American Strength or an American Reorientation? Donald Trump’s National Security Strategy

• This strategy differs from the strategies of past administrations where U.S. global hegemony was the prominent goal. Instead, the Trump administration is utilizing a hardline approach that prioritizes U.S. domestic interests, at the expense of longstanding relations with economic and security partners.

• By presenting a ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine, the U.S. administration is actively pursuing dominance in the Western hemisphere.

• What separates the Trump NSS from previous administrations is the position of China as a global economic competitor, rather than a military one.

• Only two goals are explicitly stated in regard to the Middle East: the security of Israel, and the vital importance of investment and trade in the Arab Gulf nations.

• Trump is referred to as ‘The President of Peace’ in the strategy, but his methods are rooted in divisiveness at home and abroad.

A few weeks ago, the Trump administration published their National Security Strategy (NSS) which aims to make America “the home of freedom on earth”[1]. The content and tone of this latest security strategy reflects President Trump’s aggressive populist style, and the redrawing of diplomatic relations with key allies and adversaries. This strategy differs from the strategies of past administrations where U.S. global hegemony was the prominent goal. Instead, the Trump administration is utilizing a hardline approach that prioritizes U.S domestic interests, at the expense of longstanding relations with economic and security partners. The method in which this new foreign policy is practiced leaves much to be desired in terms of civil discourse, yet the outcome is the same. The Trump administration is eschewing diplomatic protocols globally, to establish dominance in the Western hemisphere while maintaining a short list of core vital interests deemed necessary for American interests.

The President’s speeches to the American public are a useful starting point for understanding his administration’s latest strategy.  Donald Trump’s rhetoric has been fantastical since he began his first presidential campaign nearly a decade ago. Characterized by its confrontational manner and a divisive edge, his language has been translated into domestic and foreign policies unravelling a long history of U.S global diplomacy and hegemonic power. Initially much of the American public, as well as international audiences, though affronted by his language, generally dismissed what many thought of as the showmanship of a former reality TV star. However, dismissing his exclusionary populist ideology has become a detriment to American society. This dangerous ideology has been aimed at groups that differ from his narrow definition of American identity, and few have remained unscathed. Women, migrants, people with disabilities, and Muslims, (among many, many others) have all been frequent targets of President Trump’s vitriol. A 2024 linguistic analysis by the National Bureau of Economic Research of his campaign and presidential speeches from 2015-2024 concludes that his rhetoric has become more divisive over time, systematically targeting different out-groups with derogatory terminology[2]. However, rather than alienating American voters, Donald Trump has won two presidential campaigns. In the decade since he became a public face of U.S far-right conservatism, international relations among global powers have shifted, and new world order steeped in “flexible realism”[3] has arrived.

Key Elements of the Trump National Strategy and How it Differs from the Past

The divisive rhetoric is reflected in this latest national strategy which departs from previous administrations and proposes a “roadmap” for the U. S’s future economic, social, and security goals. The proposed “Trump Corollary” is in line with the hardline stance on asserting U.S dominance and cultural hegemony through controlling migration and economic deregulation. Terms like “cultural sovereignty”, “cultural subversion”, “invasions”, and “hostile foreign threats” are used extensively throughout the document. President Trump’s stated fears of foreign invaders seem to be projected onto allies and foes alike, albeit at different levels.

Beyond the adversarial language, the administration’s security strategy differs from that of its predecessors in several ways. There are clear examples of the current administration’s desire to remove itself from global conflicts, while also playing the role of peacemaker. One of the main principles driving the Trump administration is “Realignment Through Peace”[4] with like-minded partner nations.  Here, “presidential diplomacy”[5] is advanced, where peace with and between other states will be achieved at the will of the President (not Congress). A “Predisposition to Non-Interventionism”[6], where intervention in other nations must be justified is another priority. Yet, there is no clarity on what form of intervention would be considered justified, and under what circumstances. In other portions of the NSS, the reconciliatory tone is replaced with more nationalist language. There are rhetorical connections between the anxieties over mass migration to Europe and the United States, and the decline of culture, the undermining of stability, and the expansion of drug cartels and crime[7].

