National Security Threats Are No Longer Defined by War Alone

For decades, discussions about national security threats were almost synonymous with war. The images that came to mind were military invasions, armed conflicts, territorial disputes, and attacks by foreign states.

Threats were understood as visible and tangible. There was an identifiable adversary, conventional weapons, and territory to defend. Today, however, the way governments define and assess threats has fundamentally evolved. National security challenges are no longer limited to military aggression, nor do they always originate from outside a country’s borders.

In recent years, policymakers have increasingly adopted the concept of non-military threats—issues that may disrupt national stability without involving the use of armed force.

This approach is reflected in Presidential Regulation (Perpres) No. 111 of 2025 on the General Policy for National Defense 2025–2029, signed by President Prabowo Subianto on October 24, 2025. The regulation classifies threats to national sovereignty into three categories: military threats, non-military threats, and hybrid threats.

This is where social issues begin to intersect with the national security agenda. One example is LGBT.

Fundamentally, LGBT is a social issue that intersects with values, culture, religion, public health, education, family dynamics, and broader societal perceptions of social change. As such, it is an issue that requires thoughtful, balanced, and proportionate social discourse.

However, once LGBT is framed as part of a non-military national security threat, public perception inevitably shifts. An issue that once belonged primarily within the social sphere can gradually be interpreted through the lens of national security. Instead of encouraging people to understand its complexities, such framing may lead society to perceive it primarily as a threat to the state.

This is precisely why framing matters.

The language used by governments, public institutions, the media, and influential figures significantly shapes how society interprets complex issues. When a social issue is repeatedly described as a threat, opportunities for constructive dialogue may begin to narrow. Differences in perspective become easier to view with suspicion, while certain groups risk being perceived not simply as members of society, but as security concerns that require monitoring.

Yet not every social challenge should automatically be interpreted as a matter of national security.

Many social issues are better addressed through education, public communication, social literacy, academic research, evidence-based policymaking, and inclusive dialogue—particularly those involving identity, values, family, and everyday social life.

For communication professionals and public relations practitioners, this presents an important lesson.

Strategic communication extends beyond simply delivering information. It shapes whether society responds to an issue with understanding or with fear.

The words chosen by governments and institutions carry significant consequences. The term “threat” may convey decisiveness, but when applied too broadly, it risks encouraging society to interpret complex social issues primarily through suspicion rather than understanding.

National stability is undoubtedly essential. However, sustainable stability is built not only through vigilance, but also through public trust, social empathy, institutional credibility, informed citizens, and the ability to distinguish between genuine security risks and social issues that require more nuanced and human-centered approaches.

For that reason, discussions surrounding non-military threats deserve careful consideration.

The concept of national security should not become so expansive that every form of social change is automatically categorized as a danger. When social issues such as LGBT are immediately framed as threats to the state, an equally important question deserves attention: Are we responding to an actual security risk, or are we creating new public fears through the way the issue is framed?

Ultimately, one of the greatest challenges facing modern governments is not merely protecting the nation from threats. It is also ensuring that the language used to discuss sensitive issues strengthens public understanding rather than deepening social divisions.