Introduction: The Paradox of American Power in 2026
In early January 2026, American special forces staged a pre-dawn military operation in Caracas, capturing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and transporting him to New York to face narcoterrorism charges. President Donald Trump characterized the intervention as “one of the most stunning, effective and powerful displays of American military might” since World War II. Yet this unilateral action—condemned by much of the international community as a violation of sovereignty—crystallizes a troubling pattern: despite positioning itself as a defender of the rules-based international order, the United States increasingly acts as its greatest disruptor.
As geopolitical tensions escalate globally, the question of whether US hegemony represents a stabilizing force or an existential threat to world peace has never been more urgent. Recent polling suggests growing international consensus on the latter. A German survey conducted in January 2026 found that 65% of respondents view the United States as a threat to world peace—up from 46% in 2025 and just 24% in 2024. This dramatic shift reflects broader concerns about American expansionism, military overreach, and what critics characterize as hypocritical foreign policy double standards.
With the United States accounting for $831.5 billion in military spending in 2026—more than the next seven countries combined—and maintaining over 750 military bases across at least 80 countries, the infrastructure of American hegemony remains unmatched. But does this vast apparatus enhance global stability, or does it perpetuate the very conflicts it claims to prevent? Here are ten evidence-based reasons why hegemonic and expansionist America poses a significant threat to world peace.
1. Unprecedented Military Spending Creating Global Arms Race
The Economics of Military Dominance
The United States’ 2026 defense budget of approximately $831.5 billion represents a staggering concentration of global military resources. According to Global Firepower data, this figure exceeds the combined military spending of China ($303 billion), Russia ($212.6 billion), Germany ($127.4 billion), India ($109 billion), the United Kingdom ($88.5 billion), and France ($67.2 billion). When examining the fiscal landscape more broadly, Brown University’s Costs of War project reveals that when nuclear weapons programs, veterans care, and military-related spending are included, total US national defense spending surpasses $1 trillion in FY2026—a 13% increase from 2025.
This represents roughly 40% of global defense expenditures, despite the US economy accounting for only 24% of global GDP. The opportunity cost is staggering: research shows that while military spending creates approximately five jobs per $1 million invested, education spending generates 13 jobs—nearly three times as many. Over $8 trillion has been spent on post-9/11 wars through 2022, with future obligations to veterans projected to reach $2.5 trillion by 2050.
The Destabilizing Effect
This massive military buildup forces competitors into defensive spending spirals. China’s rapid military modernization and Russia’s strategic force investments are direct responses to American conventional superiority. As Forecast International analysts project, global defense spending will reach $2.6 trillion in 2026, representing an 8.1% increase year-over-year—driven largely by nations seeking to balance against US power.
The NATO requirement for member states to spend 5% of GDP on defense by 2035 (recently increased from 2%) exemplifies how American pressure multiplies military expenditures globally, diverting resources from healthcare, infrastructure, and climate adaptation at a moment when these investments are critical.
2. Extraterritorial Military Interventions and Sovereign Violations
The Venezuela Precedent
The January 3, 2026 US military operation to capture Nicolás Maduro marks a watershed moment in international relations. While framed as a law enforcement action against narcoterrorism, the operation—which killed large parts of Maduro’s security team and 32 Cuban military advisers—constitutes what legal scholars characterize as a clear violation of the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force against sovereign states.
Brookings Institution analysts warn that Trump’s declaration that the US will “run” Venezuela until a “proper transition” occurs echoes Putin’s designs on Ukraine, potentially legitimizing great power interventions against smaller neighbors. UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated the action sets a “dangerous precedent,” while countries including Brazil, Spain, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Uruguay issued a joint condemnation of this “unilateral military action” violating international law.
Pattern of Intervention
This is not an isolated incident. Between September and December 2025, the US conducted at least 35 known military strikes in Caribbean and Pacific waters against vessels allegedly carrying drugs, killing at least 115 people without due process. The Council on Foreign Relations’ 2026 Preventive Priorities Survey identifies “US strikes inside Venezuela” as having a 50%+ likelihood with high impact on US interests—alongside Russia-Ukraine escalation and China-Taiwan tensions—underscoring how American interventionism itself ranks among top global conflict risks.
The 2026 National Defense Strategy’s invocation of “inherent constitutional authority” for presidential use of force, without congressional authorization or international legal constraints, effectively places the United States above the very international law it helped establish.
3. Global Network of Military Bases Perpetuating Neocolonialism
The Geography of Empire
The United States maintains over 750 military installations in at least 80 countries—a footprint unmatched in history. According to Al Jazeera’s analysis, this includes major hubs like Camp Humphreys in South Korea (the largest overseas base), Ramstein Air Base in Germany (the European command center), and Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar (the Middle East’s largest US installation).
