America’s outstanding and unmatched military and intelligence services admirably defend our national security, but it takes more than hard power to sufficiently safeguard American interests. To make Americans safer at home, the United States must support free societies and a democratic global order to counter the rising tide of autocratic threats, amid the ongoing struggle between democracy and autocracy.
Autocratic governments and transnational criminal groups currently pose the greatest threats to the United States, often collaborating to undermine democracies, challenge American leadership, and expand territorial control. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently noted, “Those who steal elections and use force to grasp power undermine America’s national security interests.”
This security-governance nexus should lead the United States to prioritize democracy support as a component of its national security policy. Unfortunately, policymakers and experts on both sides of the political aisle have jettisoned this longstanding bipartisan priority because of misperceptions that democracy support means imposing ideological views, reflects American hubris, or requires military action. Vocal opponents on the progressive left and isolationist right have argued that the United States should pull back from its decades-long support for democracy globally. The unintended consequence will be damage to American national security interests.
Democracies are our most stable and reliable partners and do not pose a security threat globally. Autocrats are consistently the least reliable partners and greatest threats. While partnering with other democracies is an imperfect endeavor, such partnerships are far more beneficial to American security. Rather than debating whether democracy supports national security, we should shift our focus to how best to support its growth.
Then-Senator Rubio stated at the International Republican Institute’s annual celebration in 2024 that “all the problems of the world find their genesis at their core in totalitarian, repressive movements and/or regimes.” He warned that “challenges to freedom and democracy all over the world are embedded in this new coalition of governments,” highlighting how China, Russia, North Korea and Iran are cooperating to advance “an alternative to the U.S. international order.”
Given this, the United States must address the current 19-year global democratic decline and undermining of the democratically oriented global system. This requires the strengthening of partnerships with international democratic allies, both governmental and civil society, who are driving democratic change and need support from democracies. A world in which democratic leaders are empowered to lead will be a world that is more stable – and one where American security is better protected.
The security threat is autocratic and illiberal
Threats to American security are increasing worldwide, according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s March 2025 Annual Threat Assessment report. These dangers emanate from traditional state actors and nonstate transnational criminal and terrorist organizations. The assessment highlights that cooperation “among China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea has been growing more rapidly in recent years, reinforcing threats from each of them individually while also posing new challenges to U.S. strength and power globally.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping have met multiple times, most recently in September, and reaffirmed their “friendship of steel” and restated their commitment to countering American global leadership and a democracy-based global system. Closely aligned with China and Russia, Iran also actively supports terrorist organizations, including Hamas and Hezbollah, which undermine American security interests.
Chinese and Russian attacks on democracies are well documented. A recent report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) shows that “Russia is conducting an escalating and violent campaign of sabotage and subversion against European and U.S. targets in Europe.” It notes the number of Russian attacks in Europe nearly tripled between 2023 and 2024 after quadrupling between 2022 and 2023.
The German Marshall Fund’s Alliance for Securing Democracies’ Authoritarian Influence Tracker also shows an aggressive and steady stream of Russian and Chinese attacks on European democracies, infrastructure, and commercial and political interests.
Building networks of beholden autocratic leaders on every continent is a central element of the Russian and Chinese efforts to gain influence globally. Throughout Africa, Latin America, and Asia, Beijing and Moscow have fomented coups d’état, supported corrupt autocrats, supplied arms to conflict parties, and built autocratic pawns’ reliance on China’s and Russia’s economic and military support.
The United States’ loss of influence in Latin America to China and Russia undermines American security interests and possible partnerships to counter regional threats. In Latin America, the rise of autocratic regimes has accelerated transnational trends – including mass migration and transnational criminal activity– that have an impact on security within America.
These autocratic nations have actively targeted the United States homeland. China, Russia, Iran and other nations have attempted assassinations, abductions, digital threats and other forms of transnational repression in the United States, often against American citizens. Iran’s plotted assassinations include then President-elect Donald Trump and other targets, as recently outlined in a Justice Department statement. Russia has a sophisticated, targeted information operation that directs inaccurate information toward U.S. service members, particularly recently separated veterans, to try to radicalize these patriots to turn on their own country.
America’s adversaries are sowing doubt in democracy and a democratic world order through targeted information campaigns and control of media outlets. Likewise, they have actively worked to exacerbate political divisions within democracies.
