and maintenance backlogs are pushing the limits of readiness. Our sailors, the heart of the fleet, continue to perform with unmatched skill and resolve—but they are doing so aboard aging platforms. China is fast closing the gap, and they are not waiting for us.

Lessons Written in Blood

History teaches that there are no cheap shortcuts to sea power. Survivability and lethality come from hard-earned experience, superior training, and a robust industrial base. Sadler recalls the typhoon of 1944 that claimed three destroyers and hundreds of lives—a stark reminder that nature and conflict alike punish complacency. Competence, leadership, and technical mastery remain our sailors’ greatest weapons.

For the Skeptics: China’s Long Game Is Already Underway

To those who still doubt that China poses more than a distant “threat,” here is a sharper look at how Beijing is already laying the foundations of a rival maritime order—and why ignoring it is perilous.

“Unrestricted Warfare” and Strategic Pluralism

Chinese strategists have long argued that war is no longer limited to the battlefield. Unrestricted Warfare (1999) openly promoted using economic, cyber, legal, and informational tools to weaken stronger powers—a doctrine now reflected in Beijing’s global behavior.

Dual-Use Shipbuilding and External Support

China’s commercial and naval shipyards work side-by-side, leveraging subsidies and state control to produce more hulls than the rest of the world combined. These facilities give Beijing the ability to surge production during crisis—something the U.S. industrial base cannot yet match.

The “Great Underwater Wall” and Maritime Surveillance

Beijing is constructing a vast undersea sensor network across the South China Sea—an integrated web of hydrophones, drones, and seabed nodes designed to detect U.S. and allied submarines. It’s surveillance on a scale the world has never seen.

“Cabbage” Tactics and Incremental Control

China surrounds disputed islands layer by layer—fishing boats, coast-guard cutters, and finally warships—gradually converting “gray zones” into permanent possessions without firing a shot.

The “String of Pearls” Strategy

Ports and logistics hubs from the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic give China reach far beyond its shores. Each node tightens its grip over the world’s vital maritime choke points.

Global Projection and Signaling

China’s navy now sails the Tasman Sea, the Gulf of Oman, and beyond—exercising in waters where it once had no business. These deployments make one thing clear: China’s maritime ambitions are global, not regional.

Don’t Take My Word For It — Listen to the Experts

Over the past 24 months, Americans for a Stronger Navy has been mapping a story few citizens have ever been shown: how China’s campaign against the United States unfolded, who knew what and when, and what it will take to pull back from the brink. We didn’t start with opinions—we started with evidence. Here’s what the experts have been saying for years, and how their warnings fit together.

Strategic Intent and Military Buildup

Admiral James Lyons Jr., former commander of the Pacific Fleet, said what few in Washington wanted to hear as early as 2013:
“We’re in our second Cold War with another communist totalitarian regime.”
He warned that China has “built the navy specifically to go against the United States Navy” and that their anti-ship ballistic missiles are “not geared to go against the Bangladesh navy.” When a fleet commander speaks that bluntly on national television, that’s not politics—that’s professional judgment.

Brigadier General Douglas P. Wickert has shown how far that judgment has proven correct. In the Gobi Desert, China has built full-scale mock-ups of Taiwan’s Taichung International Airport and a “one-for-one silhouette of the Ford-class aircraft carrier” for target practice. They are not hiding their intentions. They are practicing to sink our ships and invade our allies.

The scale of China’s buildup is staggering. As Sadler and others have documented:
“They have 230 times the shipbuilding capacity of the United States in terms of shipyard infrastructure and potential output. Just one shipyard in China last year alone, in 2024, built more tonnage of ships than the U.S. did since the end of World War II.”
One shipyard outproduced our entire nation’s post-WWII shipbuilding in a single year. That’s not competition—that’s a wake-up call.

A Time for Revival

The path forward demands both vision and accountability. We need new ships—but also a paradigm shift in how America thinks about sea power, alliance networks, and industrial mobilization. Unmanned systems, resilient architectures, and faster acquisition must be part of the solution. So must shipyard revitalization, recruitment, and public understanding.