By comparison, Turkey—the country with the second-most foreign bases—operates approximately 35 installations, mostly in neighboring Syria and Iraq. The United Kingdom has about 145 bases, many in remaining British territories. As the International Peace Bureau notes, the combined foreign military bases of the top three nations (all NATO members) total 1,127—meaning the US alone accounts for approximately 67% of NATO’s global military footprint.
Environmental and Social Costs
These bases impose significant environmental damage, increase sexual violence and crime in host communities, and prop up authoritarian regimes. The Democracy Index classifies many of the 45 current US base hosts as “authoritarian governments.” During the Cold War, bases in non-democratic states were rationalized as necessary to counter Soviet communism. Few were closed after 1991, revealing the true purpose: power projection rather than ideological defense.
4. Hypocritical Double Standards in Foreign Policy
Selective Application of International Law
The contrast between US rhetoric and practice undermines global governance. While Washington demands Iran abandon even civilian nuclear enrichment—threatening military strikes over a program the IAEA monitors—it provides unqualified support to Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal. As Al Jazeera documented, the US and Israel bombed Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025, killing over 1,000 Iranians, yet face no international accountability.
The US condemns Russian aggression in Ukraine while conducting its own “special military operation” in Venezuela. It criticizes Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea while sailing aircraft carriers through contested waters. It denounces election fraud in Venezuela while backing regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other autocracies where no elections occur.
Human Rights Selectivity
American foreign policy exhibits what critics term “weaponized human rights.” Analysis by international observers notes that while Trump threatened military intervention over Iranian protesters’ deaths in January 2026, the US provides $3.8 billion annually in military aid to Israel despite credible allegations of war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank. This selective morality—applying rules to adversaries while exempting allies—corrodes the legitimacy of international human rights frameworks.
5. Weaponization of the Dollar and Economic Coercion
Sanctions as Siege Warfare
The United States wields economic sanctions with unprecedented scope and severity. Trump’s January 2026 announcement of 25% tariffs on any country trading with Iran demonstrates how dollar dominance enables extraterritorial enforcement of US policy preferences. Countries including China, the UAE, Turkey, Brazil, and Russia face economic punishment for maintaining sovereign trade relationships.
According to research by international development organizations, US sanctions on Venezuela contributed to economic collapse that drove over 7 million people to flee—the largest refugee crisis in the Western Hemisphere. Sanctions on Afghanistan froze $7 billion in central bank reserves, exacerbating humanitarian catastrophe. The cumulative effect of sanctions on Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Syria, and other states affects hundreds of millions of civilians, with minimal evidence of achieving stated policy goals.
Undermining Dollar System
Ironically, sanctions overuse accelerates de-dollarization. BRICS nations are developing alternative payment systems, China promotes renminbi settlement, and even European allies created the INSTEX mechanism to circumvent US sanctions on Iran. The weaponization of financial systems for geopolitical ends undermines the very dollar hegemony that makes such coercion possible.
6. Support for Authoritarian Allies Undermining Democracy
The Autocrats’ Arsenal
While rhetorically promoting democracy, US policy prioritizes strategic interests over democratic values. The 2026 National Defense Strategy explicitly states alliances will be “conditional” and “contingent on performance”—measured primarily by military spending and alignment with US priorities, not democratic governance.
Congressional Research Service analysis notes that the US maintains military bases in numerous authoritarian states, providing security cooperation, arms sales, and diplomatic cover to regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and others. Camp Lemmonier in Djibouti, Al Udeid in Qatar, and facilities in Bahrain all support US operations while hosting governments that suppress dissent, restrict press freedom, and violate human rights.
Democracy Promotion as Destabilization
When the US does promote “democracy,” outcomes are often catastrophic. Libya post-intervention descended into civil war. Iraq’s democracy promotion cost hundreds of thousands of lives and created ISIS. Afghanistan’s nation-building collapsed in weeks. The pattern suggests democracy serves as rhetorical cover for regime change operations targeting adversaries rather than genuine support for self-determination.
7. Fueling Regional Conflicts Through Arms Sales
The Military-Industrial Export Machine
The United States is the world’s largest arms exporter, with weapons sales serving both corporate profits and strategic influence. Major recipients include Israel ($3.8 billion annually), Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle Eastern states. These transfers fuel regional conflicts: American bombs dropped on Yemen by Saudi aircraft, American weapons used in Israeli operations, American equipment arming multiple sides of complex conflicts.
Middle East experts note that US arms sales to Gulf states—often justified as countering Iranian influence—create security dilemmas where Iranian proxies arm themselves in response, perpetuating cycles of escalation. The $100+ billion in weapons sold to Saudi Arabia since 2015 have not brought regional stability; instead, they enabled the Yemen war, created humanitarian catastrophe, and enriched American defense contractors.
Technology Transfer Risks
Advanced weapons systems transferred to allies often proliferate further. F-35 technology, precision munitions, and surveillance systems provided to Israel are studied by adversaries. Arms sales to Pakistan and Turkey complicate relations with India and Greece respectively. The promiscuous distribution of advanced military capabilities increases the lethality and duration of conflicts worldwide.