 Despite the overtures for peace through different avenues of diplomacy in some instances, and divisive language in others, three relevant end goals remain clear for the current U.S. administration in power. It seeks to (1) establish dominance in the Western hemisphere, (2) shift the nature of its relationship with partners in the MENA region, and (3) rebalance its economic relationship with China, while strengthening military relations with Indo-Pacific partners. By presenting a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, the U.S. administration is actively pursuing dominance in the Western hemisphere; continuing Trump’s policy during his first term of disengagement from the “foreign aid paradigm” to an “investment and growth paradigm” with key partners in East Asia, Africa and in the Gulf; and reorienting the U.S. economic relationship with China.

Seeking Dominance in the Western Hemisphere

The Trump administration sees little use in involving itself in the affairs of nations beyond where there is an economic benefit or a direct threat to national interests. Instead, it has honed its focus on maintaining dominance in the Western hemisphere. Two main objectives are stated: To enlist regional powers to promote stability, and to expand military, economic, and political partnerships with new partners. This can only be achieved with Washington at the helm of the Western world, safeguarding Europe’s culture and identity from the threats of mass migration.

Fears of Mass Migration: The current administration rejects the premise of global domination, whether for itself, or other global powers. By consistently asserting the foundational premise of nation-state sovereignty for the U.S. and other Western partners, the national strategy clearly poses a “West vs. The Rest” outlook on global migration patterns, and the changing demographics of Global North nations.

In line with the far-right’s stance on migrants, the most significant priority of the Trump administration is to end “The Era of Mass Migration” [8].  The NSS promotes the image of “European Greatness” as experiencing a phenomenon of “civilizational erasure” due to economic and migrant policies which has led to the erosion of the European character, and the voices of “true patriots”. As a vital U.S trading partner, the Trump administration fears a future Europe that is no longer majority white will not be as receptive to investing in American markets.

Russia, NATO, and A Common Identity: The deepening of European and American relations is similar to those of the previous administration. The Biden-Harris administration was keen to capitalize on the shared cultural and political identities and interests of Western nations as the foundation of ties[9] between them. Maintaining the democratic freedoms of those European nations are explicit priorities of both the last administration[10] and the current one. The Trump strategy strongly adheres to this ideal as one of its main national priorities where it’s administration will actively “oppose elite-driven, anti-democratic restrictions on core liberties in Europe, the Anglosphere, and the rest of the democratic world” [11].

The major divergence from past administrations is President Trump’s stance on Russia. Where the Biden-Harris administration was firmly anti-Russian, pro-Ukraine, and in support of NATO, the Trump administration is actively seeking to end the war in Ukraine through diplomatic efforts in Russia, and recapture European economic stability.  If President Trump is able to succeed in ending the war through diplomatic non-interventionist means, and rebuild European state relations, that will be a victory that no past administration, Democratic or Republican will be able to claim.

China and the Indo-Pacific

 When it comes to the role of the security partners and powerful economies of Asia, the security strategy is divided between China’s economic dominance, and military deterrence through security agreements with Indo-Pacific partners. The Trump administration recognizes the geostrategic importance of investing in developing East and Southeast Asian nations, while balancing US-China relations. 

  Burden-Sharing and Burden-Shifting: The model of collective security from the Trump administration emphasizes a more equitable burden-sharing of defense spending for the protection of allied military interests, whether through NATO partners or Asian nations[12]. Given the massive and long-established U.S. military bases in the region serving as logistical hubs, and significant host-nation funding, relations undoubtedly are shifting between the nations.  There is a clear stance on opposition to the threats of the territorial independence of Taiwan, as well as a clear desire to continue to invest in the protection of economic interests in the region.

China: Despite the President’s continued vocal attacks on China, the language regarding the country in the national strategy focuses on how to reclaim American economic superiority. Its goals related to rebalancing the U.S.-China trade relationship center on reorienting to “disciplined economic action”.[13] What separates the Trump NSS from previous administrations is the position of China as a global economic competitor, rather than a military one. The Biden-Harris administration viewed the People’s Republic of China as the most threatening to the international system due to its role as one of America’s largest trading partners, its growing military and technological capabilities, and its exportation of autocratic models of governance to other nations. The Trump administration has little concern for defending the political and civil rights of other nations, nor is there an interest in engaging in military conflict with a faraway nation when trade wars can be equally effective. By highlighting the powerful economic reach of Chinese goods to low- and middle-income countries, the Trump administration looks to restore the balance between both nations through building stronger relations with those nations and rejecting what it considers to be unfair trading practices on the part of Beijing. There continue to be clear, pointed discriminatory references to “cultural subversion,” exports of deadly drugs such as fentanyl, and “predatory, state-directed subsidies,” much in the style of the U.S. president to maintain the “Us vs. Them” demarcation. The NSS also communicates a clear warning that the security of the region rests on the shared commitments of all allies to maintain mutual economic interests.

