Opinion: The illusion of strength

Published 1:30 am Friday, April 10, 2026

America once built dreams; now it builds weapons and calls it security.

Over the past five years, the United States has increased defense and related security spending (DOD only) from roughly $700 billion to $1 trillion annually. Projections suggest total outlays could approach $1.5 trillion by 2027. These figures are so vast they no longer shock. What was once extraordinary has become routine, absorbed into government with little sustained scrutiny or meaningful public debate or accountability.

Yet the central question remains largely unasked in Washington: why?

Are the threats facing the nation truly so great as to justify ever-expanding commitments? Or has the country come to equate security with spending while overlooking the costs elsewhere? Every bomber produced, every missile tested, every classified program approved carries a tradeoff: a school not built, research deferred, a patient left without care, a community left behind and neglected.

During the Cold War, policymakers spoke of peace through strength, but strength was paired with vision and restraint. Today, it risks becoming an end in itself. Instead of prioritizing medical breakthroughs or transformative energy technologies, the nation channels its intellectual capital into refining weapons systems. Engineers and scientists devote their talents to methods of destruction rather than advancing human well-being. Each additional trillion directed toward defense reduces the capacity to invest in innovation and long-term competitiveness and economic vitality.

The consequences extend beyond budgets. Policies that restrict skilled immigration and limit educational visas discourage global talent from choosing American institutions. The result is a self-imposed constraint at a time when international competition demands openness and ingenuity. In the name of security, the nation risks weakening a key source of its strength and future leadership.

Proponents argue that defense spending supports jobs and stimulates economic activity. In a narrow sense, this is true. But much of that activity is tied to weapons production rather than broadly shared prosperity. Communities require investment in education, healthcare, and infrastructure, not dependence on military contracts. An economy oriented around conflict cannot deliver durable growth or widely shared opportunity. Redirect even a fraction of current spending toward clean energy, transportation, or disease prevention, and the benefits would accumulate and multiply across generations and regions.

This concern is not new. President Dwight Eisenhower warned that a growing military-industrial structure could distort national priorities and influence policy. That structure has evolved into a network of contractors, lobbyists, and political interests.

Budget decisions reflect not only strategic necessity but also institutional momentum and political calculation. Fear of appearing weak or disrupting local economies reinforces a cycle resistant to reform and serious reconsideration.

At the same time, the assumption that greater military spending guarantees greater security is rarely examined. Many of the nation’s most pressing challenges are domestic: aging infrastructure, rising costs of living, uneven education, and widening inequality. Military power cannot repair bridges, reduce household strain, or improve public health. It cannot substitute for a stable and cohesive society or responsive governance.

America’s global leadership was built not only on military capability but on innovation, openness, and cooperation. These qualities attracted foreign talent, fostered industries, and earned respect. An overreliance on military dominance risks eroding those advantages.

By prioritizing military strength over internal renewal, the nation weakens the foundation it seeks to defend.

A recalibration is possible. Even with reductions, the United States would retain capabilities exceeding those of any rival. Resources could be redirected toward education, scientific research, infrastructure, and public health. Such investments strengthen resilience, expand opportunity, and enhance long-term security and economic strength.

True strength is not measured by the size of arsenals. It is reflected in the health of a population, the vitality of an economy, and the creativity of a society. These are the enduring sources of stability in a complex and rapidly changing world.

The United States still faces a defining choice: continue prioritizing the instruments of war, or invest in the foundations of prosperity. The gravest danger may not be an external adversary, but the gradual erosion that follows when priorities drift out of balance. A nation that equates security with spending risks discovering too late that it has weakened itself.

Strength ultimately resides not in what a country builds to defend itself, but in what it builds to sustain and advance the lives of its people. A nation that invests primarily in destruction will, over time, find its capacity to build, innovate, and lead diminished by its own choices and misplaced priorities.

Van Abbott is a long-time resident of Alaska and California. He has held financial management positions in government and private organizations, and is now a full-time opinion writer. He served in the late 1960s in the Peace Corps as a teacher.