Last week, the White House released the 2026 U.S. Counterterrorism Strategy. As far as strategies go, the document falls far short of previous counterterrorism strategies and is riddled with partisanship, misplaced assumptions, and a failure to grasp the nuance of terrorists’ ideology and modus operandi. The document represents a departure from the professionalism and seriousness afforded to previous counterterrorism strategies and appears to mis-prioritize the most imminent terrorist threats.

Despite the fact that the United States is currently at war with Iran, there is minimal discussion of Iranian-backed or -inspired terrorism, although at various points in the strategy, there is ebullient praise for President Donald Trump and his handling of the war.

Last week, the White House released the 2026 U.S. Counterterrorism Strategy. As far as strategies go, the document falls far short of previous counterterrorism strategies and is riddled with partisanship, misplaced assumptions, and a failure to grasp the nuance of terrorists’ ideology and modus operandi. The document represents a departure from the professionalism and seriousness afforded to previous counterterrorism strategies and appears to mis-prioritize the most imminent terrorist threats.

Despite the fact that the United States is currently at war with Iran, there is minimal discussion of Iranian-backed or -inspired terrorism, although at various points in the strategy, there is ebullient praise for President Donald Trump and his handling of the war.

To be fair, there are a few things that the strategy gets correct: its focus on preventing terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction; the importance it places on hostages and unlawfully detained U.S. persons; and its recognition that jihadi groups like Islamic State Khorasan Province and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula continue to be among the most capable actors seeking to conduct external operations against the West.

Yet, on balance, the document is highly political, despite claims that the strategy is “apolitical” and will not be used for “partisan purposes.” It also misdiagnoses the primary threats facing the United States. It focuses on three lines of effort: legacy Islamist terrorists, violent left-wing extremists, and narcoterrorists and transnational gangs. The threat these actors pose to the United States and its interests is undeniable. However, bald-faced partisanship aside, it is the terrorist threats missing from the document that give most cause for alarm.

Take the section titled “The Goals of Our CT Strategy,” using an acronym for counterterrorism. Here, the document mentions the threat posed by “exploitation of new weapons, like drones, by cartels and Jihadists, as well as the provision of these technologies to terrorists by........

© Foreign Policy