Definition of the Concept of ‘National Security’ in 2025
Rebeka Rasinec
Scholars have struggled to agree on a similar definition of national security for decades. This primarily due to changing nature of security over time. In 2006, one author, D. Steven Cronin, defined security as “the acts taken by state to insure the sovereignty and integrity of its territory and also maintain the safety of its citizens and national interests.” (Cronin, 2006). National security has long been a state-centric concern. Traditionally, the primary focus was on borders and armies, with the intention protecting a state’s territory.
The fundamental concepts related to national security and its evolving nature were introduced and explored by key scholars, including Arnold Wolfers (1952), Richard Ullman (1983), and David Baldwin (1997). Each attempted to clarify what “security” means and who it should protect. They were the first authors to expand the meaning of security beyond military threats and to try to define it as a concept.
Arnold Wolfers, during the early stages of the Cold War, highlighted that “national security” is an ambiguous symbol, meaning that it can be understood in multiple ways since it lacks a precise meaning. Different actors perceive security differently, and if left undefined, politicians can use it as a powerful tool to justify any policy. His most famous contribution to the definition of security was its dual nature. National security has an objective (absence of threats to values) and a subjective (absence of fear that those values will be attacked) dimension. States may feel insecure that their values are threatened when, in reality, they are safe, or vice versa. Finally, he states that security should not be the only value of a nation, and that it often competes with or comes at the cost of other values, such as liberty or justice. He argues that the only way to avoid these risks is for politicians to clearly define the context and the degree of security desired.
Richard Ullman expanded on Wolfers’ text, emphasizing that policymakers define security in terms that focus exclusively on military threats. He was one of the first scholars to try to broaden the definition of security to include non-military dangers, such as resource scarcity or environmental problems. He argued that policymakers use the threat of military attacks as a way to mobilize the citizens, as it is easier to manipulate the public using apparent threats. However, non-military threats could equally harm the state’s survival. It was one of the early stages of shifting the focus of national security from solely territorial integrity to human security, a concept highly relevant to the modern context of national security.
Finally, David Baldwin introduced a framework to study security that combined these previous concepts. He proposed that security should always be defined in relation to the context: security for whom, for which values, how much security, from what threats, by what means, at what cost, and within what time period. His post-Cold War perspective gave a more analytical approach to how to define and study security to improve policies by combining traditional and modern (human) studies to prevent the misuse of “security” to justify radical measures.
This evolution and ever-changing meaning of security raises a fundamental question today: has the concept of “national security” in 2025 expanded beyond military and territorial concerns to include the protection of people, data, privacy, and the environment, and how can we define it today?
The New Threats
The recent historical period has uncovered new external threats that go beyond traditional state security. It is being reshaped by transnational and technological risks that are borderless, calling for a redefinition of security. Phenomena such as climate change, cyberwarfare, pandemics, and the weaponization of AI heavily threaten the stability and values of states, posing challenges that transcend traditional defense approaches.
Climate change acts as a threat multiplier by creating new risks, such as competition and conflict over basic resources, increased natural disasters, loss of livelihoods, and forced migration. For example, the deadly conflict in Darfur, Sudan, was driven by climate change, as drought and desertification created political instability in the country (Council on Foreign Relations, 2024). As of 2020, out of the 25 countries most vulnerable to climate change, 14 are in conflict (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2020). The direct link between climate change and conflict can be difficult to perceive due to the multidimensional nature of these situations. However, it indirectly increases the risk of conflict by multiplying the existing social and economic factors. Furthermore, traditional military responses can exacerbate climate change, as the use of heavy machinery and other technologies can increase greenhouse gas emissions and harm ecosystems (Council on Foreign Relations, 2024).
