The new NDS puts the defense of US territory first. It redefines priorities, budgets, and burden sharing with NATO.
Summary
The Pentagon has published its National Defense Strategy 2026, placing the protection of US territory as its top priority. The text sets out four priorities: defending the homeland, deterring China in the Indo-Pacific, demanding more from allies, and accelerating the defense industrial base. The political signal is clear: Washington wants to reduce its dependence on its partners, while retaining control over areas deemed vital, particularly in the Western Hemisphere. The strategy also highlights the “Golden Dome” missile defense system, anti-drone warfare, cyber defense, and nuclear deterrence. For Europe and NATO, the message is twofold: the United States remains present, but expects a more autonomous approach to regional security, including vis-à-vis Russia. In budgetary terms, the trend is confirmed: defense budgets are on the rise, with an ongoing debate between “global” spending and a refocusing on the protection of US territory.
The publication of a much more political NDS
The National Defense Strategy (NDS) is a steering document. It tells the armed forces, industry, and allies what the Pentagon considers to be priorities. In the 2026 version, the change is less about technical details than about a new strategic hierarchy: the defense of US territory takes precedence over everything else.
The Pentagon has published a short, unclassified version with few operational details. This is common practice. But the text itself is explicit. It places Homeland defense above the Indo-Pacific and implies trade-offs regarding the US presence in Europe and Asia, particularly in South Korea. This shift has been widely reported in the US press, as it breaks with the idea of a lasting “global” US presence, whatever the cost. (Breaking Defense, January 23, 2026; Washington Post, January 24, 2026)
The four priorities that structure the NDS 2026
The NDS 2026 is based on four “lines of effort” that determine the logic of budgets, forces, and alliances.
Territorial defense and the obsession with internal security
The text takes a broad view of territorial defense. It is not just about intercontinental missiles. It is about border control, maritime approaches, the fight against drugs, and the ability to strike networks considered “narco-terrorist.” The strategy focuses on the Western Hemisphere, with a very directive approach to the area close to the United States. It explicitly mentions the protection of strategic interests and access in the Western Hemisphere. (NDS 2026, Department of Defense, January 23, 2026)
This point is central because it transforms the primary mission of the forces. The text also refers to the defense of American “skies,” with anti-missile and anti-drone efforts. It highlights the Golden Dome program and an “upgrade” of capabilities against modern aerial threats, including drones. (Breaking Defense, January 23, 2026; NDS 2026)
Deterring China through a posture of denial
The second priority is to deter China in the Indo-Pacific, but “by force, not confrontation.” The formula is political. It suggests a desire to avoid verbal escalation, while concretely strengthening deterrence capabilities.
The strategy emphasizes a so-called “denial” defense along the First Island Chain. This geographical line covers a strategic arc stretching from Japan to Southeast Asia. The idea is simple: to prevent an adversary from gaining a rapid operational advantage. In military terms, this means sensors, ammunition, mobility, hardened bases, and the ability to withstand a first strike while remaining capable of responding. (NDS 2026)
One detail has been widely commented on: Taiwan is not mentioned by name in the published version. This choice does not mean that the subject has disappeared. But it does indicate more cautious communication and a visible effort to promote “stability” without giving up on strengthening the posture. (Breaking Defense, January 23, 2026; Financial Times, January 24, 2026)
Burden-sharing as a rule, rather than a recommendation
Third axis: burden-sharing. This is not a new concept in NATO, but the tone has changed. The document calls on allies to take “primary responsibility” for their regional security. The message is clearly aimed at Europe, but also at certain partners in Asia. (Breaking Defense, January 23, 2026)
For Europeans, this means clearer expectations regarding:
- increased defense budgets,
- the actual availability of forces,
- the depth of stocks,
- the ability to sustain efforts over time.
The reasoning is brutal but consistent: Washington wants to free up room for maneuver for its immediate and Indo-Pacific priorities. And it refuses to be the “comprehensive insurance” for partners it considers too slow to invest.
The defense industrial base as the lifeblood of war
Fourth axis: “supercharging” the industrial base. The document emphasizes ramping up production, expanding to non-traditional suppliers, and returning to a war industry mindset. This is an implicit admission: superiority no longer depends solely on innovation, but on the ability to produce quickly, in volume, and to maintain systems in operational condition. (NDS 2026; Breaking Defense, January 23, 2026)
The Defense Industrial Base (DIB) is no longer a technical issue. It is becoming a strategic weapon. This includes ammunition, drones, sensors, and parts, but also energy, critical metals, and supply chains.
The geopolitical consequences of an assumed American refocusing
The NDS 2026 reorganizes the American “center of gravity.”
The rise of the Western Hemisphere as a priority theater
Prioritizing territorial defense means restoring strategic importance to North American approaches, the Caribbean, the Atlantic coast, and the far north. This goes far beyond mere communication. The text cites the protection of strategic access points, including the Panama Canal and Greenland, with a view to controlling routes, bases, and sensors. (Breaking Defense, January 23, 2026; NDS 2026)
This repositioning may worry some regional partners, as it suggests a more interventionist policy in the United States’ “backyard.” It is also a way of limiting the establishment of adversaries in areas considered sensitive.
