The United States' national security policy has become “dangerous and dysfunctional,” particularly under President Donald Trump, US-based publication CounterPunch said in a report published on Tuesday.

In its analysis, CounterPunch argues that the militarization of US foreign and national security policy began in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks and continued under the administrations of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. The report states that successive presidents increasingly relied on military power to achieve foreign policy goals while defense spending rose to what it describes as excessive and reckless levels.

However, the publication contends that the situation has worsened under Trump’s leadership, citing what it calls an authoritarian governing style. According to CounterPunch, this approach has weakened democratic institutions domestically while eroding US credibility and influence abroad.

Top officials absent from most institution meetings

The report focuses particular criticism on the United States Department of State and the United States National Security Council, describing them as having “essentially vanished” as functioning institutions. Both bodies are currently overseen by former senator Marco Rubio, a dual role the publication characterizes as a serious conflict of interest. It argues that the responsibilities of secretary of state and national security adviser are traditionally distinct and potentially incompatible.

CounterPunch further claims that there is no public record of National Security Council meetings addressing major global issues such as the Russia-Ukraine war or a possible renewed nuclear agreement with Iran. Instead, it says negotiations have been handled by businessman Steve Witkoff and presidential adviser Jared Kushner, whom it describes as lacking relevant expertise.

The publication also notes the role of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, formally a member of the National Security Council, stating that there is no record of his attendance at NSC meetings. It adds that several NSC staff members were dismissed early in Trump’s term following allegations raised by far-right activist Laura Loomer.

CounterPunch stated that the United States is facing one of the most dangerous periods in recent history, citing rising defense expenditures and the expiration of the last remaining arms control agreement with Russia. It argues that the current national security team lacks the experience necessary to manage complex arms control negotiations should talks resume.

US policy fueling arms race with Russia, China

In its report, CounterPunch also warns that increased appropriations for strategic weapons and missile defense systems are fueling what it describes as a renewed arms race with Russia and China. The publication argues that expanded funding for strategic capabilities is unnecessary and risks deepening geopolitical tensions at a time of already heightened global instability.

The outlet further claims that the use of military force under President Donald Trump has been inconsistent and expansive, citing operations conducted in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, Western Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific. According to the report, Trump has ignored the War Powers Resolution, a law enacted in 1973 to limit the president’s authority to deploy US forces without congressional approval. CounterPunch adds that Congress has failed to assert its oversight role.

Domestically, the publication contends that the United States is witnessing what it calls the militarization of law enforcement. It alleges that uniformed military troops have patrolled city streets as part of a White House-directed anti-crime campaign. CounterPunch states that deployments in cities including Chicago, Los Angeles, Memphis, New Orleans, and Portland violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the use of federal military personnel in domestic law enforcement.

The report further claims that a military deployment in Minneapolis resulted in the deaths of two American citizens, presenting the incident as evidence of what it describes as the dangerous erosion of legal and institutional safeguards governing the use of force at home.