Cyberwarfare refers to a series of strategic cyberattacks designed to destabilize or destroy a country’s critical systems. It can take many forms, including attacks on financial, safety, and public infrastructure, as well as attacks against military resources. These attacks aim to create disruption in everyday life. Cyberwarfare can create disruptions in everyday life and weaken a state without requiring the use of soldiers or weapons. It is indeed a less costly way of defending or attacking a country, avoiding the loss of lives and infrastructure that traditional warfare brings. However, cyberwarfare blurs the line between civilians and the military, as now civilian infrastructure is being targeted, which makes daily life during wartime harder. This reflects how “nations no longer depend only on traditional battlefields.”. (Fortinet, n.d.).
The most significant event of 2020 was the COVID-19 pandemic. It caused major strains on both economic and human security, resulting in the loss of millions of lives and jobs. The pandemic-related debts and the job disruptions contributed to higher financial instabilities and poverty rates, especially in developing countries. The socioeconomic setbacks continue to increase geopolitical tensions, humanitarian needs, and political instability. (National Intelligence Council, 2022). The pandemic also heightened pre-existing tensions within NATO, as the allies disagreed on several health measures, with travel restrictions between the US and its European allies being imposed without consultation. President Trump followed with a statement that “the European Union had been formed to take advantage of the United States” (Policy Department for External Relations, 2020). The pandemic was a significant hit to the world as none of the actors were prepared for such a massive threat to security.
Lastly, the emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) poses one of the greatest threats to the international community. What started as a revolutionary tool is now at risk of being used as a high-class weapon. It has enabled the usage of cyberattacks, deep-fake manipulation, and large-scale misinformation campaigns. These can provoke international conflicts by creating false diplomatic crises. For example, an AI-generated polarizing statement from a head of state could escalate international tensions. It is also used to identify security vulnerabilities in defense systems and critical infrastructure, such as communications and power grids, during times of conflict. (Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation, 2025). AI can perform tasks that usually require human intelligence, and it cannot be stopped using traditional military techniques.
Internal Threats to Democracy
The external threats are not the only danger states can undergo. Internal instability is now as dangerous to national security as foreign aggression. Internal threats include manipulation of information, election interference, and loss of faith in institutions. These can undermine a state’s subjective security, as citizens may feel unsafe even if the nation is perceived as stable. Furthermore, the growing use of private military and security companies (PMSCs) nowadays enables the initiation of violence and human rights violations worldwide (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2025).
Disinformation is not a new concept, but it has become more widespread with the rise of social media platforms and the internet. It can deceive the public into losing faith in institutions, which are the core of any democracy. If the disinformation is successful, it poses a threat to the collapse of a government. (American Security Project, n.d.). It erodes the ability of citizens to make informed decisions and can cause public harm. Citizens may feel that they cannot rely on their governments or the media for evidence-based information, and ultimately, they feel threatened, even if the state is not under any apparent attack.
Similarly, election interference has become a rising problem in recent years. The interconnectivity of states today poses a threat to elections when external actors seek to influence the outcome of elections by supporting or undermining a particular candidate. For example, Russia interfered in the 2016 US presidential election, while China and Iran were active in the 2022 midterm elections (Kovalčíková & Spatafora, 2024). Foreign involvement in a state’s elections can cause chaos and undermine the integrity of the election process. Once again, this leads to a loss of faith and mistrust in the electoral process. It can spark doubt and confusion among voters, further polarizing the public and potentially undermining a country’s political stability.
The spread of disinformation and election interference are both threats to democracy. They go hand-in-hand with attacks on other institutions, which are the pillars of democratic societies. One of the key institutions is the rule of law, as well as the judicial body. There have been several instances of abuse of the rule of law since President Trump took office. For example, his administration refused to comply with a unanimous Supreme Court decision stating the release and return of Kilmar Abrego García, a legal US resident who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador. El Salvador’s prisons are on the Human Rights Watch due to their violent tactics, and Trump’s administration proposed sending American citizens convicted of violent crimes to their prisons. (Bennett, 2025). Attacking the rule of law and exploiting the judicial system in these ways undermines the democratic values that protect people. It fosters a loss of faith in the system and democratic institutions, as there are no checks on executive power, leaving the public feeling unprotected.