Why Americans Should Care

A strong Navy isn’t about seeking conflict—it’s about preventing it. The sea connects our economy, allies, and security. Every container safely delivered, every undersea cable protected, every freedom-of-navigation operation maintained depends on a Navy that’s ready, credible, and resilient. The choices we make now will determine whether we can deter China in 2027 and beyond—or whether others will write the next chapter of maritime history for us.

Charting the Next 250 Years

As we honor our Navy’s proud history, we must also rally around its future. That means bringing Americans into the conversation—not just policymakers and admirals, but citizens, veterans, and industry alike. Our sailors deserve ships that match their courage and leaders who match their commitment.

Sadler’s message is clear: vigilance and strength are the surest remedies against any adversary’s ambitions.

That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter—a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
Let’s roll.

October 11, 2025October 11, 2025

An Open Letter to War on the Rocks: Protecting Supply Chains Starts with a Stronger Navy

To the Editor and Mr. Jesse Humpal,

Your recent commentary, “Supply Chains Are Critical Infrastructure. It’s Time U.S. Policy Caught Up,” correctly identifies supply chains as battlefields targeted by America’s rivals. But while you focus on new legislation and bureaucratic reforms, the real lesson of Maersk, Colonial Pipeline, and Nord Stream is not just a lack of resilience—it’s that corporate offshoring created a moral hazard. For decades, profits were privatized while risks were socialized. Now taxpayers are being asked to underwrite the fallout.

The True Cost of Externalized Risk
Maersk, Colonial Pipeline, and Nord Stream all exposed the same vulnerability: companies prioritized efficiency and profit over redundancy and security. When their fragility became a national crisis, it was the government—and by extension, the American taxpayer—that had to absorb the cost. Legislation like the CHIPS Act or a pharmaceutical reserve may help, but these measures are ultimately subsidies for corporate strategic failures.

The Navy as a Necessary Public Good
The U.S. government should not exist to de-risk private balance sheets. Its mission is to deter adversaries. And only the U.S. Navy has the reach, capability, and mandate to secure the sea lanes, ports, and subsea infrastructure that underpin 90 percent of global trade.

The inherent conflict of interest: CEOs answer to shareholders, not to national security.
The Navy as the ultimate hedge: no private firm will pay to safeguard global commerce; that burden falls on the fleet.
Deterrence through capability: a dominant Navy ensures freedom of navigation, secures subsea lifelines, and guarantees the supply lines needed for both commerce and force projection.

Congress Must Do More
Congress should pass the Promoting Resilient Supply Chains Act, but it must not mistake legislation for deterrence. Protecting the arteries of our economy requires a stronger, larger, and better-resourced Navy. Anything less is subsidizing failure.

That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our mission is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.

October 10, 2025October 10, 2025

250 Years of Standing Watch: A Destroyer Sailor’s Take on Why the Philippines Partnership Defines Our Future

Somewhere in the South China Sea right now, a Filipino coast guard crew is preparing to head back to Second Thomas Shoal. They know what’s waiting—Chinese vessels that will shadow them, harass them, maybe hit them with water cannons or attempt to ram their boats.

They’re going anyway. They’re bringing supplies to their troops stationed on a rusting ship grounded on a reef that lies well within Philippine waters, recognized under international law.

They’re going because some things are worth standing up for. Because sovereignty matters. Because the rule of law at sea isn’t optional.

As the United States Navy marks its 250th anniversary, there’s no better example of why we exist than the U.S.–Philippine partnership—complicated, hard-won, and stronger than ever.

The Long Road to Partnership

Our relationship with the Philippines began painfully. After defeating Spain in 1898, America annexed the Philippines. Filipinos who had fought for independence resisted fiercely. The Philippine–American War was brutal—thousands of U.S. service members killed, tens of thousands of Filipino combatants lost, and many more civilians dead.

That legacy still shapes Filipino attitudes toward foreign military presence. Their wariness isn’t ingratitude—it’s rooted in history.

But World War II forged a different bond. Filipino and American forces fought side by side at Bataan and Corregidor. An estimated one million Filipino civilians died during the occupation. General MacArthur’s promise—“I shall return”— and the liberation that followed forged bonds in blood that endure.