8. Climate Inaction by the World’s Largest Military Emitter
The Pentagon’s Carbon Footprint
The US military is one of the world’s largest institutional greenhouse gas emitters, yet it remains largely exempt from climate commitments. Military operations, global base networks, aircraft carriers, fighter jets, and logistics generate emissions comparable to medium-sized countries. The energy requirements for 750 overseas bases, global naval patrols, and frequent interventions lock in carbon-intensive infrastructure for decades.
Research shows that every dollar spent on military purposes generates higher emissions than equivalent education, healthcare, or renewable energy investments. As climate change accelerates—driving displacement, resource conflicts, and humanitarian emergencies—US military spending crowds out climate adaptation financing while contributing directly to the crisis.
Opportunity Cost of Militarization
The $831.5 billion defense budget represents resources unavailable for climate mitigation. While China accounts for 74% of all large-scale solar and wind capacity under construction (compared to 5.9% for the US), American capital flows toward weapons systems. The contradiction is stark: the institution claiming to provide security actively undermines the most significant security threat humanity faces.
9. Erosion of International Institutions and Multilateralism
Undermining the UN System
The 2026 US National Defense Strategy explicitly states, “The days of the United States propping up the entire world order like Atlas are over.” Yet rather than strengthening multilateral institutions, American policy actively weakens them. The UN Security Council is paralyzed by US vetoes protecting Israel. The International Criminal Court faces American sanctions when investigating US or Israeli officials. The World Trade Organization remains hobbled by US obstruction of judicial appointments.
Analyses from international relations scholars note that American hegemony increasingly operates through “minilateralism”—selective coalitions of the willing—rather than universal institutions. Trump’s January 2026 announcement of a “Peace Council” in Davos, designed to bypass the UN, exemplifies this fragmentation.
Alliance Transactionalization
NATO, once a collective security community, is being transformed into what critics call a protection racket. The requirement for 5% GDP defense spending prioritizes burden-sharing over collective defense. European members are told to “handle Europe” while the US focuses on China. This transactional approach—where alliance commitments are contingent on payments—corrodes trust and undermines deterrence.
10. Domestic Polarization Amplifying International Instability
Democracy in Crisis at Home
Research tracking hegemonic decline identifies domestic polarization as a key marker of great power decay. The January 6, 2021 Capitol attack, ongoing election denial, Supreme Court legitimacy crisis, and unprecedented political violence demonstrate American democratic institutions under severe strain.
This internal instability manifests internationally through policy whiplash. Trump’s return reversed Biden-era climate commitments, Iran diplomacy, and alliance reassurances. The 2026 National Defense Strategy repudiates Biden’s 2022 strategy, leaving allies uncertain about American reliability. Foreign policy tied to electoral cycles and presidential whims cannot provide the predictability that stability requires.
The Dangers of Declining Hegemony
Paradoxically, the greatest threat may come not from American strength but from its decline. As Pew Research polling shows, significant percentages in Turkey (30%), South Africa (35%), and Kenya (23%) already view the US as their country’s greatest threat. A wounded hegemon, facing relative decline while retaining massive military capabilities, may lash out unpredictably—making the transition from unipolarity particularly dangerous.
Conclusion: Toward a Multipolar Peace
The evidence suggests that American hegemony—characterized by military dominance, interventionist policies, double standards, and resistance to multilateral constraints—poses significant threats to global peace. The January 2026 Venezuela operation exemplifies a broader pattern: unilateral action justified by self-proclaimed exceptionalism, with disregard for international law and contempt for multilateral decision-making.
The alternative is not Chinese or Russian hegemony, which would replicate similar pathologies. Rather, as international relations scholars argue, the emerging “multiplex world” requires genuine multilateralism—strengthened UN institutions, regional security architectures, arms control regimes, and collective climate action.
The world faces existential challenges: climate crisis, pandemic preparedness, nuclear proliferation, and emerging technologies requiring global governance. These cannot be managed through American diktat or great power competition. They demand cooperation that hegemonic structures actively obstruct.
The $831.5 billion spent annually on US defense—money that could fund renewable energy transition, pandemic prevention, or global education—represents not security but its opposite: resources diverted from real threats to imaginary ones, from cooperation to domination, from peace to perpetual war.
As German respondents increasingly recognize America as a threat to peace, the question is whether Americans themselves will reach the same conclusion before the costs—measured in lives, resources, and planetary habitability—become irreversible. History suggests that all empires eventually confront this reckoning. The hope is that the American reckoning comes through democratic choice rather than catastrophic collapse.
The path to genuine global security requires dismantling hegemonic structures, redistributing resources from military to human security, and building institutions where all nations—not just the powerful—have voice and agency. Until then, American hegemony will remain not the solution to global instability, but one of its primary sources.
