Peace Through Strength – Community Driven – Membership Supported
Category: Capitol Hill Watch
Capitol Hill is the seat of the U.S. government, home to the domed United States Capitol, Senate, Houses of Representatives and the neoclassical Supreme Court. Capitol Hill Watch covers the news, current and pending legislation of interest to the Americans for a Stronger Navy.
A reader recently reached out with a thoughtful question. After seeing renewed debate around the Jones Act — including critiques from respected analysts and commentators — they wanted to understand how that debate fits with our advocacy for the SHIPS Act and the recently proposed Strategic Seas Act.
It’s a fair question. And it reflects a broader challenge: America’s maritime conversation has become fragmented, emotional, and often disconnected from strategic reality.
Here’s the clearest way to understand it.
The Core Issue Isn’t One Law — It’s the System
America’s maritime problem did not emerge because of one bad law or one bad decision. It emerged because policy, industry, workforce, logistics, and security drifted out of alignment over decades.
The Jones Act, the SHIPS Act, and the Strategic Seas Act each address different layers of that system. Confusing them — or pitting them against one another — obscures the real challenge.
What the Jones Act Actually Does (and Does Not Do)
The Jones Act governs domestic coastwise and inland shipping — cargo moved between U.S. ports along rivers, coasts, and internal waterways.
Its intent is to preserve:
A U.S. maritime workforce
Domestic shipbuilding and repair capacity
U.S. control over domestic trade routes
It does not regulate international or blue-water shipping.
Critics are right about one thing: the Jones Act did not prevent the collapse of America’s international commercial fleet. That collapse happened outside its scope — driven by tax policy, financing disadvantages, flag-of-convenience practices, and long-term neglect.
That critique is legitimate. But it’s also incomplete.
Why the Jones Act Debate Isn’t Decisive
For years, serious naval professionals and analysts have debated whether the Jones Act is a national security asset or a liability. That debate is not new, and it has often been conducted in good faith.
What has changed is the strategic environment.
Recent analysis has reminded us of a hard truth: wars at sea are wars of attrition. Losses come fast. Ships, crews, and shipyards lost early in a conflict cannot be replaced in time to affect the outcome.
That means no maritime policy — Jones Act included — can be judged solely by cost or efficiency in peacetime. The real question is whether the overall system can absorb loss and sustain combat before a war begins.
What the SHIPS Act Is Designed to Fix
The SHIPS Act addresses a failure the Jones Act was never designed to solve: the collapse of U.S.-flag international shipping and sealift capacity.
Its focus includes:
Rebuilding a viable U.S.-flag fleet in international trade
Expanding and stabilizing the pool of credentialed U.S. mariners
Strengthening sealift capacity the Navy depends on in wartim
Restoring American relevance in global maritime commerce
This is where America’s absence has become a strategic vulnerability — and where reform is long overdue.
Why We Proposed the Strategic Seas Act
Even rebuilding ships and mariners is no longer enough.
Modern global commerce and advanced technologies create maritime security risks at scale — from congested sea lanes and port dependencies to undersea cables and logistics chokepoints. When those risks materialize, the burden falls almost entirely on the U.S. Navy and the American taxpayer.
The Strategic Seas Act starts from a simple principle: strategic risk should be managed and shared, not externalized.
It focuses on:
Accountability for maritime risk creation
Protection of ports, shipyards, sea lanes, and undersea infrastructure
Aligning commercial innovation with maritime and naval security
Closing the gap between private gain and public security cost
This is not about shipping rates. It’s about national responsibility in a contested maritime world.
Why We Don’t Lead With the Jones Act Debate
The Jones Act debate often becomes ideological. The most urgent maritime failures today are strategic and systemic.
Our priority is:
Whether America can move and sustain forces at scale
Whether we have the mariners to crew ships in crisis
Whether our industrial base can repair and regenerate under pressure
That doesn’t make the Jones Act irrelevant. It makes it one part of a much larger system.
Why Americans Should Care
Most Americans never see ships — but their food, fuel, medicine, data, and livelihoods move by sea. When maritime policy fails, the consequences show up quietly: fragile supply chains, higher prices, longer crises, and greater military risk.
Maritime strength is not abstract. It shapes daily life.
Implications for the Navy
The Navy cannot surge ships, mariners, or shipyards after a war starts. Civilian maritime capacity is not separate from naval readiness — it underpins it. Planning without industrial and workforce reality invites failure.
Implications for Our Allies
Allies measure credibility by endurance. A stronger U.S. maritime system reduces dangerous dependence on adversaries and turns alliances into real, usable capacity — not just promises.
Closing Thought
The real question isn’t whether one maritime law should be defended or repealed.
The question is whether the United States intends to remain a serious maritime nation — prepared before the first shot is fired, not scrambling after ships are lost.
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.
Americans Support a Strong Navy — and Expect Readiness to Match
While public debate and media commentary continue, Americans for a Stronger Navy looks under the hood — at what Americans are actually saying and feeling when asked directly about naval strength and readiness.
The 2025 Reagan National Defense Survey offers a rare opportunity to move past headlines and examine public sentiment itself. Rather than reacting to daily news cycles, this analysis focuses on the underlying signals Americans are sending about national security, deterrence, and the role of naval power in an increasingly uncertain world.
