President Donald Trump’s ‘peace-through-strength’ strategy, which he has framed as a key component of his foreign policy, is now encountering significant hurdles. This approach, similar to President Ronald Reagan’s strategy during the Cold War, aims to build a strong military presence to deter adversaries and project American power around the globe. In recent years, Trump has deployed a robust network of military assets, including aircraft carriers, fighters, and a global network of American installations, to reinforce U.S. influence in the Middle East and Asia. His strategy has led to significant operations, such as the targeting of the Houthis and the deployment of advanced weapons systems, all of which were meant to showcase American strength and ensure regional stability.
Despite these advances, the administration is now grappling with the reality that the military is stretched thin and that the industrial base that supports the U.S. defense effort is nearing its capacity. This is particularly evident in the Middle East, where operations have exposed significant readiness challenges. For example, in the Red Sea, U.S. forces have been involved in the longest surface engagement since World War II. While the Navy has performed admirably in these operations, the strain has led to a number of issues, including friendly fire incidents, the loss of several drones, and two F/A-18s, one of which fell overboard during an evasive maneuver and another due to a failed arrest. These events highlight the limitations of a historically small fleet that is overworked and highly exposed to risk.
Additionally, operations in the Middle East have created logistical challenges, such as the need to transfer munitions from Asia to replenish supplies in the Middle East, which can reduce readiness in the Pacific. The shortage of munitions, such as the Tomahawk missiles, has also become a critical issue — in 2023, the Pentagon purchased 55 Tomahawks, yet 68% of the annual purchase was expended in a single day against the Houthis. This has led to a two-year lead time for new Tomahawks, underscoring the urgent need for industrial expansion and more investment in munitions production.
As part of his effort to strengthen America’s military posture, President Trump has also focused on the deployment of advanced weapons systems, such as the ‘Golden Dome’ missile shield. However, this has drawn condemnation from Russia, China, and North Korea. While these systems are intended to deter potential adversaries, the administration must balance the costs of developing and maintaining such capabilities with the broader budgetary constraints. The budget for the defense plan is significantly below the $1 trillion commitment, raising concerns about whether the administration can sustain its peace-through-strength approach without overextending military resources.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has also taken steps to address these challenges by restructuring the Army, replacing some armored and attack helicopter formations with drone swarms and precision munitions, which have proven their worth in Ukraine. Additionally, Hegseth has proposed a budget reallocation plan that aims to invest in next-generation warfighting technology, which could help in countering emerging threats from China, Russia, and Iran. However, the administration faces an uphill battle in securing the necessary funding, as the requested defense budget for FY26 is far below the $1 trillion promised and risks falling behind inflation and the rising demands of global security.
In the context of these challenges, the administration is seeking congressional support to provide significant real growth to the defense budget, with the House reconciliation bill including $150 billion for shipbuilding and other priorities. However, there are indications that the defense budget may not keep pace with the growing threats from China, Russia, and Iran, making the long-term viability of the peace-through-strength strategy questionable. The success of Trump’s approach will depend on whether these challenges can be effectively addressed through strategic budgeting and resource allocation, ensuring that the U.S. military remains strong and capable of meeting its global commitments.