A Retreat From Global Leadership
The Department of Defense’s 2026 budget, revealed this week, carries a hefty $1.01 trillion price tag and a troubling message. It funnels billions into missile defense systems and border fortifications while turning away from the global partnerships that have long anchored our security. For someone who believes America thrives by working with others, this shift feels like a betrayal of our values.
At a recent congressional hearing, senior intelligence officials described the budget as a way to ‘restore the warrior ethos’ and focus on homeland defense. Their words suggest a nation pulling back from the world stage. But what does this mean for everyday Americans who want their country to lead with purpose? Prioritizing missile shields and border surveillance over collective security ignores the complex threats—like climate change and cyberattacks—that require global cooperation.
Why does this matter? Because budgets reflect priorities. This one signals to allies that we’re less invested in shared goals, from NATO’s defense of freedom to the Quad’s efforts in the Indo-Pacific. For readers new to these issues, consider this: when a storm threatens your community, you don’t board up your windows and ignore your neighbors. You rally together. This budget chooses isolation instead.
Officials like Dustin Gard-Weiss and Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse highlighted threats from cartels, terrorists, and China’s military buildup. No one denies the need for vigilance. But their plan, centered on the Golden Dome missile shield and border drones, feels narrow. It reacts to dangers rather than shaping a future where cooperation prevents them.
For those of us who see America as a global force for good, this budget disappoints. It trades hope for fear, partnership for solitude. Defending our nation means defending the principles—equity, freedom, unity—that inspire the world.
A Misguided Focus in a Connected Era
The budget’s flagship project, the Golden Dome missile shield, consumes a massive share of its $28 billion intelligence allocation. Recent tests, like Flight Test Other-40, showed an SM-6 interceptor neutralizing a simulated hypersonic target. The technology is remarkable, but its cost is steep. Diverting funds to this single system shortchanges other urgent needs.
Transnational threats, like cartels fueling 52,000 opioid deaths last year or disinformation campaigns undermining elections, demand a broader response. The 2025 Homeland Threat Assessment flagged these crises, yet the budget offers high-tech border tools—drones, biometric scanners, fencing—without addressing root causes. Why not fund international task forces to dismantle cartels or programs to lift communities out of poverty?
The budget also targets China’s $309 billion military expansion, allocating billions for surveillance and reconnaissance in the Indo-Pacific. China’s naval and cyber advances are real concerns. But deterrence doesn’t require sidelining diplomacy. Alliances like AUKUS and the Quad have strengthened our position. Reducing support for these partnerships, as some budget plans imply, would weaken our influence.
Some argue we must conserve resources for domestic needs, pointing to historical policies like the 1940 America First Committee. But history warns against retreat. Post-World War I isolationism fueled global instability. Today, when a cyberattack abroad can disrupt U.S. hospitals, disengagement is not an option. We need global engagement to stay secure.
The budget’s investment in domestic industries, like semiconductor production, is a step forward. The 2024 National Defense Industrial Strategy emphasized resilient supply chains, and this plan delivers. But it could go further. Funding green technologies for military bases or AI to combat disinformation would create jobs while tackling climate and cyber threats. Instead, the focus remains on missiles.
What’s lacking is a forward-looking approach. A perspective rooted in global cooperation calls for balancing defense with diplomacy, investing in alliances, and addressing systemic issues like migration and climate change. This budget builds barriers, not solutions.
A Smarter Way Forward
How can we do better? Start by strengthening multilateral alliances. NATO, the Quad, and UN peacekeeping efforts extend our reach without draining our resources. Surveys show most Americans who value human rights want a foreign policy built on collaboration. Let’s honor that vision.
Next, prioritize emerging threats. Cyberattacks and disinformation erode trust in democracy faster than any weapon. The budget’s intelligence funds should boost open-source analytics and social-media monitoring to counter lies spread by hostile states. These investments protect our values without escalating tensions.
Finally, tackle global challenges comprehensively. Climate change drives conflict and migration, yet the budget overlooks it. Pairing defense spending with sustainable infrastructure—like energy-efficient bases or resilient supply chains—creates jobs and enhances security. Strength and compassion go hand in hand.
Reclaiming Our Global Role
The 2026 defense budget is more than a financial plan; it’s a reflection of our identity. Right now, it suggests America values barriers over bridges. For those who believe in a connected world, that’s unacceptable. We must demand a future shaped by unity, not division.
Threats like cartels, cyberattacks, and authoritarian regimes are real. But responding with isolationist policies ignores history’s lessons. From World War II’s collaborative victories to NATO’s enduring alliances, we’ve succeeded by working together. Why turn away from that legacy?
As citizens, we can shape this path. Advocate for a budget that defends our nation while uplifting our allies. Support leaders who champion cooperation over confrontation. Together, we can ensure America remains a beacon of hope—not a fortress standing alone.