Europe pushed towards de facto military autonomy
For Europeans, the NDS 2026 looks like pressure being put on them. The text does not bury the alliance. But it changes the terms of the implicit contract.
In short, Europe is being asked to finance and organize its own defense in a more robust manner, particularly on its eastern flank. This point echoes an already visible reality: since 2022, many European countries have increased their budgets, but the effort remains uneven, and stocks often remain tight.
The result is predictable: more spending, more production, and more industrial integration in Europe. This will also accentuate debates on capability sovereignty, dependence on American equipment, and NATO standardization.
NATO still central, but more “transactional”
The strategy suggests a NATO that remains useful, but more “contractual.” The United States expects measurable results from its allies. Not just announcements. This means: ready brigades, credible air defense, available ammunition, logistics, maintenance, and training.
For partners that do not meet these standards, the consequence could be a reduction in the permanent US presence. This prospect has been raised in several analyses, including on South Korea, where 28,500 US troops are stationed, with the possibility of a more limited US role in the long term. (Reuters, January 24, 2026)
Budget choices that give weight to the strategy
The budget is the lifeblood of the strategy. And the NDS is not isolated: it is in line with an upward financial trajectory.
Massive amounts and a battle between the “defense” budget and DoD reality
According to budget documents published by the White House, the budget proposal calls for a 13% increase in defense spending to $1.01 trillion for fiscal year 2026, including additional mechanisms via dedicated budget bills. (White House, Fiscal Year 2026 Discretionary Budget Request)
On the congressional side, appropriation documents refer to a discretionary defense budget of around $838.7 to $839.2 billion, depending on the presentation, which reflects the usual structure between authorizations, appropriations, and additional measures. (Breaking Defense, 2026; House Appropriations, Defense Appropriations Act 2026)
This point is important for allies: it shows that the United States is increasing its resources, but that it wants to focus them on its priorities.
The Golden Dome as a financial and technological marker
The Golden Dome program is becoming a symbol. It aims to provide multi-layered missile defense across the United States. Congress has already allocated a “starting budget” of approximately $23 billion, while requesting more clarity on the precise use of the funds. (Federal News Network, January 23, 2026; Air & Space Forces Magazine, January 21, 2026)
Estimates of the overall costs vary widely depending on the architecture chosen. The executive branch has mentioned $175 billion, while other estimates range from several hundred billion over the long term. This discrepancy is common in space and missile defense systems, where the mass of sensors, endurance, and replacement costs are very high.
For Europeans, this choice has two impacts. First, it absorbs American industrial resources. Second, it accelerates dependence on US components for interception, space, and data fusion.
The concrete implications for European partners
The NDS 2026 requires decisions, not just comments.
The rise of European air and missile defenses
If Washington refocuses its priorities, Europe must compensate. Ground-to-air defense, anti-drone warfare, and infrastructure resilience are becoming essential. Countries that delay are exposing themselves to a risk: having forces “on paper” but unable to sustain a long campaign.
Industrial relocation as a NATO requirement
Rearmament is not just about ordering. It requires production, delivery, and maintenance.
Europe will be pushed to:
- industrialize ammunition production,
- secure supply chains,
- stabilize production rates,
- reduce supply times.
The American message is simple: “do your part.” Europeans will have to choose between relying more on American purchases or investing more heavily in their own industries.
Redefining NATO priorities vis-à-vis Russia
The NDS does not deny the Russian threat. But it suggests that Europe must be capable of shouldering the bulk of the conventional effort on its continent. This may accelerate a rebalancing: more ready ground forces, more logistics, and an air force capable of sustaining a high tempo.
The final stretch of a strategic shift by the US
The NDS 2026 formalizes a return to a logic that no longer seeks to do everything everywhere. The United States is asserting a priority: protecting its territory, its access, and its immediate regional environment. The rest becomes conditional. This does not mean complete withdrawal. It means selection, pressure on allies, and accelerated industrialization.
For Europe and NATO, the consequence is clear: the era of the “automatic safety net” is coming to an end. European military credibility will be measured by simple facts: budgets, stocks, production, training, air defense, and endurance. The question is no longer whether Europe should invest. The question is: how quickly it can become an autonomous military pillar again, without waiting for the US political calendar to give it time.
Sources
Breaking Defense — “Pentagon releases National Defense Strategy, with homeland defense as top priority,” January 23, 2026
Department of Defense (media.defense.gov) — “2026 National Defense Strategy” (PDF), January 23, 2026
The Washington Post — “Pentagon’s new defense strategy pulls forces abroad to focus on homeland,” January 24, 2026
Reuters — “Pentagon foresees ‘more limited’ role in deterring North Korea,” January 24, 2026
Financial Times — “US unveils national defense strategy to counter China in Indo-Pacific,” January 24, 2026
White House — “Fiscal-Year-2026 Discretionary Budget Request” (PDF), May 2, 2025
U.S. House Committee on Appropriations — “Defense Appropriations Act, 2026” summary (PDF)
Federal News Network — “Golden Dome got $23 billion, but lawmakers still don’t know how it will be spent,” January 23, 2026
Air & Space Forces Magazine — “Congress Wants More Insight into Golden Dome Budget,” January 21, 2026
Reuters — “Pentagon Golden Dome to have 4-layer defense system, slides show,” August 12, 2025
War Wings Daily is an independant magazine.