Security Offloaded to Allies

The United States is entering the midterm elections having made major changes in terms of security and defense. It is difficult to say whether, and to what extent, these will have an electoral impact. Typically, domestic policy, and especially economic issues, are predominant, but the decisions taken over that last two years regarding the country’s defense and foreign policy could alienate part of the administration's electoral base, which, in the event of a defeat, would be more constrained in pursuing some of its current policies.

Allies Called to Do More

First, one of the most important, and controversial, issues promoted by the current administration concerns the shift from burden-sharing to burden-shifting. US allies must no longer simply shoulder the cost of their defense: beyond covering it entirely, they are also called upon to contribute more to collective security. Elegant in theory, more complex in practice, the issue certainly appeals to part of the American electorate, but its most recent incarnation could cost them important votes. US citizens with Italian, English, Danish, and Central and Eastern European roots are far from enthusiastic about what they've seen in the past two years, including direct (to Denmark) or indirect (to Europe) threats to their countries of origin, attacks on their respective governments, as well as the Pope, and above all, a message that leaves no room for enthusiasm: the security of these countries is not a priority for the United States government.

Hemispheric Defense

With its National Security Strategy, the United States launched the concept of hemispheric defense, aimed at maximizing the security of the Western hemisphere. On the one hand, this raised concerns in Asia, where this ambiguous message seemed to signal less attention to regional stability in the Pacific. On the other, others interpreted the move as a return to American imperialism in Central and South America. In this case, parts of the Latin American electorate, already disillusioned by the administration's migration policy, were perplexed by the military operation against Venezuela, which aimed to remove its leadership without weakening the regime. This could weigh heavily in some electoral districts.

Conflicts

The Trump Administration has also intervened in numerous conflicts, with mixed results. On the one hand, the administration has failed to bring the peace between Russia and Ukraine it had promised. On the other hand, the administration has intervened twice in Iran without managing to reach a realistic long-term agreement — in fact, the initial drafts of the agreement are worse than what had been achieved under Obama. Minorities of Ukrainian origin are unlikely to vote for Trump. The issue of the Iranian disintegration is more complex, but it is likely that the Iranians would have preferred regime overthrowal.

The Challenge of New Technologies in Defense

First, the wars in Ukraine and in Iran have demonstrated the growing role of new technologies in armed conflicts: from drones to space satellites, from artificial intelligence to directed-energy weapons, going through a transformation of the military-industrial base, for which the current administration would like to focus on dynamic digital companies like Palantir and Anduril, rather than relying on traditional defense procurement giants like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. The administration's policies in this area will also undoubtedly have electoral consequences. On the one hand, President Trump must be credited for placing enormous importance on innovative companies in the defense industry and for seeking to strengthen the sector's supply chains — though it remains to be seen with what results. On the other hand, some of this messaging goes against the interests of traditional companies, which also hire markedly more employees, while attempts to reindustrialize America, starting with defense and tariffs, don't seem to have been particularly successful — at least so far.

Voter Opinion

Voters are being asked to evaluate what they've seen so far, including statements, initiatives and results. Alongside bold and often questionable statements, the administration has also launched important and shared initiatives (arms procurement reform, the role of new technologies, supply-chain resilience), which, however, have been obscured by questionable and controversial military operations, first and foremost the war against Iran, for which there is widespread consensus that it was poorly conceived and even more poorly executed.