World will pay higher volatility bill for cost-benefit calibration of US defense: China Daily editorial

The United States Department of War released its 2026 National Defense Strategy on Friday, marking a departure from the 2022 version issued under the Joe Biden administration. A comparison of the two documents reveals not a retreat of US power as some suggest — the US leader has vowed to raise the country’s military budget from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion by the fiscal year 2027 — but rather a deliberate recalibration of how the US seeks to extract maximum strategic and economic returns from its global military posture under the banner of “America First”.

The earlier strategy framed the US defense policy as a values-driven enterprise. It emphasized upholding a “rules-based international order” and underscored alliance solidarity. The US leadership was portrayed as being indispensable to global stability, providing the “rationale” for extensive overseas commitments and sustained military investment across multiple theaters.

The 2026 strategy replaces the moralistic narrative with a distinctly utilitarian logic. The document redefines the US defense strategy through the prism of calculated costs, benefits and returns. Homeland security and US interests in the Western Hemisphere are elevated to top priority, while regions deemed to offer diminishing strategic dividends are subject to burden-shifting and conditional engagement.

This shift is evident in the report’s first pillar: “ensuring control over key areas of the Western Hemisphere”. The document states that the US will guarantee military and commercial access to “critical areas from the Arctic to South America”, explicitly naming Greenland, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Panama Canal. This focus aligns with the US administration’s revived interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine and has already been reflected its military and coercive actions against Venezuela and heightened pressure on other Latin American countries.

Compared with the previous administration’s defense strategy, which stressed so-called “cooperation” and “multilateral engagement” in the Americas, the 2026 strategy prioritizes unilateral control. Latin America is no longer treated primarily as a partnership zone, but as a strategic “neighborhood” where compliance is demanded. The document warns that if neighbors fail to defend what Washington defines as “shared interests”, the US is prepared to take “targeted, decisive action”.

Another difference is the way that alliances are viewed. The previous administration viewed allies as force multipliers bound together by “shared values”. The current administration, however, openly criticizes allies for long-term dependence on the US security umbrella, demanding that they “assume more responsibility”. Europe, in particular, is viewed as a region whose share of global economic power is “shrinking”, signaling a decline in its strategic importance in US calculations.

The recalibration of the US defense strategy has already shaped the US policy toward NATO and the Ukraine crisis as the US administration is pressing allies to pay for the US’ protection. This will no doubt reinforce European anxieties about US disengagement.

Nowhere is the US administration’s transactional mindset clearer than in the complete absence of any mention of China’s Taiwan region in the new document. By avoiding explicit commitments, the administration preserves strategic ambiguity while it continues to leverage arms sales and economic “arrangements” for tangible returns. Taiwan island, in this framework, is “valued” for its economic resources and high-tech industries rather than for strategic benefits. The same cost-benefit logic applies to other regions.

At the same time, the strategy places strong emphasis on strengthening the US defense industrial base, highlighting investment in advanced capabilities such as hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence and unmanned systems. This focus reflects both the changing character of modern warfare and an economic-centric approach aimed at revitalizing US manufacturing while “decoupling” critical supply chains from China.

The strategic attention given to Greenland’s rare earth resources further illustrates the US’ effort to reduce dependence on Chinese supply chains in areas it considers vital, while showing less urgency in noncritical sectors.

Taken together, the 2026 NDS underscores an obvious transformation. What appears to be a “contraction” of the US defense perimeter is in fact a reorientation toward absolute dominance in certain selected regions, particularly the Western Hemisphere. This is not a weakening of US ambition, but a sharpening of its edge. The US administration seeks to maintain the US hegemony at a lower cost. It is an approach that is likely to inject greater uncertainty into an already volatile international landscape.