NSEC 501 LIBERTY UNIVERSITY Domestic and National Security 2025.docx

Domestic and National Security 1

The Domestic Contexts of National Security

Jeremy Phillips

Helms School of Government, Liberty University

Abstract

The formulation and execution of United States national security policy are deeply intertwined

with a complex web of domestic institutions, each possessing unique roles, priorities, and

constraints. A comprehensive analysis of these domestic underpinnings reveals the critical

contributions and inherent challenges presented by the executive branch, Congress, the

Domestic and National Security 2

rights, can constrain executive power through its interpretation of laws and regulations, creating

opinion and the pervasive influence of the media can significantly impact policy preferences

and the overall national security discourse. The analysis argues that while these domestic

institutions are indispensable for ensuring national security, their inherent characteristics and

complex interactions often impede the development and implementation of effective and

coherent national security strategies. Overcoming these challenges necessitates enhanced

institutional coordination within the executive branch, improved bipartisan cooperation in

Congress, a more nuanced understanding of constitutional constraints, and a commitment to

fostering informed public discourse. Ultimately, a robust and resilient national security policy

requires addressing these domestic impediments and strengthening the foundations of

democratic governance.

cybersecurity and pandemics have blurred the lines between domestic and international

security. As Snow (2018) aptly contends, "national security is the result of the interplay between

domestic and international factors." This interplay is particularly pronounced in the United

States, a nation characterized by a complex and often fragmented system of governance.

Understanding the domestic forces that shape U.S. national security policy is therefore crucial

Domestic and National Security 3

for comprehending the country's strategic choices and its ability to respond effectively to global

the formulation and implementation of national security policy. These include the executive

branch, with its vast array of agencies ranging from the Department of Defense to the

intelligence community (Risen, 2006); the legislative branch, which exercises its power of the

purse and oversight functions; the judicial branch, which interprets laws and safeguards

constitutional rights; and the often overlooked but profoundly influential forces of public

opinion and the media. Each of these institutions operates with its own distinct set of interests,

priorities, and values, leading to a dynamic and often contentious policymaking environment.

The existing literature on U.S. national security policy has often focused on external threats,

grand strategy, and the role of the United States in the international system. While these

perspectives are valuable, they often neglect the critical role played by domestic institutions and

the challenges they pose. Studies that do examine domestic factors tends to focus on specific

aspects, such as civil-military relations, the influence of interest groups or the impact of public

opinion. However, a comprehensive analysis that integrates these various domestic dimensions

and examines their interconnectedness is often lacking. A holistic examination of the domestic

institutions that shape U.S. national security policy, and the inherent challenges – political,

Domestic and National Security 4

and the media collectively contribute to a complex and often unpredictable national security

associated with the executive branch, Congress, the judiciary, and the dynamic forces of public

opinion and the media, highlighting how their interplay ultimately shapes the trajectory of U.S.

national security policy. By examining these domestic forces, a more nuanced and

comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the United States in

the 21st century can be achieved.

The Executive Branch: Interagency Rivalries and Bureaucratic Inefficiencies

The executive branch, with its vast network of agencies, stands as the primary architect

and executor of national security policy. The President, as Commander-in-Chief, wields

significant authority in this domain, overseeing a complex bureaucracy that includes the

Department of Defense, the Department of State, the National Security Council, the intelligence

community, and numerous other agencies. However, this very complexity can become a source

of significant challenges. Interagency rivalries and bureaucratic inefficiencies often hinder

and undermining the development of a unified national security strategy. This can result in

policy incoherence, where different parts of the government are working at cross-purposes,

weakening the overall effectiveness of national security efforts. Hadley (2020), in his account of

the Bush administration's foreign policy transition to the Obama administration, highlights the

complexities of interagency coordination and the challenges of ensuring a smooth transfer of

Domestic and National Security 5

knowledge and policy priorities. The "hand-off" process itself can be fraught with difficulties, as

making it difficult to establish a common ground for future action. Risen (2006), in his

examination of the CIA during the Bush administration, details instances where the agency's

actions were driven by internal pressures and bureaucratic imperatives, sometimes at the

expense of broader national security goals. The pursuit of specific intelligence objectives, for

example, could lead to actions that had unintended consequences or that undermined

diplomatic efforts. This underscores the importance of effective oversight and accountability

within the intelligence community to prevent such instances of bureaucratic overreach.

Furthermore, the sheer size and complexity of the executive branch can create bureaucratic

inertia, making it difficult to adapt quickly to changing circumstances or to implement new

policies effectively. Decision-making processes can become bogged down in layers of

bureaucracy, delaying responses to emerging threats and hindering the ability of the United

States to act decisively on the global stage.

