This paper answers the thesis question, "Have the ends (interests, goals or objectives) specified in the National Security Strategies (NSS) since 1986, been consistent?" For this study, consistent is defined as whether the ends from NSS to NSS have agreed or been basically compatible with each other. The working hypothesis is that there is remarkable consistency in the ends specified in the National Security Strategies published since the passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. For sake of analysis, this study proposes there are four "enduring" U.S. grand strategy ends: 1) physical security of the U.S., 2) global economy, 3) democracy and human rights, 4) alliances and cooperative security. This paper does not hypothesize as to why there may or may not be consistency among NSS strategy ends. This study is not an analysis of whether implementation of the U.S. security strategy always works towards achieving the ends specified in NSSs. This paper does not attempt to detail the process of how the fourteen NSSs were crafted. This study concludes that despite the differences in style and format, the ends listed in the fourteen NSSs reviewed show remarkable consistency with each other and the four hypothesized "enduring" ends. Establishing this fact is important, because most scholarship has focused on the output of U.S. foreign policy implementation to deduce consistency. This study focuses on the input of grand strategy ends to establish and propose a possible source of U.S foreign policy consistency.