COVID-19: National Security and Defense Strategy
April 30, 2020
COVID-19: National Security and Defense Strategy
The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has prompted
access/area denial” capabilities designed to limit U.S.
questions about U.S. national security and crisis
freedom of action and therefore constrain America’s ability
preparedness. Inherent to those discussions are broader,
to advance its interests around the globe. U.S. adversaries
foundational questions about how the United States
such as Russia and China are also modernizing their nuclear
government conceptualizes national security, and the
capabilities. According to this more “traditional” view,
currently held view by many of the relative prioritization of
diluting the concept of security in defense planning risks
the Department of Defense (DOD) over other instruments
the United States being unprepared for a major conflict,
of national power.
should it arise.
What Is “Security”?
Other observers respond that some “human security”
While definitional debates often seem frustratingly obscure,
approaches better reflect extant realities. As their logic
their outcomes often have a significant bearing on the
goes, over the past 25 years, “non-traditional” security
programs, priorities, and activities of the United States
challenges such as the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks,
Government. In other words, how a problem is framed
stability operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and pandemics
matters because those definitions directly affect how the
including the 2016 Ebola outbreak and now COVID-19
government operates, including how it translates those
have all commanded more U.S. attention and resources than
concepts into the priorities that require primary attention
conventional warfare with another nation-state. They argue
and resources.
that choosing to define security narrowly is choosing to
ignore the challenges with which the U.S. government—
Scholars and practitioners have long debated what, exactly,
constitutes a “security” challenge, and what the role of the
and U.S. military—have had to contend, and are likely to
have to do so in the future.
state should be in their management. The tension between
traditional “realist” security and “human” security
Differing U.S. Government Definitions of Security
perspectives provides one example of how these debates
The Obama Administration arguably used a more expansive
can play out. Traditional analyses contended that security is
definition of security in its strategy documents. Its 2010
synonymous with the mitigation of military risk and the
National Security Strategy argued that key threats to the
effective deterrence—or prosecution—of warfare between
United States have evolved:
states. In the 1990s, responding in part to genocides in
Wars over ideology have given way to wars over
Africa and the Balkans, as well as humanitarian and
financial crises, some analysts widened the aperture for
religious, ethnic, and tribal identity; nuclear dangers
security studies. “Human security,” a concept of security
have proliferated; inequality and economic instability
that uses the individual as its referent point and focuses on
have intensified; damage to our environment, food
the overall well-being of people within society, became
insecurity, and dangers to public health are increasingly
another way that scholars and practitioners began
shared; and the same tools that empower individuals to
evaluating security.
build enable them to destroy.
Over time, issues such as access to health, impacts of
The Trump Administration, by contrast, chose to focus the
climate change, food and energy security, and even to some
national security agenda on strategic competition, primarily
extent counterinsurgency have become associated with the
with key adversarial states:
concept of human security. A key question for
China and Russia challenge American power,
policymakers has been to what extent, if any, concepts and
influence, and interests, attempting to erode American
issues that have become associated with human security
security and prosperity. They are determined to make
should be integrated into national security planning that is
economies less free and less fair, to grow their
still to a significant degree based on updated versions of
traditional security concepts.
militaries, and to control information and data to repress
their societies and expand their influence. At the same
On one hand, some observers contend that “human
time, the dictatorships of the democratic People’s
security” is too broad to be useful for policy planning; if
Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are
everything is a security priority, nothing is a security
determined to destabilize regions, threaten Americans
priority. Other practitioners, building on that point, argue
and our allies, and brutalize their own people.
that the expansive “human security” definition obscures the
Transnational threat groups, from jihadist terrorists to
formidable defense challenges that adversaries around the
transnational criminal organizations, are actively trying
globe pose through their military modernization
to harm Americans.
investments. One example: analysts express concern that
adversaries including Russia and China, and to a lesser
Preventing China and Russian from developing military
extent Iran and North Korea, have invested in “anti-
capabilities superior to those of the U.S. and creating
https://crsreports.congress.gov
link to page 2
COVID-19: National Security and Defense Strategy
“peace through [military] strength” is viewed as a key way
needs, and whether they are sufficiently integrated into
by which the U.S. can advance its interests in this
national security plans and operations.
competition. The Department of Defense, through the 2018
National Defense Strategy, interpreted the Trump
“National Security” Resources Today
Administration’s guidance to mean that the U.S. military
Discerning this resource imbalance can be challenging
ought to prioritize improving the “lethality” of its forces.
because, in terms of the budget, the federal government
The Military vs. Civilian Resource Gap
does not categorize spending by national security.
