What would happen if Congress stopped supporting allies under siege?

The greatest threat to the defense sector and the broader U.S. economy now is an unlikely body: Congress.

A number of lawmakers — from both parties — are leading an effort to reduce spending and support to allies engaged in wars against our common enemies, instead of focusing on the long-term economic implications of losing those wars. By focusing on near-term dollars and cents, they are essentially ignoring the trillion-dollar impact their actions might have on the economy, which could reverberate over the next 20 years and beyond.

This is not an attempt to be dramatic; there are clear examples in history. What if the United States didn’t enter World War II and the conflict with the Nazis because politicians decided we are in the middle of an economic depression and perhaps this isn’t how we should spend our money.

But in the 1940s, spending on defense sector activities pulled the United States out of the Great Depression and funded new technologies and innovations that led to the economic expansion of the 1950s and 1960s.

A more isolationist U.S. would have resulted in a more limited economy without access to many overseas markets — including those that provided the cheap goods we imported to raise our standard of living. Likewise, the fall of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and early 1990s opened international markets from behind the Iron Curtain, an era that saw rapid technological growth and earnings for U.S. companies.

We are now faced with a similar moment. A failure to continue to support Ukraine and their fight to survive the Russian invasion could threaten the U.S. economy. Already, two additional conflicts in the region have emerged; Serbia and Kosovo are on the verge of war , and Armenia has accused Azerbaijan of ethnic cleansing in the Nagorno-Karabakh region.

A destabilized Europe, from an economic standpoint, is not good for the American economy. U.S. trade represents roughly 25% of gross domestic product , and total trade with the European Union totaled $1.3 trillion in 2022.

Likewise, would a U.S. that ceased supporting Ukraine help Taiwan defend itself? Probably not. This could embolden China to take action on Taiwan and destabilize Asia.

A U.S. trade war with China, for example, could knock one-third off of Apple’s market cap — a $1 trillion hit by itself. And the impact of losing access to the advanced semiconductors produced in Taiwan would damage a number of other high-tech firms — as well as the U.S. military-industrial complex, which still procures a number of specialized chips from suppliers there.

Public opinion in favor of Ukraine aid still remains at greater than 60% . Yet some members on Capitol Hill are committed to reducing or eliminating the support the U.S. provides to Ukraine. This makes little sense. Most of the funds they allocate actually goes to American industry — and into the pockets of American workers building the equipment and weaponry the U.S. is providing.

Additionally, it is Ukrainian citizens doing the fighting and putting their lives at risk. Would Congress prefer for the U.S. to potentially have a direct conflict, and the associated causalities, if NATO Article 5 is triggered in a decade or two? That is where inaction now could lead.

Ultimately, eliminating support and staying on the sidelines could have significant ramifications to the U.S. economy. Having to operate in a destabilized world would cut access to many markets U.S. companies rely on and curtail future economic growth. Global stability keeps international markets open; the total value of international exports of goods and services in 2022 totaled $3.01 trillion .

It’s time for Congress to focus on the future and stop playing politics with the American economy.

Scott Sacknoff manages the SPADE Defense Index, a modified capitalization-weighted index made up of companies operating in the defense, homeland security and government space sectors.

现在对国防领域和整个美国经济构成最大威胁的，是一个意想不到的机构：国会。

一些议员——来自两党——正牵头削减对参与对抗共同敌人战争的盟友的开支和支持，而不是关注战败带来的长期经济影响。他们只关注眼前的利益，却忽视了其行为可能对经济造成的万亿美元级影响，而这种影响可能会持续20年甚至更久。

这并非危言耸听；历史上有许多明确的例子。试想一下，如果美国因为政客们认为我们正处于经济萧条时期，或许不应该把钱花在战争上，而没有加入第二次世界大战和与纳粹的冲突，那会怎样？

但在 20 世纪 40 年代，国防领域的支出使美国摆脱了大萧条，并为新技术和创新提供了资金，从而导致了 20 世纪 50 年代和 60 年代的经济扩张。

如果美国采取更加孤立主义的政策，其经济将会受到更多限制，无法进入许多海外市场——包括那些提供廉价商品、从而提升我们生活水平的市场。同样，20世纪80年代末90年代初苏联的解体，使美国得以摆脱铁幕的束缚，进入国际市场，这一时期美国企业经历了快速的技术发展和利润增长。

我们现在面临着类似的时刻。如果我们不继续支持乌克兰及其抵御俄罗斯入侵的斗争，可能会威胁到美国经济。目前，该地区已经出现了两起新的冲突：塞尔维亚和科索沃濒临战争边缘，亚美尼亚指责阿塞拜疆在纳戈尔诺-卡拉巴赫地区进行种族清洗。

从经济角度来看，欧洲局势不稳定对美国经济不利。美国贸易约占国内生产总值的25%，2022年与欧盟的贸易总额达1.3万亿美元。

同样，如果美国停止支持乌克兰，它会帮助台湾自卫吗？可能不会。这可能会助长中国对台湾采取行动，并破坏亚洲的稳定。

例如，美国与中国之间的贸易战可能会使苹果公司的市值缩水三分之一——仅此一项就可能造成1万亿美元的损失。而失去台湾生产的先进半导体，不仅会损害其他一些高科技公司，还会损害美国军工复合体，因为该复合体仍然从台湾供应商采购大量专用芯片。

支持援助乌克兰的民意支持率仍然超过60%。然而，国会山的一些议员却致力于减少甚至取消美国对乌克兰的援助。这令人费解。他们拨付的大部分资金实际上都流向了美国工业——最终进入了那些为美国提供装备和武器的工厂的美国工人的口袋。

此外，参战并冒着生命危险的是乌克兰公民。如果北约第五条款在十年或二十年后被触发，国会难道更希望美国卷入潜在的直接冲突，并承受由此带来的伤亡吗？这就是现在不作为可能导致的后果。

最终，停止支持和袖手旁观可能会对美国经济产生重大影响。被迫在一个动荡不安的世界中运营，将削弱美国企业赖以生存的许多市场准入，并抑制未来的经济增长。全球稳定能够确保国际市场开放；2022年，国际商品和服务出口总额达到3.01万亿美元。

国会应该着眼未来，停止将美国经济政治化。

Scott Sacknoff 管理 SPADE 国防指数，这是一个经过调整的市值加权指数，由在国防、国土安全和政府航天领域运营的公司组成。