These attacks undermine American security and require a concerted effort to reverse as part of national security efforts.
What’s democracy got to do with it?
The greatest threats to American and global security emanate from nations that are among the least free in the world, as Rubio noted.
Because autocratic regimes reject domestic constraints on power, their unchecked aggression can expand globally without fear of the domestic cost imposed by civil society, media, or political opposition. Similarly, autocrats know that destroying a democratic global system benefits them by removing any stigma or penalty for autocratic behavior and undermining external support for their domestic opposition.
Illiberal nonstate actors abhor state sovereignty and national security and flourish in unstable environments, particularly with weak or complicit governments. The groups exacerbate instability and fuel destabilizing conditions, including health crises or mass human movement, which often impact democratic nations like the United States.
In contrast, democratic nations provide stronger and more reliable long-term partners for the United States. While dictators have the allure of control in the short term, the instability resulting from widespread exploitation of their citizenry makes their rule ultimately precarious and often unpredictable.
Admittedly, no partnership with a democracy is perfect. Some have undoubtedly disappointed or underperformed. But this does not undermine the higher reliability of democratic partners. With rare exception, these nations have not created major security problems, while autocratic regimes and their nonstate partners consistently pose threats to American security. Importantly, democracies also do not go to war with each other, as the longstanding Democratic Peace Theory outlines. Alone, this is sufficient reason to strengthen and expand democracy to advance U.S. national security.
Don’t throw the democracy baby out with the imperfect water
Although democratic values have been a core component of American foreign and national security policy since the end of World War I, some skeptics have nonetheless questioned their relevance to American security interests and global leadership.
These critiques most often target specific policy decisions or approaches rather than refuting that American and global security are bolstered by more democracies and a democratically oriented system. Withdrawing American leadership on global democracy because of policy debates is dangerous and ill-advised.
These concerns are nonetheless worth addressing as America considers the role of democracy within our national security policy.
Supporting democracy globally does not mean lecturing countries, arguing a perfect U.S. track record, imposing American systems or values, or policing the world. It does mean that the United States will ensure that its notable military, economic and technological power is aligned with its values, because it is both the right thing and the strategically wise thing to do. It means the United States will project the humble confidence about democracy and the American democratic story: humble about the shortcomings all democracies have experienced and confident about the enduring strength of democratic principles and the transformative power American democracy has had at home and abroad.
Supporting democracy does not mean the United States must cut off relations with all nondemocratic nations. The United States can collaborate with these governments when essential to securing American interests while utilizing the relationship to advocate for democratic change, which brings longer-term stability.
Critics cite the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as arguments against supporting democracy because force was used. But in both cases, military action was initiated for security reasons, not democracy. Abandoning those countries after dealing with the immediate threats would have consigned them to further chaos and renewed threats to America. Therefore the United States chose to help them transition toward a more democratic system of government. The confluence of security threats and the need for democratic transition in these cases do not erase the strategic importance of democratic growth to American national security.
Advancing democracy requires long-term support of nonviolent democratic actors leading their own democratic transitions. It includes a wide range of tools – diplomacy, technical and financial support, military and intelligence collaboration, and public narrative shaping. Progress is not one-size-fits-all or linear. Democratization in any country takes many years, if not generations, and the return on investment takes time.
It is essential for the United States to take a long-term view. American security has benefitted from the last eight decades of democratization from a post-WWII period when only 26 countries were considered full democracies until today with some 84 countries or territories ranked as free according to Freedom House. Reversing the current 19-year decline in democratic trends will take time but is essential to American security interests.
Figuring out how America should support democracy
The real questions are who and how to support democracy globally – not whether to do it.
Global democracy leadership has long been an executive branch priority with bipartisan congressional support, though this has shifted under the current administration. The administration’s uneven support for Ukraine and tense relations with some traditional democratic allies mark a notable shift away from prioritizing democracy as critical to our national security.
In his May 2025 visit to Saudi Arabia, President Trump noted that Middle East growth did not come from “giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs” – a reference to the misplaced belief that democracy support is tantamount to lecturing and intervention. The remarks signaled a shift away from American leadership in supporting democratic values globally. This was reinforced by decisions to significantly decrease democracy assistance and dismantle parts of the U.S. government supporting democracy.
But leadership on democracy can and should come from a variety of places, not singularly the executive branch.