After independence in 1946, Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Base became crown jewels of U.S. power in the Pacific. During Vietnam, Subic Bay handled over 200 ship visits a month. These bases were economic engines but also symbols of resentment. By 1992, rising nationalism and environmental damage forced the U.S. military to leave.

For two decades, the alliance drifted. Then China changed the equation.

What Brought Us Back

Beijing’s growing assertiveness—seizing Scarborough Shoal in 2012, building militarized artificial islands, and harassing Filipino fishermen—forced Manila to turn again to Washington.

The 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) provided rotational access to Philippine bases without creating new U.S. installations—a distinction that matters for Filipino sovereignty. By 2023, the Philippines had opened nine EDCA sites, facing both Taiwan and the South China Sea.

Today, U.S. and Philippine forces conduct more than 500 joint activities each year. The Balikatan exercises now involve 14,000 troops in full-scale scenarios. New U.S. funding—$500 million in 2024—underscores how central this partnership has become.

The Risks We Should Acknowledge

No alliance is without risks.

The 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty could pull the U.S. into conflict over reefs or shoals. Americans could find themselves at war in disputes they barely understand.

Some argue we should fix our own maintenance backlogs and shipbuilding delays before investing abroad. Others warn our expanded presence could accelerate Chinese militarization instead of deterring it. And Philippine politics—sometimes turbulent—carry reputational risk for the U.S.

These are real concerns. But the alternative—a South China Sea dominated by Beijing, where international law collapses and small democracies are swallowed by larger neighbors—is far more dangerous.

The Bigger Picture: China’s Campaign

The Philippines is not the issue—it’s the line in the sand. Incidents at Second Thomas Shoal are part of a systematic campaign of Chinese aggression.

Harassment of U.S. forces: Military lasers aimed at U.S. aircraft, fighters buzzing within feet of American planes, warships cutting across our destroyers.
Rapid naval buildup: The PLA Navy is on track to field over 395 ships by 2025—outnumbering our Navy in its own region.
Encirclement of Taiwan: Beijing rehearses blockades and missile strikes, preparing to coerce neighbors and challenge U.S. access.
Cyber warfare: Groups like Volt Typhoon have penetrated U.S. power grids, water systems, and telecom networks. These intrusions aren’t hypothetical—they’re pre-positioning for conflict.
Disinformation and espionage: From spy balloons to propaganda campaigns, Beijing is shaping the information battlefield.

The message is clear: this is not about a shoal, it’s about the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific.

Why Americans Should Care

Freedom of Navigation: Nearly a third of global trade flows through the South China Sea. If Beijing can dictate access there, every sea lane becomes vulnerable.
Economic Security: This isn’t just about faraway reefs. Those sea lanes carry the fuel that powers your car, the medicine in your cabinet, and the goods that stock your shelves. During COVID, Americans got a hard lesson in what happens when supply chains break—higher prices, empty shelves, and uncertainty.

If China controls those routes, disruption won’t be temporary. It would mean sustained leverage over the American economy: higher grocery and gas prices, layoffs in U.S. factories, and rising costs on everything from mortgages to credit cards.

Control of the South China Sea isn’t an abstract problem overseas. It’s leverage over the American economy—and your family’s budget.

Alliance Credibility: Our 1951 treaty with Manila sends a message to allies everywhere—do U.S. commitments mean anything?
Democratic Solidarity: Manila is modernizing, partnering with Japan and Australia, and standing up to pressure. Supporting them means supporting a network of democracies.

The Choice Ahead

For 250 years, the United States Navy has defended freedom of the seas. At its best, it has enabled smaller nations to prosper without massive militaries of their own.

Today, Filipino coast guard crews at Second Thomas Shoal embody the courage and loyalty of a steadfast ally. They aren’t backing down, even when outnumbered.

The question is whether America will do the same.

As we celebrate our Navy’s 250th anniversary, we face a choice:
Do we stand with democracies under pressure?
Do we defend international law at sea?
Do we maintain a Navy strong enough to prevent wars rather than fight them?

I know my answer. It’s why I write. It’s why Americans for a Stronger Navy exists. Because a strong Navy is what allows the world to prosper under the rule of law—not the rule of the biggest bully.

Fair winds and following seas.

