Let $A = (a_{i,j})$ be a double stochastic matrix with positive entries. That is, all entries are positive real numbers, and each row and column sums to one. A permanent of a matrix $A = (a_{i,j})$ is defined as $$ \text{perm}(A) = \sum_{\pi \in S_n}\prod_{i=1}^{n}a_{i,\pi(i)}. $$
Is it true that $\text{perm}(A^2) \leq \text{perm}(A)$ with the equality achieved only by $P_n = (1/n)$?
More generally, is it true that $\text{per}(A^n) \leq \text{per}(A^m)$ for $n > m$ with the equality achieved only by $P_n = (1/n)$?
Van der Waerden's conjecture states that the minimum permanent among doubly stochastic matrices is achieved precisely by the matrix $P_n = (1/n)$. Since $P_n$ is the only doubly stochastic matrix with positive entries and $P_n^2 = P_n$, the conjecture above implies Van der Waerden's conjecture for matrices with positive entries, so I don't assume it's easy to prove it if it's true.
I wrote a simple code (well, I mostly got it from here) in Wolfram Mathematica to test the conjecture on random doubly stochastic matrices but couldn't find any counterexamples.
n := 5
While[Min[
dsm := FixedPoint[
Standardize[Transpose[Standardize[#, 0 &, Total]], 0 &, Total] &,
RandomReal[1, {n, n}],
SameTest -> (Norm[#1 - Transpose[#2], "Frobenius"] <
1.*^-12 &)]] < 0.1]
Do[
mat = dsm;
If[Permanent[mat] < Permanent[mat.mat],
Print[mat]];
, {i, 1, 10000}]
The intuition behind the conjecture is from the two-sided Markov chains. Since $A$ is doubly stochastic, one can run two Markov chains on both sides. The permanent can be interpreted as some statistics on collisions between particles that start at certain positions. Since the Markov chain, after many steps, "wash out" original biases, the number of collisions should get smaller and achieve the minimum on the limit, which is $P_n = (1/n)$ for a doubly stochastic matrix.
Update: Relevant partial result: Sinkhorn, Richard. "Doubly stochastic matrices whose squares decrease the permanent." Linear and Multilinear Algebra 4, no. 2 (1976): 153-158.
Update: Joseph Van Name showed in the answer that the conjecture is wrong: the following doubly stochastic matrix is a counterexample.
\begin{pmatrix} 15/32 & 1/64 & 1/2 & 1/64 \\ 1/64 & 1/64 & 15/32 & 1/2 \\ 1/2 & 15/32 & 1/64 & 1/64 \\ 1/64 & 1/2 & 1/64 & 15/32 \end{pmatrix}