The first weeks of 2026 open with a clear signal from Washington: the United States is formally redefining national security around industrial strength, economic leverage, and control of critical supply chains. With the release of the 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) in early December—an agenda that elevates reindustrialization, defense production, and technological primacy to core national interests—the questions CGCI has been pressing since its founding have moved from the periphery to the center of policy debates and the agendas of capital markets and industry.
Executive Director’s Letter: January 2026
Dear CGCI Community,
The first weeks of 2026 open with a clear signal from Washington: the United States is formally redefining national security around industrial strength, economic leverage, and control of critical supply chains. With the release of the 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) in early December—an agenda that elevates reindustrialization, defense production, and technological primacy to core national interests—the questions CGCI has been pressing since its founding have moved from the periphery to the center of policy debates and the agendas of capital markets and industry.
In that context, CGCI has been at the table as these debates unfold. In December, on behalf of the Council, I joined colleagues from CNAS, CSIS, MITRE, and other institutions to brief the NATO Parliamentary Assembly on Capitol Hill, emphasizing that allied security now hinges on whether our industrial ecosystems can surge under pressure, not just operate efficiently in peacetime.From CGCI’s inception, deep alignment with allies and partners has been a core pillar of our mission, and this engagement reflected that commitment—underscoring that the success of any national strategy ultimately depends on how well like‑minded nations organize their combined industrial and innovation base for shared resilience and deterrence.
This month’s CGCI Insights features two pieces that speak directly to this shift. In “Where Power Resides: Velocity, Surge, and Why Readiness Has Become Regional,” Shaun Broeker, Chairman of the National Security Crossroads Alliance, argues that time—not territory—is now the decisive terrain of power. Readiness, in his framing, is measured by the “velocity of relevance”: the ability to translate known capabilities into fielded effects on timelines that outpace threat evolution, and to surge production without systems falling out of sequence. That shift forces investors, operators, and policymakers alike to see regions—not individual firms—as the true unit of execution, where labor, infrastructure, logistics, and capital either move together under pressure or fail together in crisis, a theme I underscored in December when briefing the NATO Parliamentary Assembly on how allied industrial ecosystems must be organized for surge, not just for efficiency.
Complementing this is Ellen Chang’s “Restoring America’s Maritime Capabilities: From Vulnerability to Sea Power,” which makes the case that maritime strength is a foundational pillar of U.S. and allied economic security, energy resilience, and deterrence. Ellen details how decades of underinvestment have left the U.S.-flag commercial fleet and domestic shipbuilding capacity fragile, even as rivals use large merchant fleets and dominant shipyards to convert economic leverage into strategic influence at sea. She outlines a practical agenda: modernize public and private yards for standardized, high‑rate production; rebuild the U.S.-flag fleet and surge sealift; reimagine ports as resilient waterfront industrial hubs; and deliberately pull in private and allied capital so maritime power is rebuilt as an integrated system, not a series of disconnected programs.
These essays arrive as the NSS and the FY 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) both tie security more explicitly tothe health of the innovation base, the defense industrial ecosystem, and the broader industrial commons. The Strategy highlights the need to strengthen the industrial base, protect critical and emerging technologies, and deepen cooperation with allies and partners across key supply chains, while the NDAA reinforces investment in munitions, shipbuilding, and allied integration to ensure capabilities can actually be fielded at scale and speed when it counts.
Over the past year, CGCI has continued to sharpen and socialize the GCI framework—a set of eight global competition and innovation sectors that define modern economic and military power, from semiconductors, quantum, and advanced manufacturing to maritime infrastructure, energy systems, and the water–technology nexus. Our recent briefings and public work have focused on helping policymakers and market participants view these sectors as an integrated strategic portfolio, where public policy, private capital, and allied coordination must move in sequence to generate real capability, not just plans.
Within this landscape, CGCI’s mission for 2026 is to narrow the gap between policy and markets. The Council exists to help public officials understand how private capital actually deploys, and to help investors and executives internalize the demands of a contested geopolitical environment that spans the United States and its allies. Our work on the GCI sectors—from regional defense ecosystems and industrial readiness to maritime infrastructure and critical technologies—is designed to map where velocity can emerge, where regional orchestration is possible, and where private capital can turn national and allied strategies into executable capacity.
The NSS and NDAA create an important policy foundation, but they will not, on their own, close the orchestration gap that Shaun describes or the maritime vulnerabilities Ellen highlights. Doing so will require deliberate choices by boards, investment committees, and public officials: to prioritize execution environments that reduce surge risk; to back regional coalitions that can move “from mine to mission” at speed; and to treat shipyards, ports, and industrial hubs as long-horizon strategic assets central to deterrence and resilience. It will also require a new generation of partnerships that blend U.S. and allied capabilities while maintaining collective control over critical national security nodes.
As CGCI enters 2026, the goal is not simply to comment on these shifts, but to help shape and accelerate them. That means working with our Council Members, advisors, and partners to define investable theses in defense production, maritime infrastructure, and frontier technologies aligned with the new NSS; to build frameworks that help capital price regional execution risk correctly; and to convene coalitions that can turn policy intent into concrete capacity on factory floors, in shipyards, and across ports and logistics networks. It also means expanding our community of practice—across defense, finance, energy, maritime, and advanced manufacturing—for those who are prepared to increase their strategic and financial commitments to this work at scale.
The stakes are unambiguous. Nations and allied systems that can compress time from design to deployment, from mine to mission, and from strategy to executed surge capacity will define this decade and the next. For CGCI, the measure of success is straightforward: more capital, more quickly, into the regions, capabilities, and industrial ecosystems that matter most for enduring security and competitiveness.
On behalf of the entire CGCI team and council, thank you for the expertise, influence, and capital you have already brought to this mission. We look forward to working with you to deepen those commitments and translate shared intent into deployed resources and durable advantage.
Sincerely,
Christina Alfonso
Executive Director, Council on Global Competition and Innovation – CGCI