What Americans Are Saying
The survey shows strong and durable support for military strength. Eighty-seven percent of Americans believe military superiority matters, and seventy-one percent believe global peace depends on American strength. A majority believe the United States maintains superiority at sea.
Naval power remains central to how Americans think about deterrence, stability, and global leadership. This support is not tied to a single region or conflict. It reflects a broader expectation that the United States should retain the capability to protect its interests, allies, and maritime commerce.
The Confidence Gap
Alongside that support, the data reveals unease. Only forty-nine percent of Americans believe the U.S. military could win a major war overseas, and just forty-five percent believe it can effectively deter foreign aggression.
This gap does not reflect opposition to the military. It reflects concern about whether readiness, capacity, and sustainability are keeping pace with the responsibilities Americans expect the Navy to carry. The difference between support and confidence is one of the most important signals in the survey.
Capacity Matters — and Americans Know It
Two findings stand out. Sixty-eight percent of Americans support increased investment in shipbuilding and manufacturing. Ninety-four percent believe the United States needs greater domestic manufacturing capacity.
Americans appear to understand something fundamental: naval strength is not defined solely by ships at sea, but by the industrial systems that build, repair, crew, and sustain them over time. Shipyards, skilled workers, suppliers, dry docks, and logistics networks are not abstract concepts. They are the difference between plans on paper and forces that are ready when needed.
What the Survey Reveals About Deterrence
The survey also sheds light on how Americans view deterrence in practice, particularly in the Indo-Pacific.
When asked about Taiwan, seventy-seven percent of Americans say it is important for the United States to help defend the island against Chinese aggression. If China were to invade Taiwan, sixty percent say they would support committing U.S. forces to Taiwan’s defense, up from forty-eight percent the prior year. Majorities also support additional measures designed to deter aggression and strengthen regional stability, including deploying more U.S. military assets to the region, sending additional military equipment to Taiwan, imposing economic sanctions, and establishing air and maritime control measures.
These responses do not reflect a desire for conflict. They reflect an expectation that deterrence must be credible. Americans appear to understand that commitments only matter if the United States has the capacity to back them up.
Deterrence at sea is not abstract. It depends on available ships, trained crews, maintained platforms, secure logistics, and resilient industrial support. When Americans express support for defending allies and preserving stability in the Indo-Pacific, they are implicitly expressing expectations about readiness — and about whether U.S. sailors have the tools they need to do their jobs effectively and safely.
From Public Sentiment to Public Support
Americans for a Stronger Navy is politically neutral. We do not support parties or candidates. But we are not neutral on readiness.
Our role is to articulate what Americans are saying and feeling — and, when appropriate, to state clearly when legislation aligns with those expressed expectations.
Based on the survey data and the readiness challenges it highlights, Americans for a Stronger Navy supports the SHIPS for America Act. This support is grounded in alignment, not politics.
Why We Support the SHIPS Act
The SHIPS for America Act does not dictate naval strategy or force employment. Its relevance lies in strengthening the foundations naval readiness depends on.
It addresses shipbuilding and repair capacity by expanding and stabilizing the yards that build and maintain naval vessels. It supports maritime workforce development by growing the skilled labor base the Navy cannot surge in a crisis. It strengthens industrial resilience and surge capacity by reinforcing the commercial and auxiliary maritime sector that supports naval logistics and sealift. And it promotes long-term sustainability by reducing boom-and-bust cycles that drive cost overruns, schedule delays, and readiness shortfalls.
What This Endorsement Is — and Is Not
Our support for the SHIPS Act is not partisan. It does not imply endorsement of every provision, and it does not replace the need for oversight, accountability, or debate.
It reflects a judgment that strengthening the maritime industrial base aligns with what Americans are asking for — and is necessary to close the confidence gap the survey reveals. If Americans expect deterrence to be credible, then policy should strengthen the capacity that makes deterrence real.
The Signal Americans Are Sending
The survey does not prescribe policy, but it does define expectations.
Americans are saying they value naval strength, deterrence over conflict, readiness that matches responsibility, and domestic capacity that sustains credibility. When expectations and outcomes align, confidence grows. When they drift apart, trust erodes.
Our role is to surface that signal clearly. The data speaks. Alignment is the challenge.
The 2027 Countdown: What the Pentagon’s Delayed China Report Reveals
Bill Cullifer, Founder
Hello friends, and fellow supporters of America’s Navy. Bill Cullifer here with Americans for a Stronger Navy.
On December 23rd, the Pentagon released its annual China Military Power Report. This assessment had been missing all year while Congress debated budgets. Now that it’s here, we understand the delay. The report contains the most direct warning yet: China expects to be able to fight and win a war over Taiwan by the end of 2027. That’s less than three years away.
Why Taiwan Matters to You
As Elbridge Colby, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, wrote in TIME Magazine:
“Defending far-off Taiwan and our allies… is rooted in a practical, hard-nosed assessment of what is in Americans’ concrete economic and political interests. It is about defending Americans’ security, liberties, and prosperity from a very real, and in terms of China’s gigantic scale, unprecedented danger.”
Your Phone. Your Car. Your Hospital Equipment.
Taiwan produces 60% of the world’s advanced semiconductors. A Chinese blockade or invasion would cost the global economy at least one trillion dollars per year.
What the Pentagon Report Reveals
Nuclear Expansion: Stockpile reached 600+ in 2024, on track to exceed 1,000 by 2030.
