Militarization in the United States has been a constant throughout its history, but in recent decades it has reached truly disturbing levels. The fortress-state concept and the creation of structures such as the Iron Dome have come to symbolize a political system that prioritizes militarized security and control at the expense of civil rights and liberties, both at home and abroad.
Militarization and its million-dollar spending are closely related to the growing concentration of power in the capitalist state and its expansion, factors that have contributed to the increase in social inequalities and the implementation of authoritarian policies that especially affect the working class and the majority of the population. This analysis will address how these phenomena reflect the rise of an authoritarianism disguised under the discourse of protection, and how they influence the social structure of the United States.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), spending on national security and defense has increased significantly in recent decades, with an annual budget of more than $700 billion for defense alone. This outsized spending is complemented by the expansion of agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the FBI, which have increased their monitoring and control capabilities over the population, especially with regard to vulnerable groups and marginalized communities.1U.S. Department of Defense, (2024). Pentagon annual budget report. https://www.defense.gov
The concept of the fortress state, in parallel with similar systems that have been built in Europe, is reflected in the anti-immigration policies implemented to curb the entry of undocumented workers. These policies include the construction of a border wall, both physical and ideological, and the deployment of military resources in areas of high migratory traffic. This focus on internal security is linked to political rhetoric that reduces the complexity of social reality to a problem of control and surveillance, which erodes trust and social cohesion.
The term fortress state refers to a model of government in which the state adopts the characteristics of a fortress, prioritizing the strengthening of internal security and the implementation of control measures over other fundamental sectors such as education, health, and social services. In the United States, this concept has materialized in various forms, from the prison system to mass surveillance policies, deepened by racist and xenophobic discourses, manifesting in anti-immigration policies adopted by several administrations, such as those of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and, more recently, Donald Trump.
In a context marked by the growing concentration of military power and a deepening economic crisis, Trump’s ultra-right administration has intensified its militarization strategy, raising the threats of war and repression toward the most vulnerable sectors. In this way, the xenophobic and discriminatory discourse of his government considers migrations and forcibly displaced persons to be a “terrorist threat” that must be stopped at all costs. This has led to the justification of measures such as the construction of a wall equipped with both human and technological tracking and surveillance systems, thousands of military troops, and an anti-missile shield based on high military and espionage technology, such as the Iron Dome, developed mainly in Israel.
In announcing the construction of the anti-missile systems on Monday, January 27, Trump stressed the urgency of “immediately beginning construction of a state-of-the-art missile defense shield,” adding an expenditure that will amount to billions of dollars to the funds already earmarked for a military that consumes about 4 percent of the U.S. GDP, ranging from $884 billion to $895 billion annually,2United States Congress, (2024). Defense Policy Act 2024. https://www.congress.gov according to the Defense Policy Act of 2024, passed in December under the Biden administration.3U.S. Secretary of National Defense, (2024). Defense Policy Act Report.
This strategy reflects a clear interest in military control and domination at a time of global crisis. It is, moreover, an attempt to maintain the United States’ declining hegemony. In this respect, Gramsci can help us understand how the interests of the capitalist state are imposed through both direct coercion and consensus, a consensus constructed by the dominant classes over the subordinate classes: “The State, as a machinery of control, presents itself not only as an apparatus of coercion, but also as a structure that builds consensus through ideology, creating a form of hegemony that justifies its existence through militarization and social control.”4Gramsci, Antonio (1981). Prison Notebooks: Critical edition of the Gramsci Institute, 1929-1935. Ediciones Era, Mexico. https://urlc.net/Q0xx
Trump’s policy of prioritizing military spending over addressing domestic and regional social needs reflects precisely the attempt to maintain this hegemony of the dominant bloc. The militarization of the state and the marginalization of the needs of the working class are key elements of this process. Instead of investing in social welfare and social, economic and cultural rights, the Trump administration strengthens a power structure based on violence and oppression, further subordinating vulnerable popular sectors to the interests of the military-industrial complex.
Control Systems: Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow
The Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and the Arrow anti-missile control systems are advanced technologies developed by Israel to protect its territory from short-, medium-, and long-range missiles. The Iron Dome, developed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries, is designed to intercept short-range missiles (up to 70 km range), with a success rate exceeding 90 percent in some cases.5Rafael Advanced Defense Systems (n.d.). Iron Dome. Rafael Advanced Defense Systems. https://urlc.net/Q0xE This system uses radars to track and calculate the trajectory of the missiles, then launches interceptor missiles to destroy the projectiles. The cost of each Iron Dome battery is about $50 million, and the cost per interceptor missile is about $50,000.