Shifting Interests in the Middle East and North Africa

The perception is that the Trump administration’s divisive policies will leave the U.S. culturally, economically, and politically isolated to the Western hemisphere. However, President Trump and his administration remain receptive to global investment and trading with Arab Gulf monarchies. According to the NSS, the “forever wars” of the Middle East are a relic past American governments. Consistent with Trump policies to reduce costly burdens on the American public, reliance on regional allies such as Turkey, Israel, and other Arab nations are the key players in maintaining stability[14].  Only two goals are explicitly stated in regard to the Middle East: the security of Israel, and the vital importance of investment and trade in the Arab Gulf nations. These two positions have already been demonstrated by the history of massive American military and economic aid packages provided to Israel; as well as the major trade deals in energy, tech, and finance with nations such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Progress toward a more permanent peace: According to the NSS, conflict in the region has been mitigated, namely through U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, as well as the cessation of the “thorny” Israeli Palestinian “conflict”[15]. As the “President of Peace”[16], the strategy document lauds the U.S. president for his ability to have negotiated a ceasefire between Hamas and the current Israeli government. The Trump administration seems content to remove itself further from the genocidal war beyond the continued public platitudes and funding of the Israeli government.

Commercial diplomacy:  President Trump, a businessman looking to reduce the bottom above all else, seeks to cut through bureaucratic red tape and expand public-private partnerships at home and abroad. The “unconventional diplomacy”[17]  practiced by President Trump is formed with the intention of protecting American interests. Highlighting the commercial relations with other nations different from the social and political norms of the United States. His “flexible realism”[18] is a departure from past administrations where democracy promotion was the standard hallmark of U.S-Middle East relations since the turn of the twenty-first century. For Presidents Bush, Obama, and Biden, democratic institutionalization was a key strategy in the Middle East. The spread of democratic governance is no concern to the current administration, and indeed this point is made with the policy of flexible realism. President Trump has no interest in “imposing on them democratic or other social change that differs widely from their traditions and histories”[19].  The historically stable Arab monarchies of the Gulf, although politically and culturally different from Western nations, are desirable trading partners in the region and beyond, and the new U.S president is capitalizing on the gains of those new relationships.

What Does the Strategy Omit?

The President of Peace: The Brookings Institute has provided an in-depth breakdown of different elements the Trump administration’s national security strategy[20], highlighting the “incoherency”[21] of the foreign policy put forth and the “hollow” ideology rooted in hypocrisy and contradictory. Caitlin Talmadge references the divisive language as expected but is surprised at the recognition of all humans possessing “God-given equal natural rights”[22]. The labelling of being the “President of Peace” she argues, is hypocritical given the President’s current positioning on a potential regime change in Venezuela.

A Trump Corollary: Further analysis of the Brooking Institute highlights the neo-imperialist power the U.S. is attempting in the Western hemisphere[23]. Vanda Felbab-Brown emphasizing the dangers of an American “forever war” where the Trump administration has demonstrated its willingness to unleash military power against drug cartels in the hemisphere. This dangerous development, tied to immigration (namely from Latin American nations), and the economic relationship between China and the nations south of the U.S. spells a dangerous new frontier for military action on the part of the United States. 

Africa and the Levantine: Despite billions of dollars invested in wars and nation-building projects in the Middle East, the new national strategy clearly declares that this administration no longer seeks to be involved in the conflicts of the region. Indeed, no clear reference is made to North African or Levantine nations. The Trump administration looks at the Gulf monarchies as a pathway to opening new markets with select African nations. The entire continent of Africa – with its vast culture, wealth, and history – is subject to only three paragraphs at the very end of the strategy document. Utilizing the typical colonialist-imperialist language, only vague objectives are mentioned with little concern for the human dignity of those people. Phasing out foreign aid, possible support in conflict resolution negotiations between certain nations, and “harnessing Africa’s abundant natural resources”[24]. Given the U.S. president’s purported track record of disparaging comments about Global South nations, looking at Africa as a resource-rich region from which to extract vital core materials, this minimal attention is no surprise.

