Biden’s weakness cost you $3,000 — Trump’s strength is saving you $2,500

Two years ago, POLARIS National Security documented the price Americans paid for the Biden-Harris administration’s deterrence failures around the world.After the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, failing to deter Russian President Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine, abetting the worst border crisis in U.S. history, and bankrolling Iran’s terrorism apparatus before Oct. 7, 2023, the Biden-Harris administration ran up the tab for American taxpayers, leaving them to foot the bill for crises of its own making.The cost of this approach exceeded $381 billion, or nearly $3,000 from every American household. Now, the Trump administration is again proving that peace through strength is not only strategically effective, but also cost-effective.POLARIS National Security’s latest report puts a number on those dividends. Peace through strength policies pursued by the Trump administration are averting approximately $512 billion in costs that likely would have been imposed on taxpayers under a second Biden-Harris term.Against the Trump administration’s $186 billion in incurred, committed, or projected investments to restore deterrence and resolve inherited crises, that produces $326 billion in net taxpayer savings over four years, or nearly $2,500 per American household.These estimates compare projected four-year taxpayer costs under a second Biden-Harris term with the Trump administration’s actual, committed, and projected costs, using Biden-era spending patterns as baselines.Every dollar put toward restoring deterrence by the Trump administration is averting roughly $3 in costs that more Biden-Harris policies would have imposed on taxpayers. Put another way: Peace through strength is delivering a nearly 3-to-1 return for the American public.These are projections, but they illustrate the fiscal premium Americans pay when deterrence fails. Instead of reactively paying to clean up crises after they erupt, the administration has moved theater by theater to strengthen deterrence, shift security burdens onto capable partners, and pursue peace before conflicts escalate and force greater expenditures.National security spending is often viewed as a cost. But the peace through strength record shows the cost of deterrence pales in comparison to the cost of letting it fail.To be sure, policies of deterrence require substantial investment, and further funding is required to rebuild our military. But contrary to what progressives wishcast, the relevant fiscal comparison is not defense spending versus domestic priorities. It is the cost of maintaining deterrence versus the far greater cost of wars and crises when deterrence fails.The Biden-Harris border crisis illustrates this dynamic. Millions of illegal immigrants entered the country, while communities across America absorbed new costs imposed on schools, hospitals, law enforcement, housing, and social services.President Donald Trump’s actions have reversed that trajectory. By reducing “gotaways,” ending mass parole, and reducing the settled illegal immigrant population, the United States has dramatically cut costs. The Trump administration’s border security measures alone avert $158 billion in taxpayer costs.Ukraine provides another example. After Joe Biden failed to deter Putin’s invasion, the U.S. committed more than $175 billion in assistance to Ukraine, while European nations were allowed to remain far too dependent on Washington to shoulder the burden of aiding Ukraine, while failing to invest in their own defense capabilities, creating a double decker deterrence failure. Trump changed that equation, pressing NATO allies to invest in their security and shoulder more of the financial burden of Ukraine’s war effort.Now, Europe is investing in America’s defense industrial base, getting Ukraine the weapons it needs, and reducing the burden on American taxpayers. This approach is averting $258 billion in congressional appropriations — all while giving American workers and defense manufacturers the benefits of increased production.The Middle East offers another case in point. Under the Biden-Harris administration, the U.S. sought to buy restraint from Iran and its terrorist proxies with accommodation while constraining our strongest ally in the region, Israel.The Trump administration has pursued a different strategy, using American power to defeat rivals and strengthen partners while creating conditions for peace. By brokering the Gaza peace deal, halting Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, and decimating Iran’s regime militarily, the Trump administration has averted $49 billion in costs that a second Biden-Harris term was likely to have incurred, even factoring in the costs of degrading Iran.Foreign assistance provides a final example of the same principle. Under the Biden-Harris administration, America’s foreign aid system failed to deter waste, abuse, and mission drift. The Trump administration confronted USAID’s bureaucratic excesses, eliminated destructive programs, and conditioned assistance on alignment with U.S. interests. Working with Congress, it has preserved many core security, humanitarian, and global health priorities while restructuring the assistance apparatus — changes projected to save taxpayers $47 billion.The true dividends of deterrence are not captured in spreadsheets. They are measured in the crises that are prevented. A nuclear-armed Iran sending the U.S. economy into a tailspin, tensions with China turning into a devastating war, Russian attacks spreading westward — stopping these crises is the ultimate return on investment for American taxpayers.The Biden-Harris years demonstrated that weakness does not save money — it costs dearly. Policies of retreat simply postpone the bill and make it larger when it lands.AN AI GLITCH ALMOST JUST STARTED A WAR. NEXT TIME, WE WON’T BE SO LUCKYThe Trump administration’s peace through strength policies are proving the opposite: Deterrence is a down payment on national security that creates both financial and strategic dividends for the American public.For too long, Washington has obsessed over the cost of deterrence. But the balance sheet begs a more important question: How much does it cost if we don’t fund it?Cale Brown is chairman of Polaris National Security and was a deputy spokesman at the State Department during President Donald Trump’s first term.