During the Cold War, deterrence centered on missiles, troop deployments, and nuclear escalation. Military power still matters enormously, but modern strategic competition increasingly unfolds far from conventional battlefields. Rival states now seek influence through weaker institutions, compromised elites, illicit financial systems, infrastructure dependence, and strategic corruption. In many cases, adversaries no longer need to defeat a country militarily to weaken its strategic position. 

This shift has blurred the line between governance problems and national security threats. Corruption no longer acts solely as a domestic political issue tied to ethics or economic inefficiency. Increasingly, it functions as strategic infrastructure that hostile states and aligned networks can exploit to gain influence, undermine institutions, and weaken deterrence from within. The result is a form of hybrid warfare that operates quietly below the threshold of conventional military conflict. 

Traditional military deterrence assumes that states seek to avoid direct escalation because the costs remain too high. Yet modern rivals increasingly prefer indirect approaches that create long-term political leverage without triggering military confrontation. Strategic corruption fits this model well because it weakens institutional resilience gradually and often without attracting immediate international attention. 

Infrastructure financing offers one example of this evolving landscape. Major infrastructure projects can generate economic growth, but opaque financing arrangements, weak procurement oversight, and political favoritism can also create long-term dependency and strategic leverage. Ports, telecommunications systems, energy infrastructure, and logistics hubs increasingly carry geopolitical significance alongside their economic value. Foreign influence over critical infrastructure may shape political decisions long before any military crises emerge. 

Illicit financial networks create additional vulnerabilities. Sanction evasion systems, offshore financial structures, and corruption-linked patronage networks allow authoritarian governments and criminal actors to preserve influence even under significant economic pressure. These systems often connect political elites, business interests, criminal organizations, and external state actors in ways that complicate accountability and obscure responsibility. 

The challenge becomes even more serious when state and non-state actors begin to overlap. Modern hybrid competition increasingly operates through networks rather than formal battle lines. Organized crime groups, private intermediaries, corrupt officials, and geopolitical rivals often interact inside the same gray zones. Those overlapping relationships make it harder to identify where criminal activity ends and strategic competition begins. 

The Western Hemisphere illustrates this problem clearly. Across parts of Latin America and the Caribbean, organized criminal groups now exert considerable influence over trafficking routes, local economies, migration systems, illicit mining operations, and even municipal governance. Criminal organizations often provide dispute resolution, employment, or social services that weak governments struggle to deliver. This creates fragmented sovereignty in which state authority exists unevenly across territories and institutions. 

These unstable environments create opportunities for external rivals seeking geopolitical access or influence. Weak oversight systems, corruption within procurement processes, and institutional distrust make states more vulnerable to strategic penetration. In these circumstances, foreign influence does not always arrive through military alliances or ideological movements. Instead , it emerges through infrastructure contracts, illicit finance, commercial dependency, or relationships with politically connected elites. 

Traditional deterrence frameworks struggle to address these dynamics because they still focus heavily on conventional military indicators. Defense planners understandably prioritize readiness, force posture, weapons modernization, logistics, and operational capability. These areas remain essential. However, military strength alone cannot fully protect states whose institutions face sustained internal erosion. 

States often weaken politically before they weaken militarily. Public distrust, elite fragmentation, corruption scandals, feeble judicial systems, and declining institutional legitimacy can reduce a government’s ability to respond effectively during periods of strategic pressure. Adversaries increasingly recognize this and exploit those vulnerabilities patiently over time. 

This problem extends beyond developing countries or fragile democracies. Advanced democracies also face growing concerns involving foreign influence operations, cyber-enabled corruption, disinformation campaigns, opaque lobbying networks, and strategic investments tied to geopolitical objectives. Hybrid competition increasingly targets the political and institutional foundations that support deterrence itself. As a result, national security discussions must broaden beyond military hardware and battlefield concepts alone. Deterrence depends not only on weapons systems, but also on institutional credibility, public trust, transparency, and political resilience. Governments that cannot maintain confidence in procurement systems, electoral institutions, judicial independence, or regulatory oversight may struggle to sustain strategic cohesion during periods of crisis. 

This reality does not mean every corruption scandal represents foreign subversion or hybrid warfare. Domestic political dysfunction often emerges from local conditions and internal failures. However, strategic rivals increasingly exploit those weaknesses opportunistically once they appear. Corruption creates openings that adversaries can leverage quietly and incrementally. 

The United States and its allies therefore need a broader understanding of deterrence in the twenty-first century. Military modernization remains necessary, particularly as rival powers continue expanding nuclear, cyber, and space capabilities. Yet strategic competition increasingly unfolds inside institutions as much as along borders or within contested seas. 

Institutional resilience should now be a centerpiece of national security planning. Strong oversight systems, transparent procurement practices, anti-corruption enforcement, independent courts, investigative journalism, and trusted public institutions all contribute to long-term strategic stability. These systems strengthen national resilience against both domestic corruption and external exploitation. 