October 7, 2025October 7, 2025

America’s Foreign Policy Tracker: The Navy’s Burden

Introduction: Why This Matters
At Americans for a Stronger Navy, our mission is clear: give sailors the tools they need to succeed. That means more than ships and weapons — it means clarity and consistency in U.S. foreign policy. When Washington wavers, it is sailors and Marines who carry the burden, often forward-deployed thousands of miles from home.

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Foreign Policy Tracker shows just how uneven America’s global posture has become. Some areas are trending positive — energy exports, alliances in Europe, international organizations. Others, especially the Indo-Pacific, are trending negative. That inconsistency has real-world consequences for the Navy: sailors are asked to project strength even as policy shifts under their feet.

A Real-Time Example: The October 7th Hearing
Tomorrow, the Senate Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific, and International Cybersecurity Policy will hold a hearing titled “Combating the People’s Republic of China’s Illegal, Coercive, Aggressive, and Deceptive Behavior in the Indo-Pacific.”

The witnesses bring distinct perspectives that reflect the challenges highlighted in the Tracker:

Craig Singleton (Foundation for Defense of Democracies) – A former diplomat, Singleton warns that mixed signals on Taiwan, arms sales, and technology exports embolden Beijing. Policy inconsistency undermines deterrence and puts sailors in greater danger.

Ray Powell (SeaLight Foundation, Stanford) – A retired Air Force colonel, Powell tracks China’s “gray zone” tactics: swarming, harassment, and incremental pressure in the South China Sea. These confrontations fall hardest on sailors at sea, who face constant risks of escalation.

Dr. Ely Ratner (The Marathon Initiative) – A strategist focused on great-power competition, Ratner emphasizes the long view: rebuilding U.S. alliances, revitalizing shipbuilding, and sustaining naval power for decades, not just years.

Why Americans Should Care
The Indo-Pacific isn’t just a faraway chessboard. The sea lanes carry the goods Americans buy every day, from electronics to energy. If Beijing dominates those waters, costs will rise at home, jobs will be at risk, and U.S. influence will shrink abroad. Add to this China’s cyber intrusions, intellectual property theft, and influence operations, and the challenge is already reaching into American life.

Implications for the Navy
The Navy is America’s frontline deterrent. Singleton’s warnings highlight that sailors need more than weapons — they need policy clarity. Powell’s findings show how Beijing’s small-scale harassment tactics wear down ships and crews. Ratner’s perspective reminds us that without sustained investment in industry and alliances, our Navy risks being stretched to the breaking point.

Implications for Allies and Partners
Allies like Japan, the Philippines, and Australia want to see American resolve, not hesitation. Mixed signals make them question whether the U.S. will stand firm, driving them to hedge or make side deals with Beijing. A strong and steady Navy reassures allies and keeps coalitions intact.

The Navy’s Burden
From trade wars to canceled arms sales, from cyber threats to gray-zone skirmishes, the Navy carries the weight of America’s foreign policy. The Foreign Policy Tracker shows the global picture, and tomorrow’s hearing will shine a light on one theater where the stakes are highest: the Indo-Pacific.

Watch the Hearing
The hearing begins October 7, 2025, at 2:30 p.m. ET. Follow it here: Senate Foreign Relations Committee – Hearing Link. We’ll be listening closely and will share a follow-up with key takeaways.

Conclusion
At the end of the day, hearings and trackers matter because they remind us of one thing: our sailors and Marines deserve the tools, support, and clear direction needed to keep America safe.

That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our mission is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.

Subscribe today at StrongerNavy.org. Let’s roll.

October 4, 2025October 4, 2025

While We Fight Each Other at Home, China Prepares — And Time Is Running Out

Introduction

China set 2027 as their military readiness target – that’s 18 months away. Let me tell you something Americans need to hear, even if it makes you uncomfortable: China is laughing out loud and I can hear it from here, and they’re squeezing harder every day.

I’m not being dramatic. I’m being honest. As a former Navy sailor who spent his civilian career in telecom and web technologies, I understand both the military realities and the technological dependencies that have put us in this position. After two years of research—cross-checking military testimony, intelligence reports, and independent defense analyses—I can tell you we’re running out of time to fix this mess.

