In speaking regularly with students, former government officials, and business leaders over the past few years I am frequently asked two questions: what are the keys to sustaining America’s strength and relative influence in the world and would I still—after a nearly four-decade career in national security—recommend joining the federal workforce?
I typically respond by highlighting my views of the historic foundation of American strength (one of which touches on the federal workforce question). My full list includes ten pillars, including: America’s friendly neighbors to the north and south; abundant natural resources; powerful allies; unprecedented economic strength; technology supremacy; overwhelming military and intelligence capabilities; an unrivaled civil service and governing institutions (especially reflected in the rule of law); a world class defense industry; the ability to attract talented immigrants; and America’s soft power.
As we approach America’s 250th birthday celebration, let me highlight a few of the pillars that I believe are worthy of closer scrutiny given recent developments.
Powerful Allies
For the better part of the last century, America’s network of alliances has underpinned our global strength. This has included an inter-locking network of formal defense alliances, informal agreements, and episodic coalitions of partners formed to counter specific threats. This network of defense relationships has, in turn, fueled America’s vast economic and trade, diplomatic, and cultural relationships across the globe.
Nevertheless, it has become commonplace in Washington of late to pillory our allies and accuse them of taking advantage of America in both defense and trade. This narrative conveniently glosses over the essential ways in which these allies have enabled America’s global power and influence to spread over the past century, including by: extending America’s forward-based combat capabilities; sharing valuable intelligence on critical threats; purchasing US military hardware and thereby reducing the cost of keeping US weapons production lines open; and sharing security-related technological innovations.
The latter point is frequently overlooked in today’s discussion but is worthy of closer examination. In World War II, for example, the war that President Trump calls “the big one,” it was Polish and British mathematicians who were key to breaking Germany’s Enigma machine—enabling the allies to decipher Germany’s most sensitive military communications. This accomplishment was widely credited with helping the allies defeat Nazi Germany, as was portrayed in the 2014 hit movie “The Imitation Game.”
This type of close scientific and engineering collaboration between allies has continued since then and, in my view, will be key to tackling the new technology challenges ahead, including the creation of resilient and mutually supportive supply chains, countering drone and missile proliferation, and leading in the development and integration of artificial intelligence.
Meanwhile on the trade front, we should recall that America’s two largest trade partners remain Canada and Mexico, and by bloc it’s overwhelmingly the European Union. So even as it’s logical to seek more burden sharing on defense spending and balanced trade flows, our leaders should remember that they potentially rupture these broad relationships at America’s great peril.
Technology Supremacy
Long an area of preeminence, America now faces enormous competition in this area from China and from domestic policy decisions that are threatening to erode our advantages. In China’s case, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Beijing surpassed the US in 2024 (for the first time) in research and development spending. In fact, the report notes that since 2004 Chinese R&D spending has increased by more than 14 percent annually, double the US rate over that period.
While China’s outcomes are mixed, with particularly weak performance in such areas as commercial aircraft manufacturing and semiconductors, there is little doubt that China is making great gains in constructing new military hardware, artificial intelligence systems, clean energy sources, electronic vehicles, magnet manufacturing, and, of course, the production of rare earth minerals.
At the same time, the challenge to our technology supremacy has been compounded in recent years by US spending that has overwhelmingly emphasized developmental research for a specific application at the expense of basic research (think a business-driven approach rather than a government-led model aimed at producing foundational scientific knowledge).
Other challenges of late include repeated government attacks on major research universities and institutions primarily for ideological reasons (an issue that’s frankly more relevant in social science departments than in STEM-related areas) and a more restrictive immigration policy that is hindering efforts to attract and retain top scientific talent. On the latter point, it’s worth recalling that in the last quarter century immigrants have won 40 percent of the Nobel prizes won by Americans in chemistry, medicine, and physics, as well as founding nearly 60 percent of the privately held startup companies valued at $1 billion or more.
In listening to America’s internal immigration debate today, however, one could reasonably believe that access to foreign born top scientific talent is the country’s birthright, not a gift that each generation should nurture by making this talent feel welcome, part of a broader community, and able to conduct advanced research without government interference.
In sum, while the US has enjoyed technical supremacy for most of the past century and it has long been a cornerstone of our strength, it’s now being challenged both abroad and at home and its outcome will go a long way in determining America’s future global influence.
A World Class Civil Service
A third pillar of American strength since the 19th century has been the creation of a professional, merit-based, apolitical civil service. The federal workforce was initially built in the 19th century more on party loyalty than merit, which eventually triggered a corrupt and ineffective spoils system. There were multiple civil service reform efforts throughout our history to address this problem, with perhaps the most famous being the Civil Service Reform Act of 1881, which required most federal employees to compete in a merit system rather than one based on political ties. And while not perfect, it’s hard to argue against the fact that for decades these reforms produced a civil service system marked by a relatively steady number of federal employees and deep and objective expertise in such diverse areas as health research, disease control, food and water safety monitoring, international trade, air traffic control, and intelligence. In addition, it created a workforce filled with largely apolitical bureaucrats dedicated not to political parties but the public’s interest.
This situation has frayed dramatically in the past few years, however, with the federal workforce now routinely attacked for being too bloated (despite a workforce that’s equivalent in size to 1969), too woke, and too full of deep state activists working against the president’s agenda.
These assertions, along with a stated desire to assert more presidential control of the executive branch, inspired the Trump administration to create the controversial and now terminated Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which enacted a series of federal workforce reforms and personnel cuts throughout 2025. According to most observers, these cuts were implemented in a shockingly haphazard manner marked by abrupt and random firings (and in many instances, ironically, rehirings), extended and forced paid leaves, and even the closing of whole agencies such as USAID. In other words, a massive, systemic disruption to a federal bureaucracy that was not perfect but still working well.
But not to be outdone, DOGE’s efforts have also been coupled of late with the appointment of several department and agency heads whose selections appear to be based more on personal loyalty to the administration than any relevant professional experience, which has by all public accounts had a profoundly negative effect on the federal government’s operational effectiveness and employee morale. On balance, then, I would call this—and I recognize some will disagree—a self-inflicted wound to the country.
So, in response to the question of whether I would still recommend that young people join the federal government, I still say yes given the incredible joy of serving one’s country in critical missions and being engaged in a cause greater than self-interest. But I would also add that I would join only after there are clear indications that America’s political class intends to once again treat the federal workforce with the respect it deserves, and only after the implementation of systemic reforms aimed at requiring exceptional, apolitical performance coupled with iron-clad legal guarantees for workforce protection.
The question to me at this point, then, isn’t whether there is a bloated, inefficient, deep state (sorry, there isn’t), but rather whether there are bi-partisan elected leaders and a legal system committed to safeguarding a world class civil service.
Looking Ahead
There is a lot to say about the health of several of the other pillars, especially the steady erosion of America’s soft power abroad and the future of the country’s defense industrial base, but I’ll save that for another article. Suffice to say that as we celebrate this week our 250th anniversary I remain confident in America’s power and potential to meet any challenge, but worried that we are at risk of needlessly squandering many of our hard-won gains of the last century.
Enjoy the 4th and I’ll be back in touch soon.
