In the early hours of December 5, 2025, the Trump administration quietly released its new National Security Strategy (NSS), setting off waves of anxiety among America’s allies and sparking heated debate across the globe. The document, posted abruptly on the White House website, was immediately pored over by diplomats, military planners, and policy analysts—many of whom were left deeply unsettled by its tone and substance. According to The Economist, the strategy’s approach, which scorns Europe, bullies Latin America, and offers only vague guidance on Asia, has left policymakers—particularly in Europe—scrambling to reassess their security assumptions and alliances.
This latest NSS marks a dramatic shift from the policies of previous administrations. The Trump doctrine, as outlined in the document, proclaims a decisive break with what it calls the "failed policies of the last decades." It denounces the idea that "permanent American domination of the entire world was in the best interests of our country," signaling an end to the era of American unipolarity and the endless wars that came with it. Instead, the administration asserts that its focus will be on putting "America First," a theme that runs throughout the new strategy.
Yet, as The Nation reports, the document is rife with contradictions and controversial priorities. While it dials back the Biden administration’s focus on Great Power rivalries, it also calls for a settlement of the Ukraine war and "strategic stability" with Russia. The strategy insists that NATO should not be a "perpetually expanding alliance," urging European nations to shoulder more of their own defense burdens. Simultaneously, it pledges to build up the militaries of central, eastern, and southern European countries through weapon sales and political collaboration, a move that has left many European leaders both confused and alarmed.
Asia, too, is a focal point—but the document’s guidance is anything but clear. The NSS highlights economic competition with China, emphasizing the need for balanced trade and "reciprocity" over outright military confrontation. However, it also calls for restoring a "favorable conventional military balance" to deter conflict over Taiwan and to patrol the South China Sea, requiring both greater spending from U.S. allies and increased American military investment. At the recent DealBook Summit in New York, this ambiguity did not go unnoticed. Panelists at the "Global Reorder" task force, including a former Israeli prime minister and U.S. foreign policy experts, lamented President Trump’s "scorn for a rules-based order and weaponized tariffs," according to The New York Times. They expressed deep concern over the failure to strengthen alliances crucial for countering what they see as an increasingly aggressive China—a nation described by former Defense Secretary Mark Esper as "the greatest threat we face this century."
Fareed Zakaria, a CNN host and summit panelist, went further, calling China "the first real peer competitor the United States has ever had." He pointed to China’s dominance in key markets such as solar panels, rare earths, penicillin, and robotics, warning that the U.S. risks ceding vital economic ground if it fails to rally its allies and partners.
Meanwhile, the NSS signals a reduced U.S. military presence in the Middle East, with energy independence cited as a rationale for deprioritizing the region. The document does, however, reaffirm America’s commitment to ensuring that energy supplies remain secure and that Israel’s safety is guaranteed. The U.S. will continue to police the Strait of Hormuz and combat terrorism, but the broader message is one of strategic retrenchment—unless, of course, "urgent threats" arise, such as drug trafficking or perceived moves by competitors like Venezuela.
Latin America, for its part, is treated to a new "Trump Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine. The NSS makes it clear that the U.S. intends to deny competitors—especially China—the ability to position forces or control critical infrastructure in the Western Hemisphere. This includes pushing out foreign companies and demanding "sole source contracts for our companies." Such rhetoric, reminiscent of gunboat diplomacy, has left many in the region wary of renewed American interventionism and economic coercion.
On the African continent, the strategy is terse. Africa is mentioned only as a source of natural resources, with the U.S. pledging to invest while remaining "wary" of resurgent Islamic terrorist activity. Critics, including The Nation, note that the document’s scant attention to Africa reflects a broader pattern of neglect and even disdain for regions deemed less strategically vital.
Perhaps most striking is the NSS’s approach to global challenges that many experts view as existential. The document elevates immigrants and drugs as the greatest threats to the U.S., while largely dismissing the dangers posed by climate change, pandemics, inequality, and the nuclear arms race. In 2024 alone, the U.S. suffered 27 billion-dollar climate-related disasters totaling an estimated $182.7 billion, yet the administration has actively undermined global efforts to address the crisis and weakened domestic resilience. Public health capacity has also been eroded, with the U.S. withdrawing from the World Health Organization even as new pandemics loom. Economic policies, meanwhile, have favored tax cuts for the wealthy, exacerbating already stark inequality.
The NSS also makes no mention of renewing the last nuclear arms control agreement, which recently expired. Instead, the administration touts a costly "Golden Dome" missile defense system, a move critics argue will only spur China and Russia to expand their own nuclear arsenals. The document’s call for a "culture of competence" rings hollow for many, given the administration’s pattern of firing experienced officials and imposing political loyalty tests throughout the government.
On the diplomatic front, the NSS’s vision of "unmatched soft power" is undermined by the dismantling of agencies like AID and Voice of America, which have long been central to American influence abroad. Cuts to science and technology investment have prompted an exodus of talent, with many scientists—both native and foreign-born—considering emigration. The administration’s focus on energy production has come at the expense of solar, wind, and energy efficiency, ceding the markets of the future to competitors like China.
Perhaps most controversially, the strategy document weaves white nationalist themes into its vision for America’s future. Immigration is to be limited to "deserving" groups, and the U.S. will support far-right parties in Europe, aiming to "cultivate resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations." This, critics say, marks a radical departure from America’s traditional role as a champion of democracy and pluralism.
As Charles Freeman, a former assistant secretary of defense, succinctly put it: "Ego-driven petulance is no substitute for strategy. Protection rackets and cronyism are no substitute for diplomacy. Intemperate insults do not promote partnership.… It is generally considered wise to divide, not unite one’s adversaries. We have done the opposite." (The Nation)
For now, America’s friends and adversaries alike are left to sift through the NSS’s mixed signals and prepare for a world in which the U.S. is, at once, more assertive and more unpredictable. The only certainty is that the global order is shifting—and America’s role in it is more contested than ever.