Krishnamoorthi Challenges Secretary of Defense Hegseth for 'G2' Label That Treats the CCP as a Co-Equal Power
WASHINGTON — Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, Ranking Member of the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth raising alarm over Secretary Hegseth’s recent description of the U.S.–PRC relationship as a “G2.” Krishnamoorthi warns that this framing fundamentally misreads the Chinese Communist Party’s ambitions, risks sidelining U.S. allies, and undercuts the strategic clarity required to deter conflict in the Indo-Pacific.
In his letter, Ranking Member Krishnamoorthi writes that the term “carries deeply problematic connotations of depicting the United States and PRC as co-equal and primarily cooperative powers responsible for deciding global issues while sidelining U.S. democratic allies and partners.” He stresses that “the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) views the United States as its primary strategic adversary and is making unrelenting efforts to replace it as the world’s most powerful and influential nation.” He cautions that invoking a “G2” framework “suggests a fundamental misreading of the United States’ foremost global adversary that risks dangerously undermining the Pentagon’s preparations for deterring conflict in the Indo-Pacific.”
Krishnamoorthi details the scope of the PRC’s military modernization, noting that Beijing has expanded its defense spending “from approximately $22 billion in 2000 to almost $300 billion in 2023 — a more-than 1,300% increase in just over 20 years.” He writes that this explosive growth “has transformed the PLA from a military primarily focused on continental defense to one capable of projecting power out to and even beyond the Second Island Chain.” He highlights “recent developments” including the commissioning of the Fujian, the PLA Navy’s first carrier equipped with electromagnetic launch technology; the expansion of 65 missile research and production sites “by over 21 million square feet”; and a nuclear trajectory indicating the PLA “will field over 1,000 nuclear weapons by 2030.”
Krishnamoorthi underscores that these developments have shaped bipartisan U.S. defense strategy for years. He writes that “successive administrations from both political parties have now assessed the PRC to be the primary strategic competitor of the United States, and have framed their core national security documents, force posture, and defense procurement accordingly.” He warns that a failure to “correctly frame the U.S.–PRC relationship and give our servicemembers the guidance they need to counter Beijing’s aggression and maintain peace… would be a grave mistake.”
To ensure clarity about the administration’s approach, Krishnamoorthi requests detailed responses from Secretary Hegseth regarding the following questions no later than December 19, 2025:
To what extent does your description of the U.S.-PRC relationship as a “G2” signal a decreased emphasis by the Department of Defense on preparing the U.S. armed forces to deter and, if necessary, defeat military aggression by Beijing?
To what extent does your use of the term “G2” reflect a pivot by the Trump administration from a strategy of competition with the PRC to a strategy of cooperation?
Was your use of the term “G2” coordinated with interagency partners and did the Pentagon receive criticism from other Executive Branch agencies on its use of this term?
What measures, if any, is the Defense Department taking to reassure U.S. allies and partners that your framing of the U.S.-PRC relationship as a “G2” does not jeopardize U.S. mutual defense treaty commitments in the region?
The letter is available here.