The Death of American Integrated Deterrence: All Hail Performative and Transactional U.S. Foreign Policy

On February 13, the U.S. Secretary of Defense remarked to allies across Europe, "But you can't shoot values, you can't shoot flags, and you can't shoot strong speeches. There is no replacement for hard power." And yet, America has wielded a powerful "Soft Power Bazooka"—projecting democratic values, economic influence, Hollywood, Coca Cola, and diplomacy to effectively deter adversaries and, when necessary, coerce and punish those who violate the liberal rules-based order. Unfortunately, the troubling shift towards transactional and performative foreign policy in 2025 has effectively disarmed this strategic advantage, fragmenting U.S. deterrence and sowing doubt among allies. Unless reversed, America's credibility and leadership face irreversible erosion, emboldening adversaries and creating dangerous uncertainty in global security.

Since 2021, the United States has touted the concept of "Integrated Deterrence" as the lynchpin of its defense strategy, a supposedly seamless blending of military, economic, diplomatic, and informational tools to deter adversaries. Within this strategic approach, allies and partners are central to deterrence efforts, reinforcing deterrence through combined military operations and joint exercises, economic integration, and intelligence-sharing. However, in a matter of weeks, leaders in Washington have effectively dismantled the bourgeoning framework of integrated deterrence.

Sidelining allies, treating security guarantees as leverage for economic deals, and undercutting diplomatic cohesion with erratic messaging, Washington has taken a concept that was only a few years old and effectively killed off integrated deterrence. The result? American assumptions about deterrence are dead: Prepare for a new era of emboldened adversaries, where the U.S. has undermined its credibility and where allies and partners will have less interest in coordinating and cooperating with Washington.

The Trump administration’s adversarial tone toward U.S. allies has put a nail in the coffin of integrated deterrence. Rather than strengthening partnerships through mutual respect and strategic coordination, the new bullying posture — publicly chastising NATO members over defense spending, threatening/imposing tariffs on allies, and leveraging security commitments for economic concessions — is neutering American power. Key partners (and their domestic audiences) are trending towards distrust and hesitation when it comes to considering relations with America. Continued erratic diplomatic maneuvers, coupled with a transactional mindset, have made it clear that alliances are now expendable bargaining chips rather than integral components of a long-term deterrence strategy against China, Russia, and the rest of the Axis of Authoritarians. The intentional fraying of Western unity is setting up this decade to be more dangerous than it needs to be.

From Integrated Deterrence to Disjointed Diplomacy

Integrated deterrence, as envisioned by Department of Defense leaders, was meant to project strength through a whole-of-government approach, ensuring that allies and adversaries alike recognized the unified resolve of American power. However, in execution, the concept has been hollowed out by inconsistent application, competing bureaucratic interests, and a lack of strategic clarity.

Recent critiques have exposed the fundamental flaws in integrated deterrence, highlighting that rather than functioning as a strategic framework, it has instead become a vague slogan masking a lack of coherent grand strategy. There was essentially a massive “Say-Do” gap for the United States attempting to apply integrated deterrence in a stovepiped fashion under good branding of using the joint force and interagency process. Essentially, integrated deterrence over time effectively became a "poor cousin" of grand strategy — accountability and responsibility spread across multiple agencies and allies without ensuring true integration of capabilities or coherent execution. The best instance of this was the Department of Commerce being told to help enforce sanctions against Russia, but being “pro-commerce” disincentivized trying that hard to stop American companies selling goods and supplies to Russia.

The growing perception of the transactional nature of recent U.S. foreign policy has only further exacerbated this credibility crisis. Under this model, strategic commitments have increasingly been leveraged as tools for economic gain rather than forming the backbone of a robust deterrence strategy. For instance, the recent announcement that India has agreed to purchase more U.S. oil and gas exemplifies how economic incentives are being used as the primary means of securing partnerships rather than long-term strategic commitments. Similarly, President Trump’s push for mineral and energy resource deals underscores how U.S. alliances are being shaped by economic benefits rather than shared security concerns, as seen with suggestions of “minerals-for-aid” for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Poland’s decision to build "Fort Trump" demonstrates how transactionalism influences security commitments, where defense assurances come with economic and political strings attached. Finally, the fact that the Trump administration is considering selling F-35 fighter jets to India only further reinforces the transactional nature of American foreign policy. Such a hypothetical deal may strengthen India’s defense capabilities. Still, it should raise concerns about whether such arms sales are truly strategic or merely an economic and political exchange, not to mention the possibility of Russia getting access to the F-35. It would also mean Turkey would have good cause to get back into the F-35 after being punished by Congress for their purchase of Russian air defense systems.