As for David’s Sling, also known as the “Magic Wand,” it is designed to intercept medium-range missiles and cruise missiles, with an interception range of up to 300 km.6Department of Defense, (2021). Missile defense technologies and strategies. United States Government Publishing Office. https://urlc.net/Q0xI Its technology uses Stunner missiles, which are radar-guided and offer a rapid response to complex threats. The cost of a David’s Sling battery is estimated at $200 million, with each interceptor missile costing around $100,000.
Finally, the Arrow (in its Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 versions), developed in collaboration with NASA and Boeing, specializes in intercepting long-range ballistic missiles, with a range of up to 2,500 km and the ability to destroy missiles in the upper layers of the atmosphere. These cost around $2 billion for each complete defense system.7Blum, W. (2019). Killing hope: U.S. military and CIA interventions since World War II (3rd. ed.). Common Courage Press.
The Strength of Exclusion and Imperialist Hypocrisy
The official U.S. poverty rate stands at 11.1 percent, while a supplemental measure is 12.9 percent, indicating a slight increase from the previous year. According to the Human Rights Watch website, national poverty increased dramatically due to the elimination of tax credits during the pandemic; this contributed to the increase in economic inequality.8World Report 2024, (2025). Introductory Article: United States. Human Rights Watch. https://urlc.net/Sz4J In addition, the number of homeless people grew by 18 percent in 2024, reflecting a significant increase in extreme poverty in the U.S.
The latest update of the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) 2024 provides a shocking statistic: 455 million poor people in the world live in countries exposed to war and violent conflicts. This situation reflects the relationship between conflict and poverty, since, when people are displaced from their places of origin, there is a reduction in child education and a rise in nutritional problems and child mortality due to lack of electricity, water, and sanitation for poor people in conflict settings, compared to poor people in lower-conflict environments.9UNDP, (2024). 1.1 billion people live in multidimensional poverty and, of these, almost 500 million are in conflict contexts. https://urlc.net/Q0xd
When Trump talks about making a “walled fortress” on the U.S. border, his vision goes far beyond a physical and technological barrier. The construction of a wall, although it may seem like a political whim, symbolizes an attempt to seal off access to the “unwanted,” and it reinforces the notion of national security in exclusively militarized terms. This approach not only responds to the idea of protecting the country from illegal immigration, but also represents the position of a state that, while presenting itself as the “defender of freedom,” systematically excludes those who, because of poverty or because they are forcibly uprooted, try to find an opportunity to survive in the United States.10Alexander, M. (2022). The militarization of American society: The roots of state power in the U.S. Journal of Social Control, 19(1), 25-45. / Spector, L. (2020). The Iron Dome and U.S. foreign policy: The intersection of military strategy and global power. The Journal of International Relations, 43(2), 134-145.
This metaphor of “fortress” is closely connected to the deployment of defense technologies such as Iron Dome, which, while intended to protect elites through advanced weapons systems, also represents an imperialist mindset that advocates violence as a solution. Thus, the border wall and state-of-the-art defense systems are manifestations of the same principle: that of reinforcing U.S. hegemony, which is in steep decline, while ignoring the needs of impoverished peoples, both within and beyond its borders.
While resources are allocated to the militarization of the border and the perpetuation of a global war system, the reality of poverty, inequality, and social exclusion remains unaddressed, exposing the hypocrisy of a country that presents itself as a “land of the free.” Trump’s vision of a walled fortress evidences not only the fear of the foreign but also the inability to generate policies that favor inclusion and social justice, within a model that prioritizes the elites over the needs of oppressed peoples.11Pape, R. A. (2018). The globalization of military power: Strategic frameworks for defense expansion. International Security, 31(4), 29-60.
Trump’s fortress state is not only a concrete barrier but also an ideological one that reinforces militarization and marginalizes social demands, feeding capitalism, a deeply unequal economic and political system full of racism and irrational hatred against undocumented migrants. This ideological wall operates through the criminalization of immigrants, the use of fear and stigmatization to consolidate a social order that benefits corporate interests and military and business elites.
