How Does Expanding the Definition of National Security Weaken American Defense Strategy?

Why Does the US Government Classify Everything as a National Security Threat?

Discover how the overuse of the “national security” label creates policy dysfunction and dilutes real threats in Daniel W. Drezner’s latest essay. Learn why prioritizing every issue—from climate change to AI—as a security risk might actually endanger US safety and how policymakers can better categorize urgent geopolitical perils.

When everything is a priority, nothing is. Understanding how political agendas are distorting America’s safety strategy is crucial for anyone following global politics. Read the full analysis to see how the US can escape this trap and focus on the threats that truly matter.

Recommendation

When politicians overuse the label of “national security,” leaders’ ability to categorize and prioritize threats to the United States’ well-being and security weakens, writes professor Daniel W. Drezner in this thought-provoking essay. Competing interests keep politicians from agreeing on what constitutes a true peril to national security, risking policy sclerosis and dysfunction. Students of geopolitics will find this an engaging read.

Take-Aways

• The definition of “national security” has changed over time.
• Too broad a use of the term could lead policymakers to overlook viable threats to American safety.
• US officials could better categorize and prioritize national security issues by immediacy and level of urgency.

Summary

The definition of “national security” has changed over time.

Categorizing an issue as one of national security raises its significance, but what exactly constitutes an issue of national security has been, and continues to be, the subject of heated debate. The passage of the 1947 National Security Act at the onset of the Cold War ingrained the idea in the national consciousness and lengthened the list of items under its rubric. The list continues to grow as a function of geopolitics, particularly in the wake of September 11, 2001. Artificial intelligence, the importance of rare earth minerals, advances in technology and climate change, and the war on terror are only a few of the latest additions.

“Given the continual presence of such political interests and structural incentives, it is easy for the foreign policy establishment’s list of national security issues to expand and rare for it to contract.”

National security priorities differ by political party in the United States. Republicans emphasize the need for a robust defense apparatus; Democrats consider climate change a salient issue. Energy security, the spread of nuclear weapons, the illicit drug trade, and terrorism are all valid concerns.

Too broad a use of the term could lead policymakers to overlook viable threats to American safety.

New threats arise while older ones do not seem to de-escalate, the brief exceptions being Russia after the demise of the Soviet Union and a reduced focus on the “global war on terror.” However, the ascent of Vladimir Putin and the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023, added Russia and global terrorism back to the list.

“But if everything is defined as national security, nothing is a national security priority. Without a more considered discussion among policymakers about what is and what is not a matter of national security, Washington risks spreading its resources too thin across too broad an array of issues.”

This snowballing of national security issues complicates the risk calculus. Nuclear proliferation and technological progress, for example, force a recalculation of which actors constitute the latest and most concerning threats to national and global safety. An increasingly fractured US political dynamic only complicates an accurate perception — and naming — of security threats.

Security proves an easy sell to legislators and the American public; diplomacy, not so much. This dynamic hinders policymakers’ ability to focus on what is most urgent. Unlike the Cold War, which saw a reductive approach to foreign policy, the near past has witnessed an emphasis on practically everything as a potential threat, which leads to a prioritization of nothing. A confused national security canon could well pose the greatest threat of all.

US officials could better categorize and prioritize national security issues by immediacy and level of urgency.

An ever-increasing roster of risks is no safeguard against the unexpected, as the recent pandemic and the 9/11/2001 and 10/07/2023 attacks demonstrate. Less should be more.

“Americans may never completely agree about what is and is not a national security issue. But a process that lets policymakers agree on how to disagree would allow for an improved national security discourse — and, ideally, improved national security.”

Rather than use national security as a political football, both US political parties should prioritize issues of greater urgency. If Republicans and Democrats can at least acknowledge their differences, they could improve the dialog around national security. But domestic politics and worldwide volatility suggest a low likelihood of officials narrowing their definition of national security or the factors that threaten it.

About the Author

Daniel W. Drezner is a Distinguished Professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.