The Erosion of U.S. Credibility

The transactional nature of American foreign policy further exacerbates a crisis of credibility. Whether in the Indo-Pacific, Europe, or the Middle East, Washington now treats security commitments as bargaining chips rather than pillars of a steadfast grand strategy. This shift has not gone unnoticed by U.S. partners. European allies have to hedge their bets and explore greater strategic autonomy; at some point in the next decade this will bite America in the proverbial ass. Now, countries across the Indo-Pacific will question the extent of America’s security guarantees in the face of an assertive China. And if you’re in the Middle East, long-standing allies – except Israel – will doubt the depth of Washington’s commitments amid unpredictable policy shifts, especially given President Trump’s comments about leveling Gaza and to remove Palestinians.

The illusion of integrated deterrence has not dissuaded authoritarian powers; instead, it has reinforced the perception that U.S. resolve is conditional and that American commitments are malleable. Moreover, it actually entices adversaries to invest in influence operations against the American Homeland, to further radicalize U.S. citizens into believing that isolationism, transactional foreign policies, and extorting allies and partners are the best way of ‘winning.’ This inward focus on only generating hard power will make the United States look like a pompous Empire bent on dominating relations with other countries, undermining their position in a supposed liberal rules-based order.

The Rise of Performative Deterrence

A new American emphasis on optics over outcomes has led to a culture of performative deterrence—where actions are taken not for their strategic impact but to signal toughness to domestic and international audiences. Political leaders champion symbolic arms sales, troop deployments, or military drills, yet these actions often lack the necessary scale or persistence to alter adversary behavior.

Performative foreign policy, particularly by President Trump, prioritizes spectacle over strategy. Theatrics at international summits, bombastic speeches, and last-minute diplomatic deals often substitute for well-planned and enduring policies. The U.S. commitment to European security, for example, was recently questioned after Vice President J.D. Vance delivered a blistering critique of European allies at the Munich Security Conference—an instance of political grandstanding that further muddles Washington’s security commitments.

In a particularly absurd illustration of America's chaotic foreign policy, billionaire Elon Musk met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, presenting himself as the de facto President. This bizarre episode exemplifies the increasingly fragmented and unserious nature of American diplomacy, where a wealthy entrepreneur with no formal diplomatic role or understanding of international politics can independently insert himself into sensitive discussions. Compounding the chaos, President Trump reportedly had no prior knowledge of Musk’s diplomatic freelancing—further highlighting how disjointed leadership in Washington is steadily eroding the last vestiges of America's deterrent credibility.

If the U.S. does not correct its current trajectory, assumptions about American security umbrellas will become null and void, forcing allies to reassess their dependence on U.S. defense guarantees. This growing uncertainty will make it increasingly difficult for the U.S. to project hard power in a real crisis, as traditional security partnerships will have already begun to erode, diminishing America’s ability to mobilize in the next crisis or conflict

Reclaiming Real Deterrence

Effective deterrence rests on American leaders acting in a serious manner, as foreign relations are a serious business with serious consequences if conducted by unserious mouth-breathers and petulant children. Strengthening alliances and partnerships is more important now than ever. Collaborative security initiatives, intelligence sharing, and joint military exercises enhance collective security, improve interoperability, and present a united front against potential aggressors.

To reclaim credibility, the U.S. must urgently recommit to meaningful alliances, prioritize coherent strategic communication, and enforce clearly defined red lines against adversaries. This involves a consistent and credible communication strategy, backed by the political will to act when necessary.

However, deterrence is not solely about hard power. The "Soft Power Bazooka," America's positive global influence rooted in freedom and capitalism, remains essential. But if the nation continues sacrificing strategic coherence for performative politics and short-term transactions, it risks permanently eroding its power and influence in a liberal, rules-based international order. America must decide: Return to strategic maturity or brace for a perilous era defined by fragmented alliances and emboldened adversaries.

The death of integrated deterrence means not only a weakened military posture but also the erosion of America's credibility as leader of the free world. By allowing transactionalism and performative foreign policy to dictate international relations, Washington is accelerating its decline just to make the oligarchs a little bit richer.

Bio

Jahara “FRANKY” Matisek is a U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with a Ph.D. in Political Science from Northwestern University. He is currently a Military Professor at the U.S. Naval War College and is a Fellow at the Payne Institute for Public Policy, European Resilience Initiative Center, and Defense Analyses and Research Corporation. Finally, Lt. Col. Matisek is a Senior Pilot with over 3,700 hours of flight time and has published 2 books and over 100 articles in peer-reviewed journals and policy-relevant outlets on strategy, warfare, and national security.

The views expressed are his own and do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Naval War College, Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.