The Brutal Truth About 2027

China has set a goal to be militarily ready for war with the United States by 2027. That’s not some distant threat—that’s 18 months away. While we’ve been arguing about what he said and she said etc, they’ve been building the world’s largest navy and positioning themselves to strangle us economically, electronically and militarily.

Here’s what keeps me up at night: they don’t need to sink our ships to defeat us. They can just stop selling us the parts to build new ones.

How China is putting on the squeeze

They Control What We Need to Fight
Rare earth minerals for our missile guidance systems? China controls 80% of global processing.

Semiconductors for our weapons platforms? We outsourced that to Asia decades ago.

Critical components for naval systems? Good luck building ships without Chinese suppliers.

They Own Our Information Flow

TikTok shapes what our kids think about America and China

They manufacture the phones and devices we use to communicate

Their algorithms determine what information Americans see about military threats

They Hold Our Economy Hostage

Wall Street pension funds are invested in Chinese markets

Silicon Valley’s revenue depends on Chinese manufacturing and consumers
Our entire supply chain runs through Chinese factories

The Kicker? The same Silicon Valley companies that handed China our technological advantages now control how Americans get information. Try posting about Chinese military threats on Facebook—watch your reach get throttled. Discuss naval readiness on social media—suddenly you’re “violating community standards.”

They don’t just have us by the blank—they’re controlling the conversation about it.

Don’t Take My Word For It — Listen to the Experts

Over the past 24 months, Americans for a Stronger Navy has been mapping a story few citizens have ever been shown: how China’s campaign against the United States unfolded, who knew what and when, and what it will take to pull back from the brink. We didn’t start with opinions — we started with evidence. Here’s what the experts have been saying for years, and how their warnings fit together.

Strategic Intent and Military Buildup

Admiral James Lyons Jr., former commander of the Pacific Fleet, went on Fox News in 2013 and said what few in Washington wanted to hear: “We’re in our second Cold War with another communist totalitarian regime.” He warned that China has “built the navy specifically to go against the United States Navy” and that their anti-ship ballistic missiles are “not geared to go against the Bangladesh navy.” When a fleet commander speaks that bluntly on national television, that’s not politics — that’s professional judgment.

Brigadier General Douglas P. Wickert has shown how far that judgment has proven correct. In the Gobi Desert, China has built full-scale mock-ups of Taiwan’s Taichung International Airport and a “one-for-one silhouette of the Ford-class aircraft carrier” for target practice. They are not hiding their intentions. They are practicing to sink our ships and invade our allies.

The scale of China’s buildup is staggering: “They have 230 times the shipbuilding capacity of the United States in terms of shipyard infrastructure and potential output.. “Just one shipyard in China last year alone, in 2024, built more tonnage of ships than the U.S. did since the end of World War II.” One shipyard outproduced our entire nation’s post-WWII shipbuilding in a single year.

👉 Subscribe and Follow Along
This is just Part 1 of a three-part series. In Part 2: Political Warfare and the Silent Invasion, I’ll break down how China’s campaign has already reached into our own institutions — through espionage, influence operations, and economic coercion.

Key Takeaway: The fight isn’t just “over there.” It’s already here, shaping what Americans see, hear, and believe.

Don’t miss it — subscribe and follow the series at StrongerNavy.org.

September 28, 2025September 28, 2025

Why China’s Cyber Warfare Capabilities Make a Stronger Navy More Critical Than Ever

China’s cyber warfare escalation proves the need for a stronger Navy. For two years, we’ve warned that adversaries were already inside our homeland; today’s revelations confirm it and raise the stakes. Cyber defenses matter, but only forward-deployed ships provide the physical presence, analog resilience, and immediate deterrence that malware can’t erase. As we argue at home, Beijing prepares—time is running out to rally behind our sailors, our civilian maritime industry, and the shipbuilding surge America needs.

The Vindication No One Wanted
This morning’s New York Times revelation should serve as a wake-up call, but for those paying attention, it reads like an inevitable conclusion. Despite CIA Director William Burns confronting China’s Minister of State Security in May 2023 with evidence of malicious code embedded in America’s critical infrastructure, China ignored the warnings and escalated operations.

