Rebuttal of Department of Defense
by: Christopher Miller

Rebuttal to Project 2025: The Department of Defense by Christopher Miller

In Project 2025, Christopher Miller presents a vision for the Department of Defense (DoD) that emphasizes militarization, budget expansion, and aggressive foreign policy, while downplaying diplomacy, international cooperation, and the complexities of modern global security challenges. While Miller frames his proposals as necessary for ensuring the United States’ military readiness and global dominance, his approach is dangerously narrow-minded. It prioritizes military strength at the expense of diplomatic solutions, ignores pressing issues like cybersecurity and climate change, and threatens to entangle the U.S. in unnecessary and prolonged conflicts.

Miller’s vision ultimately overlooks the nuanced challenges of the 21st century and proposes a defense strategy rooted in outdated thinking—one that promotes a military-first approach while ignoring the broader global realities that demand cooperative and multilateral solutions.

Overemphasis on Military Expansion

At the heart of Miller’s recommendations is a significant expansion of the U.S. military, both in terms of budget and capabilities. While maintaining a strong defense is undoubtedly important, Miller’s call for massive increases in defense spending ignores the fact that the United States already spends more on its military than the next ten countries combined. The real issue is not a lack of funding, but rather the inefficient allocation of resources within the existing defense budget. Billions are spent on outdated weapons systems and projects that fail to address the current and future threats facing the U.S.

Miller’s focus on military hardware, such as new weapons systems and increased troop deployments, is reminiscent of Cold War-era thinking, where military might was seen as the primary way to assert global power. However, today’s security threats—cyberattacks, climate change, terrorism, and pandemics—cannot be addressed solely through military means. The failure to address these emerging threats risks leaving the U.S. vulnerable in areas that are not protected by tanks, aircraft carriers, or ballistic missiles.

Additionally, ballooning the defense budget at the expense of other critical sectors, such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure, is short-sighted. These areas are integral to national security, as a strong economy, a healthy population, and robust infrastructure contribute to the country’s ability to respond to both internal and external challenges. Instead of focusing on unrestrained military spending, the U.S. would benefit from a more balanced approach that addresses all dimensions of national security, including economic stability and global health.

Neglect of Diplomacy and International Cooperation

One of the most glaring omissions in Miller’s vision for the Department of Defense is the lack of emphasis on diplomacy and international cooperation. In today’s interconnected world, military force alone is not enough to maintain global stability or protect U.S. interests. Threats such as terrorism, cyber warfare, and climate change do not respect national borders and require coordinated international efforts.

Rather than promoting partnerships with allies or strengthening international institutions, Project 2025 envisions a more unilateral and militarized foreign policy. This approach isolates the U.S. from the global community, making it more difficult to build alliances that are critical in addressing shared challenges. Miller’s vision also downplays the importance of diplomacy as a tool for conflict prevention, instead favoring military action and deterrence. This risks escalating tensions with global powers like China and Russia, leading to a more volatile and militarized world.

By neglecting diplomacy, Project 2025 ignores one of the most cost-effective means of securing peace. Diplomacy can prevent conflicts before they arise, foster economic cooperation, and build trust between nations. In an era of increasingly complex global challenges, diplomacy must be a central part of U.S. defense and foreign policy, not an afterthought.

Increased Risk of Unnecessary Military Engagements

Miller’s aggressive military posture is likely to lead to increased U.S. involvement in unnecessary and prolonged military engagements. By prioritizing military solutions over diplomatic or multilateral approaches, Project 2025 raises the risk of entangling the U.S. in conflicts that do not serve its long-term interests.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown the devastating human, financial, and political costs of prolonged military engagements. These conflicts have resulted in the loss of thousands of American and allied lives, cost trillions of dollars, and destabilized entire regions. Yet, Miller’s recommendations echo the same militaristic approach that led to these disastrous wars. Rather than learning from the failures of recent military interventions, Project 2025 seems poised to repeat them.

Miller’s vision for the Department of Defense also promotes a more assertive U.S. military presence around the world, particularly in regions like the South China Sea and Eastern Europe. While maintaining a global military presence is necessary to protect U.S. interests, a strategy that emphasizes show-of-force tactics and increased troop deployments risks provoking adversaries like China and Russia. This could lead to a new arms race or military conflict, increasing the likelihood of a full-scale confrontation.