Space Surveillance: 359+ satellites now track U.S. ships in near real-time.
Cyber Weapons: Operations like Volt Typhoon have burrowed into U.S. power grids for wartime sabotage.
Taiwan Pressure: 3,067 air incursions in 2024—nearly double the previous year.
The Timeline Should Terrify You
The Western Pacific is becoming a “Kill Zone.” As one naval officer put it: “We no longer build the Navy the Navy needs. We build the Navy the accountants will tolerate.”
America is not outmatched; we are under-mobilized. The decisions we make in 2025 determine whether deterrence holds in 2027. Visit StrongerNavy.org to request your copy of our 2025 U.S. Navy Year in Review.
Thank you for caring about America’s maritime strength.
Fair winds and following seas,
Bill Cullifer Founder, Americans for a Stronger Navy StrongerNavy.org
Pete Hegseth’s 2024 The War on Warriors has ignited fierce debate across America. As I write this, decorated veterans like Senator Mark Kelly and Pete Hegseth—both men who’ve served with distinction—are in public conflict.
Americans for a Stronger Navy is not going to adjudicate those battles.
What started as an effort to understand Pete Hegseth’s perspective through his book and interviews evolved into something else entirely. As I watched his past interviews and listened to the three-hour conversation with Shawn Ryan, I found myself repeatedly pulled back to our core mission: the urgent need for a Navy capable of deterring China and defending American interests.
While I agree with many of Hegseth’s principles about building a stronger fighting force and improving resources for veterans, I also recognize that his book and interviews reflect a specific moment in time—the period leading up to and following publication. The debates they’ve sparked are important, and good people disagree on the solutions.
But while we debate internally, China doesn’t pause its carrier production.
Our lane is clear: advocating for the naval power necessary to protect America’s future. While others debate military culture, we’re compelled to focus on what both Shawn Ryan and Pete Hegseth spent significant time discussing in their three-hour interview: the existential threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party.
Our veterans deserve better care than they’re receiving. When the VA is failing the warriors who already served, spending defense dollars on elective procedures while vets wait months for basic care is unconscionable. This isn’t a cultural position—it’s a resource management position. Every dollar matters when China is building carriers faster than we can.
With that stated, let’s focus on what should unite all Americans regardless of political persuasion: “China has us by the balls,” says Hegseth. And by our best estimates, we’re running out of time to do something about it.
The Strategic Reality
The most critical parts of the Hegseth-Ryan interview aren’t about DEI or pronouns. They’re about strategic vulnerability to an adversary that’s been playing the long game while we’ve been distracted.
Here’s Pete Hegseth’s unvarnished assessment:
“When they’ve already got us by the balls economically, with our grid, culturally, with elite capture going on around the globe, microchips, everything—why do they want Taiwan? They want to corner the market completely on the technological future. We can’t even drive our cars without the stuff we need out of China these days. They have a full-spectrum, long-term view of not just regional but global domination, and we have our heads up our asses.”
Here’s the short 50 second YouTube clip, watch it for yourself.
Let’s break down what “by the balls” actually means:
Economic Leverage: Our Grid is Their Weapon
China produces all of our electrical transformers, solar panels, and wind turbines. Not most. All. They’re already embedded in our power grid infrastructure. FBI Director Christopher Wray has publicly confirmed Chinese operatives have pre-positioned malware in our electrical grid and water treatment facilities.
As Wray stated, “the dashboard is flashing red and smoking.”
Think about what this means: In the opening hours of a Taiwan conflict, before a single shot is fired at a carrier strike group, China could potentially darken American cities, shut down water systems, and cripple our ability to mobilize.
Our Navy can’t sortie from ports without power. Our sailors can’t fight if their families are in crisis at home.
Naval Asymmetry: We’re Losing the Numbers Game
Hegseth reveals what Pentagon insiders know but rarely admit publicly:
“In the past 10-15 years, the Pentagon has a perfect record in all of its war games against China. We lose every time.”
Every. Single. Time.
Why? Multiple factors:
Numerical Inferiority: China’s Navy now exceeds the U.S. Navy in sheer hull numbers. They’re building aircraft carriers and advanced destroyers at a pace we cannot match with our current industrial base.
Hypersonic Missiles: China has developed hypersonic weapons specifically designed to defeat our carrier strike groups. As Hegseth notes: “If 15 hypersonic missiles can take out our 10 aircraft carriers in the first 20 minutes of a conflict, what does that look like?”
Our primary tool of power projection—the carrier strike group—may be obsolete on Day One of a Pacific conflict.
Supply Chain Dependency: When Shawn Ryan mentions defensive technologies like directed EMP weapons (from companies like Epirus) that can counter drone swarms, even he expresses concern: “I don’t know if anything’s coming from China. I don’t know what other weapons we have and what’s manufactured in China or what IP they’ve stolen from us.”
We can’t even be certain our most advanced defensive systems aren’t compromised by Chinese components or stolen intellectual property.
The Microchip Chokepoint: Taiwan is Everything
Why does China want Taiwan? Not reunification nostalgia. Taiwan is the beating heart of the global economy and modern civilization.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) doesn’t just produce “the majority” of advanced microchips—it produces over 90% of the world’s most advanced semiconductors. These aren’t chips for smartphones and laptops. These are the chips that power:
Every advanced weapon system – F-35s, guided missiles, radar systems, naval combat systems
Every AI system – From civilian applications to military command and control
Every modern vehicle – Cars, trucks, tractors, commercial aircraft
Every communications system – Cell towers, satellites, internet infrastructure
Every financial system – Banking, stock markets, payment processing
If China controls Taiwan, China controls the technological backbone of human civilization.