However, the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25)
Why is the United States government seemingly unable to
initially specified separate “security” and “nonsecurity”
manage both adversary aggression and contend with issues
categories for discretionary spending limits in FY2012 and
usually associated with human security?
FY2013. The security category was broad in scope and
One answer to this question relates to a long-standing issue
included budget authority for DOD, the Department of
that has created a dilemma for national security institutions
Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Veterans
for the better part of two decades: the military versus
Affairs (VA), the National Nuclear Security
civilian resources mismatch. In theory, the Department of
Administration, the Intelligence Community Management
Defense is but one element of national power that can be
account, and the international affairs budget function
utilized to respond to crises or contingencies; the State
(identified by the numerical notation 150). For illustrative
Department, the U.S. Agency for International
purposes, CRS applied this definition of “security” to
Development (USAID), the U.S. Trade Representative, and
FY2020 discretionary budget authority estimated in the
other agencies all provide critical capabilities to the broader
FY2021 President’s budget request to show that such
national security toolkit. During the Cold War, these
spending for agencies and departments other than DOD
nonmilitary instruments were vitally important to
would collectively account for approximately one-third of
prosecuting—and countering—political warfare strategies
the DOD allocation (see Figure 1).
against the Soviet Union. Today, although DOD is
generally viewed to be the instrument that fights and wins
Figure 1. Discretionary Budget Authority, by Security
the nation’s wars, in practice, the U.S. military has taken on
and Nonsecurity Categories, FY2020
missions beyond that narrow warfighting scope largely due
(in bil ions of dol ars)
to the fact that DOD has been provided with the lion’s share
of national security resources.
Reflecting on the resourcing levels of State and USAID in
particular, senior national security officials have long
argued that this authorities-versus-resources imbalance is
damaging the United States’ ability to grapple with a
variety of national security challenges. For example, in
November 2007, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
argued during a lecture at Kansas State University:
One of the most important lessons of the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan is that military success is not sufficient
to win: economic development, institution-building and
Source: CRS analysis of Office of Management and Budget, Public
the rule of law, promoting internal reconciliation, good
Budget Database, Budget Authority XLSX; and OMB Final
governance, providing basic services to the people,
Sequestration Report to the President and Congress for Fiscal Year
training and equipping indigenous military and police
2012, p. 3.
forces, strategic communications, and more—these,
Notes: Analysis by Brendan W. McGarry, Analyst in U.S. Defense
along with security, are essential ingredients for long-
Budget, and Christopher T. Mann, Analyst in Defense Policy and
term success.
Trade.
Gates went on to argue that State Department and USAID
Issues for Congress
personnel and budget cuts during the 1990s contributed to a
In light of the threat posed by pandemics, U.S. leaders,
shortfall of civilian expertise in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a
including those in Congress, may once again need to revisit
result, nonmilitary tasks (such as building schools or
their definition of “security.” Congress, in turn, may wish to
managing city councils) often fell to U.S. service members,
explore
who usually did not have the requisite training to do so.
whether it agrees with emerging concepts of national
The current COVID-19 pandemic highlights the importance
security, and whether an adequate balance is struck
of strong agencies for managing and mitigating
between “human” and “traditional” security priorities or
“nontraditional” threats to U.S. security (some examples of
whether those concepts can be effectively merged into a
other challenges include narcotics trafficking, crime, and
fundamentally new way to think about security; and
climate change) as they manifest themselves both
whether other instruments of national power are
domestically and globally. Given the long-standing civilian
adequately resourced relative to current and emerging
versus military resources gap, some observers question
challenges.
whether those agencies that must deal with such challenges
are adequately resourced relative to the current and future
Kathleen J. McInnis, Specialist in International Security
https://crsreports.congress.gov
COVID-19: National Security and Defense Strategy
IF11525
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11525 · VERSION 1 · NEW