Among the Middle East, individual North African and Levantine nations warrant little attention, beyond being areas of investment and to continue fighting against extremism and radical terrorism. Some of these nations have decades of long-standing relations with U.S. that leaves them looking for other alliances that create mutual economic and security benefits.  We can consider the Kingdom as an example. Historically, a close security and economic partner, as well as a recipient of U.S. foreign aid, Jordan has done it’s best to maintain close ties with the U.S. but recognizes the pragmatism in seeking deeper relations with other nations with similar cultural, political, and economic goals. One of our closest neighbors, Syria, is currently in transition from years of civil war, and thus recognizes the rationale behind a close security and economic relationship with Jordan and vice versa. Over the past year, His Majesty King Abdullah has worked tirelessly to build and maintain economic trade deals with European and Asian nations to support growth at home[25]. Indeed, we see this phenomenon of counterbalancing growing among other nations, where states such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are signing mutual defense pacts. At the multilateral institutional level, major organizations and geopolitical blocs such as BRICS and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation has seen an upswell in their activities in the last year and half, where membership in BRICS has grown from five nations to ten, with a number of other growing economies vying to join. 

The Trump Administration’s Reorientation – Will it Succeed in Changing the World Order?

Perhaps President Trump’s goal of transitioning from a unipolar world to a multipolar global order will help reduce the economic disparities between “developed” and “developing” nations.  His administration’s stance on burden sharing, and the unwillingness to allow China to There is a lot that the Trump administration “wants” (as is explicitly stated extensively throughout the NSS). A policy of “America First” requires a majority of American citizens to agree to the economic, social, and political roadmap presented by the administration. However, the overall tenor of the NSS consistently points to President Trump as the sole protector of U.S. interests. This is an ongoing concern of failure of democratic norms that have governed the powerful nation for centuries.

Trump is referred to as “The President of Peace” in the strategy, but his methods are rooted in divisiveness at home and abroad, where the U.S. is slowly losing its credibility as an international hegemon. The unmitigated support of Israel and its genocide in Gaza (which began with the Biden administration), continued divisive rhetoric, rejection of some of the U.S’s most stable partners, as well as the sweeping tariffs with some of its closest trading partners has shaken the international system, causing other nations to seek strategic alliances elsewhere that can support their domestic development via trade deals and security agreements. As the Trump administration moves forward, special attention must be paid to the altering nature of state relations, and whether they involve the U.S or not. However, only time will tell if the national strategy of pulling back from global relationships will help the United States reach the goal of becoming the “the home of freedom on earth”.

[1] Trump Administration (2025). National Security Strategy 2025. Pg. ii. 2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf

[2] Savin, N. & Treisman, D. (2024). Donald trump’s words. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w32665/w32665.pdf

[3] Trump Administration (2025). National Security Strategy 2025. Pg. 9.

[4] Ibid. pg. 9

[5] Ibid. pg. 13

[6] Ibid. pg. 9

[7] Ibid. pg. 5, 11, 16,

[8] Ibid. pg. 11

[9] Biden-Harris Administration (2022). National security strategy October 2022. Pg. 38. Biden-Harris Administration’s National Security Strategy.pdf.

[10] Ibid. Pg. 39

[11] Trump Administration (2025). National Security Strategy 2025. Pg. 12.

[12] Ibid

[13] Ibid. Pg. 20.

[14] Ibid. Pg. 28.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid. Pg. 8.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid. Pg. 9

[19] Ibid.

[20] Brookings Institute. Breaking down trump’s 2025 national security strategy. Breaking down Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy | Brookings

[21] Talmadge, C. (December, 2025). Breaking down trump’s 2025 national security strategy. Breaking down Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy | Brookings

[22] Trump Administration (2025). National Security Strategy 2025. Pg. 9.

[23] Felbab-Brown, V. (December, 2025). Breaking down trump’s 2025 national security strategy

[24] Ibid. Pg. 29.

[25] The Royal Hashemite Court. (2022). King departs for Tokyo as part of Asian working tour [Press release]. https://kingabdullah.jo/en/news/king-departs-for-tokyo-aspart-of-asian-working-tour-1; King departs for Italy at start of working visit to Europe [Press release]. https://kingabdullah.jo/en/news/king-departs-for-italy-at-start-of-working-visit-to-europe-1