Building greater resilience and capacity in the US national security industrial base

In the current policy landscape, virtually every stakeholder—from federal agencies to industry groups—calls for classifying a widening swath of economic activity as “national security.” The impulse to broaden what counts as critical has gained momentum not only with each new global disruption, but also with each new report highlighting U.S. exposure to China in key sectors, making “national security” a catchall for fears that range from supply interruptions to cyber threats. While this instinct reflects real vulnerabilities, it leaves policymakers struggling to prioritize and risks making the label so expansive that it ceases to have sharp policy meaning.

A new paper from Brookings cuts through that noise. The authors agree with the notion of expanding the concept of national security to include production supply chains, the interruption of which by a hostile foreign actor could directly imperil large numbers of American lives or the functioning of society. Their approach, however, is not simply whether to broaden the concept of national security, but how to realistically scope it—especially when it comes to supply chains. (They leave debates about expanding the framework to cover topics like cyber or information influence for other venues.) Their premise is simple: Yes, we need to think about more than the defense industrial base when deciding which sectors of the economy are within a broader “national security industrial base,” and accordingly are protected or strengthened. Yet without disciplined prioritization, government efforts risk becoming fragmented, inefficient, and ultimately unable to protect what matters most.

Multiple legislative efforts—from the Promoting Resilient Supply Chains Act in Congress to new mapping initiatives from the Department of Defense (DOD) and Commerce Department—attest to Washington’s determination to reduce exposure to adversaries and harden fragile supply lines. But with so many agencies, industries, and sectors seeking “critical” designation, the path from mapping everything to protecting anything remains unclear.

Read more at Brookings