Rather than relying on military dominance to deter adversaries, the U.S. should focus on diplomatic engagement, conflict resolution, and building coalitions with allies. These tools are often more effective in maintaining peace and stability than saber-rattling or military intervention.

Ignoring Non-Military Threats: Cybersecurity and Climate Change

Perhaps the most concerning aspect of Miller’s vision is its failure to address non-military threats like cybersecurity and climate change. In the 21st century, national security is no longer defined solely by the strength of a country’s military. Increasingly, threats are emerging from non-traditional areas, such as cyberattacks that can cripple critical infrastructure, disinformation campaigns that undermine democratic institutions, and climate change that exacerbates resource conflicts and displaces millions of people.

Cybersecurity, in particular, is one of the greatest threats facing the U.S. today. Cyberattacks can disable power grids, financial systems, and communication networks, causing widespread chaos and economic disruption. Yet, Project 2025 does not place enough emphasis on strengthening the U.S.’s cyber defenses or coordinating international efforts to combat cyber threats. Without a robust cybersecurity strategy, the U.S. remains vulnerable to attacks that could have devastating consequences for national security.

Similarly, climate change is a global threat that is already contributing to instability around the world. Rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and resource scarcity are leading to forced migration, food insecurity, and increased competition for resources. The Department of Defense itself has acknowledged that climate change is a threat multiplier that exacerbates existing conflicts and creates new security challenges. However, Miller’s vision for the DoD largely ignores the role that climate change plays in national security, instead focusing on traditional military threats.

To effectively protect U.S. interests in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must prioritize addressing these non-military threats. This requires investing in cybersecurity infrastructure, supporting international efforts to combat climate change, and building resilience to the disruptions that climate change will bring.

Diverting Resources from Domestic Priorities

A central flaw in Miller’s vision is its focus on increasing defense spending at the expense of critical domestic needs. While national security is essential, so too is a strong and healthy domestic foundation. Miller’s call for more military spending diverts resources away from areas that are crucial to maintaining U.S. global competitiveness, such as education, healthcare, infrastructure, and scientific research.

A strong military cannot exist in isolation from a strong society. The well-being of the American people is just as important to national security as the strength of its military. A population that lacks access to healthcare, education, and economic opportunity is more vulnerable to crises and less able to contribute to the country’s long-term success. By prioritizing military spending over these domestic investments, Project 2025 undermines the very foundation of U.S. strength.

Moreover, the focus on military spending ignores the potential for investment in innovative technologies that can strengthen national security while addressing domestic challenges. For example, renewable energy technology not only reduces reliance on foreign oil but also contributes to a more sustainable economy. Investment in clean energy, advanced manufacturing, and cutting-edge research will ensure that the U.S. remains competitive in the global economy while addressing pressing national security threats like climate change and energy dependence.

Conclusion: A Narrow, Militaristic Vision That Ignores Modern Threats

Christopher Miller’s vision for the Department of Defense, as outlined in Project 2025, is a regressive and overly militarized approach to national security. By prioritizing military expansion, downplaying diplomacy, and ignoring emerging threats like cybersecurity and climate change, Miller’s recommendations risk entangling the U.S. in unnecessary conflicts, isolating the country from its allies, and leaving the nation vulnerable to non-traditional security threats.

The 21st century requires a broader, more flexible approach to national security—one that balances military strength with diplomacy, international cooperation, and investment in innovative technologies that address both domestic and global challenges. A focus on military solutions alone is insufficient to protect U.S. interests in a rapidly changing world.

Miller’s proposals are rooted in outdated thinking, and they fail to address the complex realities of modern security threats. Rather than increasing defense spending and expanding the military’s global footprint, the U.S. must focus on building resilience at home, fostering international partnerships, and addressing the non-military challenges that pose the greatest threats to national security. Project 2025 fails to provide this vision, and its recommendations would ultimately leave the U.S. less secure, more isolated, and less able to respond to the challenges of the future.