In the emerging era of hybrid competition, states may not lose strategic position through invasion alone. They may lose it gradually through institutional erosion that weakens deterrence long before conventional conflict formally begins. 

Jeffery A. Tobin is a senior advisor and partner with Pan-American Strategic Advisors, conducting research on democracy, corruption, and institutional health. His work has appeared in outlets including Lawfare, Just Security, Foreign Policy in Focus, the Modern War Institute, and Small Wars Journal. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own. 

Strategic Corruption and the Future of Hybrid Warfare was originally published on Global Security Review.

In 2020, President Donald Trump led a campaign to ban TikTok, citing national security risks stemming from its Chinese ownership and compromise of private data by the Chinese government. Four years later, Trump delayed the removal of TikTok from the American market as he looks to find an American buyer for the popular app. This apparent reversal raises the question, is this change motivated by legitimate considerations or political advantage?

The 2020 Ban: National Security or Politics?

During his first term, President Trump pushed to ban TikTok. This effort was framed as a national security measure. Concerns were raised that the app’s parent company, ByteDance, was sharing user data with the Chinese government, posing a threat to American citizens and government operations.

While these concerns were legitimate, critics argued the move was also a political maneuver. It allowed Trump to position himself as tough on China, appealing to his base and broader nationalistic sentiments during an election year. Few analysts considered that both can be true. Politics, particularly those surrounding a beloved video app, were too divisive.

2024: The Return of TikTok?

Fast forward to 2024, and the reported pivot to support TikTok’s return appears incongruous. The core issues cited in 2020—national security and data privacy—have not fundamentally changed. In fact, Americans better understand what it means to have sensitive personal data captured and potentially used for nefarious purposes by an adversary state. Highly contentious congressional testimony by the leaders of social media companies in 2024 only shined a further spotlight on how such firms do not work for the good of users.

Why then would President Trump seek to save the platform? One possible explanation is the platform’s immense popularity, particularly among younger demographics—a voting bloc Trump struggled to capture. Saving TikTok from the US Supreme Court’s ruling and ensuring its sale to an American firm could signal an attempt to appeal to these voters, making the move less about the app’s merits and more about electoral politics.

Is It about the Public Good?

President Trump’s changing perspective on TikTok may reveal a broader trend in modern politics—the prioritization of optics over substance. Leaders often take contradictory stances to align with prevailing public opinion or to cater to specific constituencies. In the case of TikTok, the narrative seems less about resolving genuine concerns and more about capitalizing on its cultural ubiquity. If national security was a pressing concern in 2020, the question remains why it would be any less urgent today.

Ironically, users fleeing from TikTok prior to its designated cutoff date did not flock to American social media platforms as some might expect, but other Chinese platforms similar to TikTok. It seems Americans are angrier and more concerned that Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat are manipulating them than anything the Chinese Communist Party may do. Whether this is the wisest choice is yet to be determined.

Political Rhetoric or Pragmatism?

Ultimately, the fluctuating stance on TikTok underscores the blurred line between political rhetoric and pragmatic governance. Decisions on complex issues like technology and national security require consistency and transparency, yet they are often reduced to tools for political gain. This is a bipartisan issue that was not invented by President Trump. It has a long tradition dating back to the early days of the Republic. In fact, it is endemic to democratic systems.

Whether Trump’s recent position reflects a genuine change of heart or strategic posturing, it highlights the broader issue of political inconsistency. Leaders across the political spectrum often adjust their positions based on electoral strategy rather than principle, yet accountability for these shifts is rare. For example, former Vice President Kamala Harris initially endorsed “Medicare for All” during the 2020 Democrat primary, only to later soften her stance to appeal to moderate voters. These shifts demonstrate how political beliefs are easily adjusted to maximize votes. Whether on healthcare, national security, or technology policy, such reversals can erode public trust if not clearly explained to the electorate.

The ultimate resolution of TikTok’s future will depend on whether the app is sold to an American firm, as President Trump has stipulated, or whether it continues operating without a sale. Given the heightened concerns over data security and foreign influence, a lack of clarity on this issue could further weaken public confidence. While political reversals are common, abrupt shifts without clear explanations can make leadership appear inconsistent or opportunistic. Greater transparency from President Trump regarding his rationale would not only provide insight into the decision-making process but could also help mitigate skepticism about his motivations. At a time when trust in government is already fragile, reinforcing accountability and open communication is critical to maintaining public confidence.

The TikTok saga serves as a reminder that political decisions, especially those framed as national security concerns, are often entangled with strategic interests. In an era where public trust in government is fragile, transparency and consistency are essential. Without them, shifting narratives risk further eroding confidence in leadership—not just on TikTok, but on the larger issues that shape democracy itself.

Offering further explanation into President Trump’s plan and thinking would give the American people a better understanding of the variables under consideration and could potentially assuage some of the speculation into his motivation. Democracies require open communication between the citizenry and their representatives. TikTok is an example of just that.

Justin Miller is Associate Professor of Practice in the School of Cyber Studies at the University of Tulsa.

TikTok: Security Threat or Political Pawn was originally published on Global Security Review.