This isn’t hyperbole. During the COVID chip shortage, automobile production halted worldwide. Factories sat idle. Dealership lots emptied. That was a supply chain hiccup. Imagine China with a monopoly, deciding who gets chips and who doesn’t.
American weapon systems would depend on Chinese approval for components.American hospitals would need Chinese permission to operate.American banks would require Chinese consent to process transactions.
This is why Taiwan isn’t just another regional territorial dispute. Taiwan is the strategic fulcrum upon which the entire 21st century will turn.
And China knows it. That’s why they’re building a military specifically designed to take Taiwan before we can effectively respond. That’s why every hypersonic missile, every carrier, every amphibious assault ship they build is calculated toward this single objective.
Salt Typhoon: They’re Already Inside
In late 2024, U.S. intelligence agencies revealed that Chinese hackers operating under the codename “Salt Typhoon” had achieved deep, persistent access to American telecommunications infrastructure.
Not a probe. Not a test. Deep, persistent access.
They’re inside AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile networks. They can intercept phone calls, text messages, internet traffic. They’ve targeted senior government officials, military personnel, critical infrastructure operators.
This isn’t theoretical preparation for future conflict. This is active intelligence collection happening right now.
Combined with their penetration of our electrical grid (FBI Director Wray’s “flashing red dashboard”), their control over our transformer supply chains, their dominance in 5G infrastructure, and their positioning in our water treatment systems—China has achieved the infiltration necessary to paralyze America without firing a shot.
When the Taiwan crisis comes—and it will come—our response will be shaped by what China has already positioned to cripple us from within.
The Indo-Pacific: Where Our Future Will Be Decided
The Indo-Pacific region isn’t one theater among many. It’s THE theater where American prosperity and security will be won or lost.
Consider the stakes:
Economic: Over 60% of global maritime trade flows through the South China Sea. $3.4 trillion in trade passes through the Taiwan Strait annually. If China controls these waters, they control global commerce.
Alliance Structure: Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, India—our entire network of Pacific allies depends on American commitment. If we cannot or will not defend Taiwan, why would anyone trust American security guarantees?
Resources: Critical minerals, rare earth elements, advanced manufacturing—the Indo-Pacific is the industrial and technological center of the 21st century. Ceding this region to Chinese dominance means accepting permanent economic subservience.
Naval Power Projection: If China controls the First Island Chain (Japan-Taiwan-Philippines), American naval power is effectively contained to Pearl Harbor and San Diego. Our ability to operate globally collapses.
This isn’t about the military-industrial complex wanting another war. This is about the economic and security future of our children and grandchildren.
This is Nothing Like Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan
I understand the skepticism. Both Pete Hegseth and Shawn Ryan expressed it in their interview—they’re both “recovering neocons” who supported Iraq and Afghanistan and now recognize those were strategic disasters.
Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were wars of choice built on questionable premises:
Nation-building missions in societies we didn’t understand
No vital national interests at stake
No clear victory conditions
Counterinsurgency in impossible terrain against irregular forces
Decades-long occupations with no end state
Trillions spent with nothing to show for it
The potential Taiwan conflict is fundamentally different:
1. Vital National Interests: Taiwan semiconductors aren’t optional. Modern civilization depends on them. This isn’t about abstract concepts like “democracy promotion”—it’s about maintaining access to the technology that runs everything from hospitals to power grids.
2. Deterrence, Not Occupation: We don’t need to occupy Chinese territory or rebuild their society. We need to make the cost of taking Taiwan prohibitively high. That’s classic deterrence, not nation-building.
3. Conventional Warfare: This would be state-on-state naval and air conflict where American technological advantages matter, not counterinsurgency in urban terrain where they don’t.
4. Clear Objectives: Maintain Taiwan’s de facto independence and semiconductor production. That’s it. No “hearts and minds,” no transforming societies, no endless occupation.
5. Alliance Structure: We’d fight alongside Japan, Australia, potentially South Korea and others with shared interests. This isn’t America alone trying to remake a foreign society.
6. Existential Stakes: If China controls Taiwan’s chips, they control the global economy. If they demonstrate American security guarantees are worthless, our entire alliance system collapses. If they dominate the Indo-Pacific, American prosperity ends.
The lesson from Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan isn’t “never fight wars.” It’s “don’t fight stupid wars based on lies about stupid objectives in stupid ways.”
Deterring China from taking Taiwan is none of those things. It’s the most strategically vital mission American naval power faces.
This is about ensuring our grandchildren grow up in a free, prosperous America—not one subordinated to Chinese Communist Party dictates because we couldn’t muster the will to maintain our position when it mattered most.
Economic Warfare: The Crypto Scam Example
Hegseth and Ryan discuss an underreported aspect of Chinese strategic operations: systematic economic extraction through crypto scams.
Chinese operatives run sophisticated confidence schemes:
Approach target with small crypto investment opportunity ($15,000)
Deliver real returns quickly ($45,000) to build trust
Escalate to larger investments ($200,000)
When target invests life savings ($1,000,000+), disappear with everything
This isn’t individual crime—it’s organized economic warfare to extract American wealth before potential conflict.