As we’ve written before: “Most people don’t realize it yet. We are already in a quiet war. Not with bombs. Not with missiles. But with fentanyl, with financial schemes, and with cyber attacks.”

Today’s reporting proves we were right. The question is: why did it take a CIA director’s secret mission and a massive intelligence failure for mainstream media to acknowledge the obvious?

Silicon Valley’s Role in America’s Vulnerability
Before we talk solutions, we must address culpability. Silicon Valley—the same industry that promised to “connect the world”—has systematically created the vulnerabilities that China now exploits.

Supply Chain Sellout: Manufacturing moved to China, transferring critical knowledge of hardware vulnerabilities.
Backdoor Bonanza: Even solar panels and batteries carry hidden back doors that could one day flip a switch against us.
Data Harvesting: Social media platforms collected massive datasets, much of which inevitably found its way into Chinese intelligence.
Infrastructure Integration: Cloud services created single points of failure that adversaries can exploit across sectors simultaneously.

Executives got rich while selling America’s digital sovereignty. They dismissed security concerns as “protectionism” and prioritized market access over national security. Where is the accountability?

The Secret Meeting That Changed Nothing
The Times reveals that Burns’ confrontation with Chen Yixin was professional but meaningless. When presented with evidence of cyber intrusions, China’s intelligence chief “gave nothing away.”

China’s real response came later: Salt Typhoon—a massive, yearslong intrusion targeting “nearly every American” and dozens of countries. This was not diplomacy failing. It was China demonstrating that cyber warfare is a strategic pillar, not a negotiable issue.

As Rear Admiral Mike Studeman warned: “The reality is that adversaries have insinuated themselves in our homeland… and continue to exploit our society from the inside out.”

Why Naval Power Matters More After Cyber Escalation
Cyber warfare doesn’t eliminate the need for naval power—it makes it more critical.

The Infrastructure Hostage Crisis
We warned that adversaries target our banks, pipelines, and power grids. Today’s reporting confirms it. But there’s one thing they can’t hack: ships already forward-deployed.

The Communications Blackout
Modern naval operations rely on networks China has proven it can disrupt. The solution isn’t cybersecurity alone—it’s having more ships already in position when networks go dark.

The Logistics Nightmare
China can disrupt ports, fuel, and supply chains simultaneously. Forward-deployed naval power bypasses these vulnerabilities.

The Taiwan Test Case
China’s cyber strategy aims to create an impossible choice: accept aggression or risk massive retaliation against U.S. infrastructure. But this calculation changes with a larger forward-deployed fleet:

Ships on station can’t be cyber-attacked out of position
Redundant communications across multiple vessels mitigate disruption
Immediate response capability denies China consolidation time
A visible presence deters aggression before it begins

The Call to Action
We’ve argued for 24 months that the future of America depends on our sailors, our civilian maritime industry, and a Navy that protects them both. Today’s revelations make this argument irrefutable.

Every day Congress delays emergency shipbuilding, China gains ground. Every month without new investment deepens our vulnerability. Call your representatives. Demand they fund emergency naval expansion now.

Beyond China
Russia, Iran, and North Korea are studying these techniques. Naval power provides what cyber defenses cannot: physical presence immune to digital attack.

Ships can’t be deleted by malware. Naval gunfire doesn’t require Wi-Fi. Sailors can’t be hacked out of existence.

Silicon Valley’s Reckoning Day
Congress must investigate how U.S. tech companies:

Facilitated Chinese access to critical technologies
Ignored warnings in favor of market access
Enabled mass data collection for foreign intelligence
Built cloud infrastructures that created systemic single points of failure

Executives who sold out American sovereignty should be held to the same scrutiny as defense contractors.

The Validation We Didn’t Want
Being right about China’s cyber warfare escalation brings no satisfaction. We would rather have been wrong. Instead, today proves China is pursuing cyber warfare and naval expansion simultaneously. America must respond with both—better cybersecurity and a stronger Navy.

Conclusion: The Time for Half-Measures is Over
For 24 months, we’ve warned that America faces adversaries already inside our homeland. Today proves they didn’t waste those 24 months—they dug in deeper.

The question is no longer whether we can afford emergency naval expansion. The question is whether we can afford another 24 months of delay.