The Export of War and Its Impact on Latin America
On the brink of a world where violence seems to be the only answer to conflicts, the image of the Iron Dome emerges, a symbol of imperialist hypocrisy that the U.S. exports with the same determination with which it promotes its military hegemony. This defense system, born in occupied territories like Gaza, now finds its way into the very heart of imperialism, with Trump signing an executive order to demand that this technology be used at the border with Mexico. It makes clear that the real priority of those who claim to be the defenders of freedom is not social justice or the welfare of peoples, but the strengthening of a military apparatus that perpetuates inequality.12Foucault, M. (2009). Security, territory, population: Michel Foucault’s lecture at the Collège de France. Picador.
In a country that proclaims itself to be the “land of the free,” the astronomical expenditure on weapons and war technology exposes a darker reality: the perpetuation of military conflicts and the promotion of interventionist policies and ethnic cleansing, as is happening in Gaza for the whole world to see. While resources are allocated to anti-missile systems and a walled border is built with the most advanced technology, as if we were talking about a medieval castle, the Far Right Seeks to take us to a stage of complete darkness.
Militarization in Latin America has been driven in part by U.S. policies, which promote the purchase of advanced defense systems in countries such as Colombia, Mexico, and Honduras. These countries, however, face a paradox: while investing billions of dollars in defense, social needs are not adequately met. Instead of allocating resources to improving the education, health, and welfare of the working class and popular sectors, Latin American governments have followed the imperialist-imposed logic of prioritizing military defense. In many cases, such as in Mexico, this has not stopped internal violence but has increased tensions and social disparities.13Maiello, M. (2020). From mobilization to revolution: Militarization and social control in Latin America. Ediciones IPS Argentina.
The diversion of resources toward expensive defense systems, like the Iron Dome, highlights a fundamental contradiction: governments, like that of Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum, choose to prioritize militarization, promising to reinforce the borders with 10,000 more troops, while the social and economic needs of the population, especially of the most vulnerable sectors, go unaddressed.
The growing militarization in Latin America, driven by U.S. policies, reflects a crisis of priorities in the region. Instead of allocating resources to improving social conditions, Latin American governments have chosen to invest in high-cost defense systems in the face of growing poverty and inequality. This trend is driven by Washington’s imperialist interests, as well as by the desire to maintain control over the subordinate classes through force.
The impact of militarization in countries such as Mexico, Colombia, and Honduras is clear. Despite investments in defense, internal violence has not reduced; on the contrary, militarization has exacerbated social tensions and inequality. The rhetoric of national security is used to justify spending on weapons, but this spending does not resolve the structural causes of poverty or improve the quality of life of the impoverished masses.
From a socialist perspective, the answer to the crisis is not more militarization but a change in the material living conditions of the working majority and an end to the plundering of our natural environment, which is contributing to climate change. Therefore, it is fundamental to redirect resources toward human needs, guaranteeing access to quality public education, health care, and decent jobs for all, and to carry on the fight against climate change. The struggle against militarization must also be a struggle to end the exploitation of the capitalist system, fighting for the expropriation of all common goods and strategic industries, and for the creation of a new society based on solidarity and cooperation.
Matías Maiello, in his book From Mobilization to Revolution, analyzes how militarization becomes a tool of power to maintain social control in times of crisis. Maiello highlights how military systems, such as the Iron Dome, serve not only to defend geopolitical interests but also to stifle workers’ and popular demands. According to Maiello, militarization is a product of the capitalist crisis, which seeks to channel social tensions through state violence, without resolving the root causes of inequality. Thus, only a radical change in the economic and political structures can break this cycle of oppression and violence.14Maiello, M. (2020). From mobilization to revolution: Militarization and social control in Latin America. Ediciones IPS Argentina.
A Leftist Alternative
Far from military rearmament and apocalyptic solutions, we must confront the militarization ordered from the White House with the excuse of “fighting drug trafficking” implemented by the PRI and PAN governments and continued by the Fourth Transformation. It is the working class together with the popular sectors who can combat the climate of violence established by the deployment of repressive forces and so-called organized crime.
In the face of the designation of the so-called drug cartels as international terrorist organizations, we need to reject the advance of imperialist intervention in Mexico, since Latin America has historically been the victim of the interventions of great powers, promoted mainly by the U.S., such as those in Central America, the military dictatorships or the so-called wars on drugs. Instead of following a model of subordination to imperialism, we must build solidarity among peoples, in an anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, and socialist perspective, in a world without borders.
Originally published in Spanish on February 23, 2025 inLa Izquierda Diario.
Translated by Sarah Smith