Ryan’s local sheriff’s department just tracked one operator across multiple states to Las Vegas. “It’s happening all over the place,” Ryan notes.
Cultural Infiltration: TikTok and Beyond
As Hegseth observes: “We let in TikTok where they can trans our kids and they don’t trans their kids.”
Whether you agree with his framing or not, the strategic point is valid: China operates TikTok to influence American youth while banning it domestically. That’s not cultural exchange—that’s information warfare.
The CCP understands something we’ve forgotten: The side that controls what the next generation believes controls the future.
The Long Game: China’s Strategic Patience
Here’s what separates China’s approach from ours:
China’s Strategy:
Multi-decade planning horizon
Systematic IP theft and technology acquisition
Economic positioning for future conflict
Military buildup specifically designed to defeat the United States
Letting China manufacture our critical infrastructure
Outsourcing our industrial base for quarterly profit margins
Assuming the international rules-based order will protect us
Internal political warfare consuming our attention
As Hegseth puts it: “China is playing chess while we’re arguing about pronouns.”
The Timing Question: When Will They Strike?
Both Ryan and Hegseth wrestle with a critical strategic question: When will China make its move on Taiwan?
Ryan’s analysis is chilling:
“If I was them, I would put in the scenario into war games and see what the probability is that we’re going to come out on top. I wouldn’t make a move until after this election because they know what’s going on. They see it. Nobody made any weird moves under Trump that I’m aware of. As soon as they got in—Russia went after Ukraine, tensions with Taiwan getting stronger, the border, Israel—everybody that wanted to make a chess move on the board did it as soon as Trump was out of office.”
“If I was them, I would make my move the first day that Trump is in office because that would be the weakest point before we start to see an incline. And if Kamala gets in there, I would wait another four years, just let it keep declining, and that would just let this place get as weak as it possibly can, and then I would pull the trigger.”
Think about that logic:
China runs the scenarios through their war game simulations
They update the probability matrices with current data
Every year we decline, their probability of victory increases
They wait until the optimal moment
The clock is ticking. And we’re not on it.
What This Means for the Navy
Everything Hegseth discusses in the Army context applies with even greater urgency to naval forces:
Recruitment Crisis: The Navy can’t crew the ships we have, let alone the fleet we need. If patriotic families from military traditions are second-guessing service, where do future sailors come from?
Retention Problems: Experienced petty officers and junior officers are leaving. Institutional knowledge walks out the door with them.
Technical Expertise Gap: Modern naval warfare requires STEM-educated personnel. Our education system is producing activists, not engineers.
Readiness vs. Rhetoric: Hegseth mentions sailors in the DMZ in Korea reporting they have “basically enough artillery for 3 days—the rest of it’s in Ukraine.” How many naval munitions have been drawn down? How many maintenance dollars diverted?
Close Quarters Reality: Destroyers, cruisers, submarines—these platforms require maximum unit cohesion in confined spaces over extended deployments. Any policy that complicates that dynamic affects operational capability.
Industrial Base Collapse: We can’t build ships fast enough. China launches a new carrier while we’re still arguing about shipyard contracts.
Why the Navy? Why Not Just “Military” Generally?
Americans for a Stronger Navy focuses specifically on naval power for a fundamental reason: The China challenge is inherently a maritime problem.
Consider the geography:
70% of Earth’s surface is water. The Indo-Pacific theater is defined by vast ocean expanses, island chains, and sea lanes. This isn’t the deserts of Iraq or the mountains of Afghanistan—it’s a maritime domain where naval power is decisive.
Taiwan is an island 100 miles from mainland China. Any conflict over Taiwan is fundamentally an amphibious assault/defense scenario. China must cross water. We must defend across water. The Air Force matters, the Army matters, but the Navy is the primary deterrent.
The First Island Chain is maritime. Japan, Okinawa, Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia—the strategic barrier that contains Chinese power projection is a series of islands. Controlling this chain means controlling maritime access. Losing it means Chinese naval dominance from the South China Sea to the Pacific.
Global trade flows through water. Over 90% of global trade moves by ship. The South China Sea handles $3.4 trillion annually through the Taiwan Strait alone. If China controls these sea lanes, they control global commerce. You can’t secure maritime trade with land forces.
Distance matters. The nearest U.S. territory to China is Guam—3,000 miles from California. You can’t project power across the Pacific with the Army. The Navy is how America reaches the theater. The Navy is how we sustain operations. The Navy is how we defend allies. Without naval dominance, we’re not even in the game.
China understands this. That’s why they’re building the world’s largest navy. Not the world’s largest army (they already had that). They’re specifically building carriers, destroyers, submarines, amphibious assault ships—naval power to challenge American naval power.
They’ve studied American carrier strike groups and designed hypersonic missiles to sink them. They’ve built artificial islands in the South China Sea to extend their naval reach. They’re developing a blue-water navy capable of operating globally.
The Indo-Pacific challenge is a naval challenge. China’s threat is a naval threat. Our response must be naval.
That’s why Americans for a Stronger Navy exists. We’re not generically “pro-military.” We’re specifically focused on the domain where the 21st century’s decisive competition will be won or lost: the sea.