That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.
Let’s roll.

September 6, 2025September 6, 2025

Alaska’s Arctic Waters: The Overlooked Front in U.S. Homeland Defense

China and Russia are pushing closer to our northern doorstep — and Alaska is the front line.

Introduction

Over the past year, U.S. Coast Guard cutters have repeatedly intercepted foreign “research” ships operating just beyond the 200-mile line off Alaska’s Arctic coast. At the same time, the U.S. Navy has kept up under-ice submarine operations, while Russian aircraft test our air defense zone and Sino-Russian flotillas sail through the Bering Strait.

**Map Legend**
**Dashed Red Lines** – *Patrol routes and foreign vessel tracks monitored by the U.S. Coast Guard near Alaska’s Arctic coast.*
**Solid Blue Lines** – *Projected Arctic shipping lanes, including the Northern Sea Route (along Russia) and emerging trans-Arctic corridors.*
**Shaded Blue Zone** – *Exercise Northern Edge 2025 training areas, where U.S. and allied forces conducted joint, multi-domain operations.*
**Black Ship Icons** – *Locations of recent intercepts of foreign “research” vessels near Utqiaġvik.*
**Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)** – *U.S. waters extending 200 nautical miles from Alaska’s coast, where America exercises sovereign rights over resources.*

The takeaway is simple: America’s Arctic is no longer quiet. It’s contested.

Why Americans Should Care
Alaska is not a remote outpost. It is our Arctic front yard, rich in resources, with thousands of miles of shoreline and a narrow strait that connects the Pacific to the Arctic. When Chinese “research” vessels map our seabeds or Russian aircraft enter the Air Defense Identification Zone, they’re probing how close they can get to our homeland. What happens off Alaska affects energy security, trade routes, and even the protection of undersea cables that carry the world’s internet traffic.

RAND’s latest study underscores this point. In The Future of Maritime Presence in the Central Arctic Ocean (July 2025), RAND concludes that as sea ice retreats, the Arctic will draw in both Arctic and non-Arctic actors for economic, political, and military gain. They warn that competition will intensify in phases: first commercial, then political, and ultimately strategic. For the U.S., that means maritime presence is not optional — it is essential to prevent rivals from dictating the rules of the Arctic.

Implications for the Navy
Day-to-day patrols fall to the Coast Guard, which provides the only regular surface presence in the Arctic. But the Navy’s role is no less critical. Its submarines operate beneath the ice, practicing for deterrence and warfighting in a domain where rivals are gaining ground. The Navy also views Alaska as part of the defense-in-depth of the United States — the first line of detection and deterrence against missile submarines, long-range bombers, and other threats moving south from the Arctic.

This year’s Northern Edge 2025 exercise made that point clear. More than 6,400 U.S. and Canadian service members, 100 aircraft, and seven warships, including USS Abraham Lincoln and her carrier strike group, trained across Alaska. Running alongside Arctic Edge, the exercises brought together INDOPACOM and NORTHCOM to practice joint, multi-domain operations — from the Aleutians to Adak. In other words: Alaska is not just about defending the homeland, it is a launchpad for projecting U.S. power into the Indo-Pacific.

The challenge remains that America’s icebreaker fleet is thin, while Russia operates dozens and China fields new polar-capable vessels. Without recapitalization and greater presence, the U.S. risks falling behind in its own backyard. RAND echoes this warning: presence and infrastructure — from icebreakers to domain awareness — are key to avoiding strategic surprise.

Implications for Our Allies
The Arctic is no longer an American issue alone. NATO allies — Canada, Denmark, Norway — all face the same northern pressure. China brands itself a “near-Arctic state” and seeks influence in waters that directly border allied territory. Coordinated exercises like Northern Edge and Arctic Edge are proof that alliances matter. Shared domain awareness and investment in icebreaking and seabed security will be vital. If America steps back, allies are left exposed — and adversaries will fill the gap.

The Bottom Line
Alaska’s Arctic waters are an overlooked but critical front in U.S. homeland defense. The Coast Guard may be on point, but the Navy’s presence under the ice and in the chokepoints is just as important. Together, they demonstrate that the U.S. is watching, ready, and committed to protecting its northern approaches.

Let’s roll.