Addressing these challenges requires a commitment to strengthening interagency coordination,

streamlining decision-making processes, and fostering a culture of collaboration and shared

responsibility within the executive branch. Effective leadership, clear lines of authority, and a

Domestic and National Security 6

power to declare war, and the power to oversee the executive branch. However, this role is

passage of essential legislation and prevent the development of consensus-based national

security policies (Howell & Pevehouse, 2014). The power of the purse gives Congress significant

leverage over national security policy, as it controls the funding for defense spending,

intelligence operations, and foreign aid. However, partisan disagreements over budget priorities

can lead to protracted debates and delays in the allocation of funds, creating uncertainty and

hindering the ability of the military and intelligence agencies to plan for the future. Government

shutdowns, often triggered by budgetary disputes, can have a particularly disruptive effect on

national security operations, forcing agencies to furlough personnel and delaying critical

projects. The power to declare war, while rarely invoked in recent decades, remains a significant

check on executive power. However, the lack of a formal declaration of war in many

contemporary conflicts has led to ongoing debates about the proper scope of presidential

authority in the use of military force. Congress's role in authorizing military action has become

increasingly complex, with differing interpretations of the War Powers Resolution and ongoing

disagreements over the appropriate level of congressional involvement in decisions regarding

the use of force. Howell and Pevehouse (2014) examine the historical evolution of congressional

Domestic and National Security 7

policy. Furthermore, the increasing polarization of American politics has made it more difficult

issues such as defense spending, foreign policy, and intelligence gathering can lead to legislative

gridlock, preventing the passage of essential legislation and hindering the development of a

coherent national security strategy. The rise of ideological extremism and the decline of

moderate voices in both parties have further exacerbated these divisions, making it more

difficult to find common ground on national security matters. Overcoming these challenges

requires a renewed commitment to bipartisanship and a willingness to compromise on national

security issues. Strengthening congressional oversight mechanisms, promoting informed debate

on national security policy, and fostering a culture of cooperation between the executive and

legislative branches are essential for ensuring that Congress can effectively fulfill its

constitutional role in shaping national security policy (Howell and Pevehouse, 2014).

also raises complex questions about the appropriate balance between security and liberty

(Boumediene v. Bush, 2008; Cole, 2018). The Supreme Court's decision in Boumediene v. Bush

(2008) is a landmark example of the judiciary's role in safeguarding constitutional rights in the

context of national security. The Court held that detainees at Guantanamo Bay had the right to

challenge their detention in U.S. courts, even though they were held outside the territorial

Domestic and National Security 8

jurisdiction of the United States. This decision affirmed the principle that the Constitution

responsibility to ensure that the government does not exceed its constitutional authority in the

name of national security. Cole (2018) examines the role of citizen activists in shaping

constitutional law, highlighting the importance of advocacy groups and legal challenges in

protecting civil liberties in the face of government overreach. He argues that citizen activism can

play a vital role in ensuring that the government remains accountable to the Constitution and

that individual rights are protected, even in the context of national security. However, the

judiciary's role in national security policy is not without its challenges. Judicial review can be

time-consuming and costly, and it can sometimes lead to delays in the implementation of

national security measures. Furthermore, judges may lack the expertise and information

necessary to fully assess the complex national security considerations that are often at stake in

these cases. This can make it difficult for the judiciary to strike the appropriate balance between

security and liberty, particularly in cases involving classified information or sensitive intelligence

matters. The judiciary's role in national security policy also raises questions about the proper

scope of judicial deference to the executive branch. During times of war or national emergency,

courts may be more inclined to defer to the executive's judgment on national security matters,

Domestic and National Security 9

accountability are essential for ensuring that the judiciary can effectively fulfill its role in

for its actions. The media serves as a primary source of information about national security

issues, and its coverage can significantly impact public opinion and political discourse

(Gelpi et al., 2009; Greenwald, 2014). Gelpi et al. (2009) also examines the relationship between

American public opinion and casualties in military conflicts, finding that public support for

military interventions tends to decline as casualties increase. This "casualty aversion" can

constrain policymakers' options in the use of military force, particularly in long-term conflicts

with high casualty rates. Public opinion can also influence the scope and duration of military

interventions, as policymakers may be reluctant to commit troops to conflicts that lack strong

scope of government surveillance and the protection of civil liberties in the digital age. The

media's coverage of the Snowden revelations played a crucial role in informing the public about

these issues and shaping the political discourse surrounding them. However, the influence of

public opinion and the media on national security policy is not always positive. The media can

sometimes sensationalize national security threats, creating a climate of fear and anxiety that