The Resource Allocation Question
Here’s where Americans for a Stronger Navy takes a clear position:
Military resources must be allocated to maximize readiness and deterrence. Period.
That means:
This isn’t about culture. It’s about math.
If we’re losing every war game against China, if our carriers are vulnerable to hypersonic missiles, if our grid can be darkened remotely, if Taiwan is the strategic prize of the century—then every resource decision matters.
The Education Pipeline: Tomorrow’s Sailors
Hegseth spends significant time in both the book and interview discussing education, and this directly impacts naval readiness.
The Navy needs:
Nuclear-trained operators for submarines and carriers
The pipeline is broken. Even if we solve every other problem, we can’t crew a technically complex fleet with graduates who can’t do algebra.
This is where Hegseth’s education critique directly intersects with naval readiness. China is graduating millions of STEM students. We’re graduating activists who think America is irredeemably evil. Who’s going to win that competition?
What We Learned From a Destroyer Sailor
I served on a U.S. Navy destroyer in the 1970s. Several shipmates reached out over the past few years expressing concerns about changes in today’s Navy. I’ll admit I was initially skeptical—were they exaggerating? Were they just resistant to change?
After reading Hegseth’s book and listening to the three-hour Ryan interview, I realize I should have listened more carefully to the warnings. But I also realize something else:
We’re spending so much energy fighting each other that we’re not focusing on the actual threat.
My shipmates on both sides of these cultural debates all agree on one thing: China is the threat. They disagree on solutions to internal problems, but they all recognize the external danger.
That’s where Americans for a Stronger Navy needs to focus.
Let the cultural debates happen. Let good people like Senator Kelly and Pete Hegseth have their disagreements. Our job is to relentlessly advocate for:
Sufficient naval hulls to match China’s growing fleet
Advanced weapon systems that counter hypersonic threats
Industrial base that can actually build ships at competitive speed
Recruitment and retention of qualified personnel
Training and readiness focused on war-fighting
Supply chain independence from Chinese manufacturing
Electrical grid hardening so our bases can operate
Cybersecurity that prevents Chinese infrastructure penetration
Educational reform that produces STEM-capable recruits
Budget prioritization toward capabilities over social experiments
The Three-Hour Wake-Up CalIf the warnings from Ryan and Hegseth about the CCP don’t shake you to the core, I don’t know what will.
Here’s what should terrify every American:
Pentagon loses every war game against China
China’s Navy now exceeds ours in numbers
Hypersonic missiles can sink our carriers in minutes
Chinese malware already embedded in our grid
Taiwan’s semiconductor monopoly is China’s target
Economic warfare extracting American wealth daily
Our sailors report ammunition shortages
Recruiting and retention in crisis
Industrial base can’t build ships competitively
Education system failing to produce technical talent
And while all this is happening, Americans are fighting each other instead of the actual enemy.
Our Call to Action
Americans for a Stronger Navy has a clear mission: advocating for the naval power necessary to defend America and deter aggression.
After reviewing Hegseth’s book and the extended Ryan interview, here’s what we’re calling for:
Immediate Priorities:
1. China Threat Education We will dedicate equal or greater time to educating Americans about the CCP threat as we spend on internal debates. The Ryan-Hegseth interview should be required viewing for anyone concerned about national security.
2. Resource Allocation Focus Every dollar matters when you’re losing war games. We support policies that maximize readiness and deterrence, including ending taxpayer funding for elective medical procedures that render service members non-deployable.
3. Industrial Base Revival We cannot have a strong Navy without shipyards that can build ships. This requires industrial policy, workforce development, and political will.
4. Grid Hardening Naval bases can’t operate without power. American families can’t support deployed sailors if they’re in crisis at home. Chinese control of our infrastructure must end.
5. Supply Chain Independence We must stop buying critical military components from our primary adversary. Yes, it will be expensive. No, we don’t have a choice.
6. Education Pipeline Repair Supporting classical education, STEM focus, and programs that produce technically capable recruits is a national security imperative.
7. Bipartisan Unity on China This is the one thing that should unite Americans across political divides. China is not Republican or Democrat. They’re our adversary, and they’re winning.
What You Can Do:
1. Watch the Full Interview The three-hour Shawn Ryan Show interview with Pete Hegseth contains more strategic analysis than most national security briefings. Share it widely.
2. Contact Your Representatives Demand they prioritize naval shipbuilding, infrastructure hardening, and China competition over internal political warfare.
3. Support STEM Education Whether through donations, volunteering, or advocacy—we need the next generation capable of operating advanced naval systems.
4. Spread Awareness Most Americans have no idea how vulnerable we are or how aggressively China is positioning for dominance. Change that.
5. Stay Focused on the Mission Don’t let internal debates distract from external threats. We can disagree on culture while agreeing on China.
Conclusion: The Enemy Gets a Vote—But So Do We
There’s a military axiom: “The enemy gets a vote.”
While America argues about pronouns, DEI, and cultural issues, China is voting with carrier launches, hypersonic missile tests, infrastructure infiltration, and economic positioning.
While good Americans like Senator Kelly and Pete Hegseth have their necessary debates about military culture, China is running war game simulations and updating their probability matrices for success.
While we fight over what makes someone qualified for military service, China is building the fleet that will challenge our ability to defend Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and the Philippines.
The clock is ticking.
But here’s what the alarm shouldn’t become: despair.