Finally, the privatization of weapons and military is a relatively new concept. It used to be mainly state-owned, but today there is an increasing number of PMSCs. The UN experts are concerned that these companies not only act during armed conflict, but also in peacetime. They are seen as key initiators of conflicts as they often “bypass international legal frameworks, evade accountability, and result in grave harm to civilian populations.” (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2025). They operate in legal grey zones and blur the line between public and private, as they perform national services but for profit purposes. They may be more inclined to provoke a conflict due to the high stakes and interests involved. A new report to the General Assembly stated that “the privatisation of the force and the reliance on these actors gravely undermines sovereignty and threatens the international order.” (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2025).
Human Security
The United Nations has introduced the concept of human security in General Assembly resolution 66/290, which centers security around people and aims to protect them from “crises, violent conflicts, natural disasters, persistent poverty, epidemics, and economic downturns.” (The Human Security Unit, n.d.). It shifts the focus of national security from border protection to human protection. The arguments mentioned in the previous paragraphs all come down to human security. However, another aspect of threats that impact individuals daily is economic inequality, data privacy, and the overall quality of life.
Economic inequality and high poverty rates undermine the national security of states, as poverty hinders the development of public goods, among them defense. For example, Georgia has struggled with this issue for decades, experiencing a significant decline in population and social capital as millions of people emigrated from the country. The state is unable to provide the armed forces due to limited public finance. The wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, while the rest struggle with the fear that the country cannot provide social or physical security. Inequality and poverty also fuel violent extremism and radicalization, which can create instabilities within the state. (Abramashvili, 2024).
The complex relationship between national security and data privacy is an ongoing debate about how to strike a balance between the two. Data privacy protects individuals, while national security protects collective safety. Governments collect data for security purposes and to protect the people from cyberattacks or terrorism. However, measures such as mass surveillance and the tracing of private communications to identify threats can lead to the misuse of power and make citizens feel violated, especially when such measures are implemented without consent or transparency. It is crucial to strike a balance between the two to prevent privacy violations while maintaining public safety. (The Legal School, n.d.).
Ultimately, a secure nation should provide stability, safety, and a high overall quality of life. Factors such as affordable housing, job opportunities, low crime rates, access to infrastructure, clean air, education, and other essential amenities are crucial for citizens to feel safe. Even in the absence of an external military threat, people can have a low perception of safety if, for example, they live in areas with high crime rates. If people believe they cannot find a stable job or a good education, they are more likely to move elsewhere in search of better opportunities. These are all threats that “degrade the quality of life for the inhabitants of a state”, thus qualifying for a concern of national security, as Ullman pointed out (Ullman, 1983).
Conclusion
The definition of national security is dynamic. As Wolfers, Ullman, and Baldwin showed, the meaning cannot be understood as static. In 2025, security can no longer be understood solely in terms of military strength or territorial integrity. The emergence of new external threats, such as climate change, cyberwarfare, pandemics, and the weaponization of AI, highlights the limitations of traditional defense systems. On the other hand, internal dangers such as disinformation, election interference, and the erosion of democratic institutions continue to prove that the most significant vulnerabilities can also come from within. Lastly, human security has become a central component of national stability. Economic equality, a balanced approach between privacy and security, and high standards of quality of life are essential components of strong and secure societies. These multidimensional layers of risks prove that several factors can weaken societies just as much, if not more, than foreign aggression.
National security in 2025 must be defined as the protection of people, systems, and institutions from complex risks that endanger the state’s survival. While traditional defense against external attacks should persist, there must be a higher focus on democratic integrity, social trust, and human dignity. The challenge for modern states today is to adapt and define national security to different contexts, as the three scholars explored. They must safeguard citizens without compromising their freedoms and values. The essence of national security today should be understood in terms of resilience, adaptability, and the protection of humans on both individual and collective levels.
