This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Since Jan. 25, the day after the Senate confirmed him as President Donald Trump's pick to lead America's military, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has emphasized warfighting and the restoration of a "warrior culture," prioritizing a "maximum lethality" approach to military readiness.
Despite this, some service members are expressing certain doubts regarding America's potential to achieve victory in a major war with a "near-peer adversary" like China or Russia.
Early in 2024, during the Biden administration when then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was leading America's military, this writer carried out a small, independent, unscientific survey of more than 200 people currently serving in the U.S. military, just to ascertain their views with regard to the prospect of engaging in a significant conflict with a major adversary.
As WND reported at the time, when asked if the U.S. could win a conflict against a near-peer adversary like China, Iran, North Korea or Russia, 188 of the 229 respondents – 82% – replied "No."
Recently, a second such small, independent survey was conducted, now with Hegseth at the helm.
A few complicating factors, which themselves raise significant questions: Some of the participants in the earlier survey have since resigned, retired or been discharged from the military due to the highly unpopular COVID-19 vaccine mandate and their unwillingness to subject themselves to the controversial shot, often on religious grounds. Likewise, it is undeniable that the Biden era's tyrannical enforcement of the COVID shot negatively impacted the morale of many service members, including some of those taking the survey. And finally, considering the thousands who are no longer actively serving due to the shot mandate, the question of whether overall readiness of the force could be affected by their loss also arises.
And of course, as with any informal survey, it's impossible to determine how accurately the relatively small population of those surveyed reflects the feelings and views of the larger force.
Here are the new survey results: Among the 66 currently serving members of America's armed forces participating in the current survey, 49 (74%) responded "No." That is, nearly three-quarters of today's respondents lack confidence in the U.S. military's current ability to secure victory in a conflict against a near-peer adversary.
For some insight, WND interviewed two survey participants who agreed to share their responses anonymously. As is customary, each emphasized that their views don't reflect those of the Department of War or their respective branch of the military.
Among those with a positive outlook, a service member in the Army said, "The bottom-line answer is yes, as we have the overwhelming tactical, operational and strategic advantage when it comes to kinetic warfare."
A second participant from the Army provided an even more thought-provoking answer, arguing: "Our competitors, and ourselves, have the capability to destroy life on this planet many times over." For that reason, he explained, "Any conflict we enter with a near peer will be within an agreed level of conflict, but if one gets backed into a corner, would they really surrender before pressing the proverbial red button?"
He added, on a more personal note, that as he grows older he is increasingly convinced there are "spiritual influences behind the global cabal," citing Matthew 24:21-22 (NIV), which reads: "For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now – and never to be equaled again. 'If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.'"
The slight reduction of just 8% – down from 82% last year to 74% today – of participants believing the U.S. could not win a war against a near-peer threat should concern the current administration, perhaps even prompt a request for more information from current active-duty service members.
But why exactly do some military members think the U.S. cannot succeed in a war against a near-peer adversary? Is it even possible that the U.S. military is under-prepared, despite Hegseth's public push for lethality and force readiness? In the previous survey, roughly half of the 229 participants said their own units had sufficient training and equipment for combat deployment.
However, in the fall 2025 survey, even fewer – 27 out of 66 respondents, just 41% – believe their units are adequately trained for such a deployment. Moreover, just 26% – 17 out of 66 – believe their units are sufficiently equipped for combat.
The previous survey also revealed that the administration of former President Joe Biden was widely considered to be the greatest threat to America's freedoms. In stark contrast, fewer than 1% of current respondents view President Donald Trump in the same light.
Notably, 52 of the 66 participants – almost 79% – identify Xi Jinping of China as America's foremost threat. Other notable leaders and regimes cited, though to a much lesser extent, included Ali Khamenei of Iran and Vladimir Putin of Russia. But if America were to enter an armed conflict with what is seen as its greatest threat, China, the survey results concerning training and equipment levels of military units today appear to indicate the U.S. military might not yet be adequately prepared.