What started as a book review to understand Pete Hegseth’s perspective became a stark reminder of what actually matters: our children’s future. And that future is not predetermined. China’s rise is not inevitable. American decline is a choice, not a destiny.
We Have Advantages China Can’t Match
American Innovation: When we freed American energy production, we became energy independent within years. When COVID hit, we developed multiple vaccines in record time. When we commit to solving problems, we still lead the world in innovation.
Emerging Technologies: Directed energy weapons, autonomous systems, AI-enabled targeting, hypersonic defense systems—American companies are developing technologies that can offset Chinese numerical advantages. The Epirus directed EMP system Ryan and Hegseth discussed is just one example.
Alliance Structure: China stands largely alone. We have Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and emerging partnerships with India and others. China has no equivalent alliance structure. Authoritarian systems inspire fear, not loyalty.
Economic Strength: Despite our challenges, the U.S. economy remains the most dynamic, innovative, and resilient in the world. Our capital markets, universities (when focused on STEM), and entrepreneurial culture are unmatched.
Geographic Position: China must project power across oceans to threaten American territory. We’re protected by two vast moans and friendly neighbors. They have hostile or unreliable neighbors on every border.
The WWII Precedent: In 1940, America had the 17th largest military in the world. By 1945, we had built the arsenal of democracy and defeated two major powers simultaneously on opposite sides of the globe. When America gets serious, we can mobilize faster than any nation on Earth.
This is Winnable—If We Act Now
The Pentagon may lose every war game against China today, but war games assume current capabilities. We can change those capabilities.
We can build more ships. We built 175 ships in two years during WWII. We can revitalize our shipyards.
We can harden our infrastructure. We built the Interstate Highway System, the Hoover Dam, put men on the moon. We can protect our power grid.
We can secure our supply chains. We can reshore critical manufacturing. We can incentivize chip fabrication in America.
We can fix our education system. Classical education is growing. Homeschooling is expanding. STEM-focused alternatives exist.
We can restore deterrence. China only moves on Taiwan if they believe they’ll win. Make the cost prohibitive, and they won’t move.
This requires political will, not miracles. It requires Americans to stop fighting each other and focus on the actual adversary. It requires leaders who prioritize national security over political advantage. It requires citizens who demand action.
And it requires a Navy capable of controlling the seas.
Pete Hegseth’s The War on Warriors contains valuable warnings about institutional problems. The debates his book has sparked are important, and good people disagree on solutions. But the most critical warning in both the book and the Ryan interview isn’t about wokeness—it’s about China.
“They have a full-spectrum, long-term view of not just regional but global domination, and we have our heads up our asses.”
I understand the weariness from Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Both Hegseth and Ryan express it—they’re “recovering neocons” who supported wars they now recognize as mistakes. But the Taiwan situation isn’t another optional nation-building adventure. It’s about the semiconductor supply that powers modern civilization, the alliance structure that maintains global stability, and the economic future our grandchildren will inherit.
This isn’t about the military-industrial complex wanting another war. This is about whether America remains a free, sovereign nation or becomes economically subordinated to Chinese Communist Party control.
Americans for a Stronger Navy exists because we understand that naval power is not optional in a maritime century against a maritime threat. We exist because someone needs to focus relentlessly on building the fleet, supporting the sailors, and educating Americans about what’s at stake.
We need a stronger Navy. We need it now. We need the tools, resources, training, personnel, and industrial base to match the threat.
Our veterans who already served deserve the care they earned—not to see their VA benefits delayed while billions go elsewhere.
Our sailors need ammunition, not just for three days, but for sustained operations.
Our children need semiconductor access that doesn’t depend on Chinese permission.
Our grandchildren deserve to grow up in a free America, not one bowing to Beijing because we couldn’t maintain our naval power when it mattered most.
But they also deserve to grow up knowing their parents and grandparents didn’t give up. That when faced with a determined adversary, America remembered who we are and what we’re capable of achieving.
Everything else is secondary to this mission.
Let’s stop fighting each other and start focusing on the actual enemy. Let’s stop despairing and start building. Let’s stop the internal warfare and restore the external deterrence.
The Salt Typhoon hackers are already inside our telecommunications systems. Chinese malware is pre-positioned in our electrical grid. China controls our transformer supply. They’re building carriers while we argue about culture. They’re war-gaming Taiwan scenarios while we debate pronouns.
But we can still win this. We have time—barely—to restore deterrence, rebuild capacity, and secure our position.
The question isn’t whether we can. It’s whether we will.
Americans for a Stronger Navy is committed to this fight. We’ll continue advocating for the naval power our nation needs. We’ll continue educating Americans about the China threat. We’ll continue supporting the sailors who keep us safe.
Join us. The future our grandchildren inherit depends on what we do right now.
Note: In future posts, we’ll address specific topics including:
Detailed naval force structure requirements and shipbuilding timelines
The shipyard and industrial base crisis—and how to solve it
Allied burden-sharing and the AUKUS partnership
Economic warfare beyond military competition (ports, Belt and Road, fentanyl, elite capture)
How to pay for naval expansion and why we can’t afford not to
Concrete legislative actions and how to engage your representatives effectively
Stay focused on the mission. The Navy we need is within reach if we have the will to build it.
About Americans for a Stronger Navy
Americans for a Stronger Navy is dedicated to promoting peace through strength by supporting a robust, modern, and capable United States Navy. We advocate for the resources, policies, and personnel necessary to ensure American naval dominance and the security of our maritime interests.
