By: AIF Staff
Washington, DC – Earlier this week, former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan spoke with Fox News’ Chief National Security Correspondent Jennifer Griffin and Virtu Financial Founder Vincent Viola at the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ (CSIS) 2026 Global Security Forum.
The panel conversation, premised on the question: “What Must America Defend?”, featured Ryan and Viola discussing the future of America’s defense industrial base and detailing the public policies necessary to meet America’s 21st national security and economic challenges. Ryan, who serves on CSIS’ Board of Directors, also expounded on Iran, the rise of populism, and the resilience of America’s democracy.
Video of the panel is accessible here and excerpts of Ryan’s responses, edited lightly for clarity, follow.
On the resilience of the American system:
“I think democracy is being stress tested in two profound ways. From within, with the polarization that is sort of making it difficult for us to reach consensus on critical things, and from without, with the tyrants trying to use our freedoms against us to try and polarize us and undermine us.”
“So those are stress tests that I think we will pass. I really believe at this 250th anniversary — this system we have, freedom, capitalism, private property rights, liquid capital markets, rule of law, all those things and the innovation that comes with it is going to beat the tyrants. It’s going to beat the tyrannies. It’s going to beat the state-owned enterprises. I’m confident we’re going to get there, but we’re going to do it in our own way and our own timeline.”
Assessing America’s hard and soft power:
“In Venezuela… I think we’ve demonstrated our hard power is pretty darn lethal and effective. Our soft power I think has atrophied. I’m not a big fan of all the protectionist gambits. I think the better bet would have been to group with our allies to jointly take on China together—to ring-fence China and promote trade with allies…. I’m glad NATO is stepping up to 5% if they actually hit those bogeys, but I think we have done more to estrange allies than to bring them toward us. And with our allies, we’re a whole lot stronger.”
Assessing the Iranian threat & Trump Administration’s MOU:
“I don’t think we can accept Iran controlling the straits and I don’t think it will be acceptable. So, I see this as an intermission. I just hope during this intermission that there’s relief in the markets that we can refill oil stocks and that the Mullahs, the IRGC doesn’t get much more money to restock for the fight that’s going to come.”
Revitalizing the Defense Industrial Base:
“We’re probably in Version 2.0 of Pentagon procurement reform. We’re getting off the cost-plus contracting for big primes. We’re bringing disruptors in. Version 3.0 is where I hope we go.
Version 2.0 is where we bring Silicon Valley economics to the defense industrial base so that private capital is being put at risk to find the R&D and bring the cost-effective weapons system at the speed we need…. Version 3.0 is what we were talking about: interoperability versus compatibility. We want to have compatible systems so that these costs are flattened, so we can get exquisite, quick-to-deploy weapons systems at low-cost structures, like other countries are doing and have shown us how to do it.
It’s just reforming this system from within Congress, from within the Pentagon is a generational effort. I think Steve Feinberg and his team are doing everything they can to make it happen. I believe there are people in Congress who really want to make this happen.”
Modernizing the workforce to meet 21st century national defense needs:
“That’s one of my theses of my private equity firm: We’re investing in that workforce. We just bought the biggest welding school so we can train more welders across America. There has got to be a better investment in our workforce, and the private sector can do a lot to carry this burden and get people into these vocations. We can get people this education and we can have a smart immigration system that makes sure that we can meet this demand. We have the workforce and we have the intellectual power, just look at all the things that are being designed.”
Moving from ‘grievance’ to ‘growth populism’:
“This is not problem-solving populism. What happens with populism that is not tethered to principles, but that is tethered to personalities or grievances, is it doesn’t deliver the goods. It doesn’t actually solve problems. So, sooner or later, the country is going to get sick of that and want something better — like their problems being solved.
So, I see this as a moment. It’s temporary. My hope and prayer is that what comes after it is going to take us from grievance populism to growth populism, going to a type of populism that is effectively saying: ‘Let’s solve problems. Let’s stop hating each other because we all want this social contract.’
We want the dollar to prevail. We don’t want to debase everyone’s savings. We want these things and we actually know what we need to do to get there. We have just got to get better politics and the populism that gets us better politics is not here now, but hopefully it is here later.”