First, the U.S. Congress, which has oversight authority over foreign policy, includes many democracy champions and has long shown bipartisan support for global democracy. Despite increased polarization, Congress is well positioned to lead on prioritizing democracy support as crucial to national security.
Second, the U.S. and international philanthropic community has an important role to play in a rapidly changing global funding landscape. Many philanthropies have shifted significant resources toward domestic issues, but sufficient heft and commitment remain to convene a coalition of global-minded philanthropies to revive American democracy support. Prioritizing democracy support, as opposed to ideological approaches to human rights, will be essential.
The third source is the corporate community, which understands well the importance of security and stability to open and stable markets grounded in rule of law. A relatively modest investment in democratic actors would have significant impact. Tech companies are particularly well positioned to provide financial or technological support for democracy efforts.
Importantly, there is a robust group of scholars, democracy practitioners, and international partners eager for revitalized American leadership in this area. Additionally, the broad nonpartisan community of former military and diplomatic leaders understands the importance of democracy to our national security. These experts provide invaluable knowledge and experience on the importance of the security-governance link.
These key sources of American leadership should act in three core areas – supporting democratic actors, countering undemocratic forces, and strengthening global democratic cooperation.
Supporting democratic actors: The United States has democratic partners in every country – in government, opposition, civil society, media, or academia. American leaders should support those committed to democratic reform, the rule of law, and transparent accountable government. Because these actors are leading democratic change, U.S. assistance would bolster – not drive – this work.
There are two crucial areas of potential transformative change. The first is providing high-quality, democracy-oriented information to people in closed societies. A major free speech or media-focused philanthropy – in partnership with the tech community – could expand access to technology, internet connectivity, and quality content to inform citizenries and support journalists. This has proven invaluable in motivating democracy activists, broadening support, and challenging autocratic regimes that seek to manipulate information through state-controlled channels. The second is providing direct financial support to democracy advocates facing persecution in countries without democratic government. Congressional, philanthropic and corporate leaders could provide robust financial support to democratic activists who – even with limited resources – are able to drive significant democratic change. Such programs have long existed, have proven records of transformational change, and could easily be expanded with additional support.
Countering undemocratic forces: The United States should expand efforts to counter China’s and Russia’s ascendency and their nexus with Iran, North Korea, and other authoritarian regimes. Most effective would be targeting international corruption pathways, illicit transnational criminal gangs, and terrorist networks.
Congress’ role is essential, given its notable bipartisan collaboration in this area, as seen in legislation such as the Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions Act and support for Uyghur and Hong Kong activists fighting Chinese repression. Bipartisan congressional leadership could significantly bolster our security and also exercise some underused crosspartisan muscles. One area in which Congress can act immediately is countering the autocrats’ corrupt use of international banking systems to destabilize democracies and the global democratic system.
Additionally, a bipartisan congressional commission on strengthening our security through reimagined democracy support could produce legislative opportunities to pressure autocratic regimes, counter international corruption and regulatory loopholes, and elevate the voices of democratic champions. Former military leaders and diplomats are ideal participants in such an undertaking. Lastly, Congress should convene hearings about the security-governance nexus and exercise oversight of the administration’s remaining confirmations, budget, and foreign policy decision-making.
Strengthening global democratic cooperation: The United States should prioritize democratic cooperation on national security and foreign policy goals, particularly countering China’s malign influence. While the United States has had differences with democratic nations, democratic nations have been essential partners in targeted security and foreign policy collaboration, including allies in the Indo-Pacific, NATO, Latin America, and Africa.
The United States’ most valuable partnership is NATO, which must be preserved and strengthened. Successive American presidents have rightfully called upon NATO partners to carry their fair share of financial burdens. The Trump Administration deserves credit for successfully advocating for NATO allies to increase defense spending.
Likewise, the United States must counter China’s and Russia’s global narrative battle, which impacts U.S. global leadership and seeks to reorient the global system. Reiteration of the United States’ commitment to democracy at home and abroad is needed at the highest levels of U.S. government.
Time to act
In an increasingly complex and threatening global climate, the United States must invest in those areas that will impact the long-term security of the nation. There is particular urgency given the aggressive stance Russia, China, and others have toward the United States. The United States has long led in this area but must recapture its strategic leadership position immediately so we do not cede ground to our adversaries.