Our mission is focused, non-partisan, and urgent: Build the Navy we need to deter the China threat.
This review reflects the analysis of one destroyer sailor who served in the 1970s and believes Americans on all sides of cultural debates can unite around the China threat. We encourage readers to form their own opinions on internal military debates while maintaining absolute clarity on external threats.
The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free By Pete Hegseth Published 2024
Recommended for: Anyone concerned about national security, China competition, and America’s strategic position
Key Takeaway: Stop fighting each other. Start focusing on China.
As founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy, I’m posting the full hearing video from the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on East Asia & the Pacific on the People’s Republic of China’s gray-zone/IAD tactics—actions that are illegal, coercive, aggressive, and deceptive but stay below the threshold of open war. This is one of the most consequential national security issues of our time. If you want the complete context, watch it here
What This Hearing Covers This bipartisan session, led by Sen. Chris Coons (Chair) and Sen. Pete Ricketts (Ranking Member), examines how Beijing is reshaping the regional order through maritime intimidation, disinformation, economic coercion, and lawfare. Expert witnesses include: • Craig Singleton (Foundation for Defense of Democracies) • Ray Powell (SeaLight maritime transparency initiative) • Ely Ratner (The Marathon Initiative; former ASD for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs)
Why Americans Should Care A stable Indo-Pacific underwrites U.S. jobs, supply chains, and everyday commerce—from energy prices to the goods on our shelves. When the rules at sea are bent or broken, our economy feels it. This isn’t distant geopolitics; it’s about freedom of the seas, the arteries of global trade that American families rely on. That’s why this debate is one of the most consequential for American prosperity and security.
Key Themes to Watch For • Escalation by inches: How “salami-slicing” and constant pressure attempt to create a new normal in the South and East China Seas and around Taiwan. • Energy as a pressure point: Taiwan’s thin LNG reserves and what resilience looks like (stockpiles, diversified imports, hardened infrastructure). • Information advantage: Why assertive transparency—exposing incidents quickly and credibly—helps free societies push back. • Allies matter: How Japan, Australia, the Philippines, and others factor into deterrence—and what coordinated posture and planning should look like. • U.S. resolve: The need to signal costs early, test Beijing’s risk tolerance, and align policy, industry, and public support at home.
Implications for the Navy The Navy operates on the front line of these challenges every day. Sustained gray-zone pressure demands presence, readiness, logistics, and shipyard capacity—and public understanding of why those investments matter. Deterrence at sea is cheaper than crisis later.
Implications for Our Allies Allies are stepping up, but coordination is the difference between piecemeal responses and collective deterrence. Shared planning, interoperable command and control, resilient bases, and joint information efforts are how we keep the peace.
What We’ll Do Next For convenience, we’ll post clean sectioned clips—opening statements and the strongest Q&A exchanges—so you can grab the segments you need. If you’re a supporter with video skills, volunteer editors are welcome to help accelerate the turnaround.
How You Can Help Americans for a Stronger Navy exists to educate, connect the dots, and build civic support for the fleet our economy and security require. If you find this valuable, share the video and invite a friend to subscribe. Public engagement is the missing link.
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.
An Open Letter to Silicon Valley and the American People
Bill Cullifer, Founder
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.
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.
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.
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.
Giving Credit Where It’s Due Kurt Campbell and Rush Doshi recently argued in the New York Times that America alone cannot match China’s growing scale — economically, technologically, or militarily — and that our strength depends on “allied scale.” They are right to say this out loud, and they deserve credit for raising the issue. Campbell has long been a voice for rebalancing U.S. strategy toward Asia, and Doshi has studied China’s grand strategy in depth. Their track records show they’ve been sounding the alarm.
Why We’re in This Position It’s fair to ask: if they saw this coming, why didn’t America adjust sooner? The truth is, Campbell and Doshi were not sitting in the chairs with the ultimate levers. Campbell’s call for a pivot to Asia faced headwinds from wars in the Middle East and competing budget priorities. Doshi, until recently, was in academia, warning of China’s rise but without a policymaker’s authority. They were raising the right concerns, but Washington’s attention was elsewhere. That’s not about pinning blame on individuals — it’s about recognizing how easy it is for America to be distracted.
The Larger Point The conversation they are starting in public now is one America needs to have candidly. China’s scale in shipbuilding, technology, and manufacturing is a strategic challenge unlike any we have faced before. Campbell and Doshi are right that alliances matter — losing India, Japan, or Europe to Chinese influence would change the balance overnight. But alliances alone aren’t enough. America must also invest in its own naval strength and rebuild the industrial base that sustains it.
My Role in This Conversation I am two years into this effort with Americans for a Stronger Navy. My job is not to dictate policy but to help Americans understand the facts. It is up to the American people to decide. What I can do is publish what’s happening, provide context, and advocate on behalf of my shipmates — so that when the time comes, they have the resources they need, where and when they need them.
Why Americans Should Care If we don’t get this right, it’s not only the Navy that will feel the consequences. Our supply chains, our economy, and our security all ride on free and open seas. Campbell and Doshi are right to remind us that “quantity has a quality all its own.” China has the quantity. America must respond with both quality and scale — and it will take both allies abroad and buy-in at home to meet that challenge.
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.
