The Trump administration’s newly released National Security Strategy (NSS) lays out a sweeping vision for America’s place in the world, offering the most explicit articulation yet of President Trump’s “America First” worldview. National security strategies are typically delivered within a president’s first year in office, serving as broad road maps that shape foreign policy priorities, guide military planning, and signal where federal dollars are likely to go. This 33-page document does all of that—but it also goes several steps further, especially in redefining America’s role in the Western Hemisphere and rethinking the country’s relationships with Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
A key line that stands out early in the text signals a return to older ideas about American dominance close to home. The document declares: “After years of neglect, the United States will reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere, and to protect our homeland and our access to key geographies throughout the region.” It is the first time Trump has formally tied his doctrine to the 19th-century Monroe principle, which asserted U.S. primacy in the Americas.
What follows is a closer look at the strategy’s biggest themes, why they matter, and how allies, critics, and global observers are reacting.
1. A Sharper Military Focus on the Western Hemisphere
One of the clearest takeaways from the NSS is the promise of a major geographic reorientation of U.S. military power. Trump has already signaled a desire to rebalance forces toward the Western Hemisphere, and the administration’s ongoing military operations in the Caribbean—focused on suspected drug-smuggling boats—are cast as part of that shift.
The NSS calls for the United States to readjust its global military presence to the Americas, moving resources “away from theaters whose relative import to American national security has declined in recent decades or years.”
This approach supports Trump’s framing of military operations in the Caribbean as an escalating conflict with drug cartels. He has pointed to Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro—indicted in the U.S. on drug-trafficking charges—as a primary threat. The NSS does not name Venezuela explicitly, but it does call for “targeted deployments” to secure the border, “defeat cartels,” and expand access to strategically important sites.
The strategy also reinforces Trump’s use of trade and tariffs as leverage in the region. According to the document: “The United States will prioritize commercial diplomacy, to strengthen our own economy and industries, using tariffs and reciprocal trade agreements as powerful tools.”
China is not named directly in this section, but the strategy warns that adversaries are gaining influence in Latin America through finance, technology, and cyber operations. The NSS highlights risks of “espionage, cybersecurity, debt-traps, and other ways” regional dependence on those adversaries could grow.
Taken together, these points suggest that the administration sees the Western Hemisphere as its top strategic priority—militarily, economically, and ideologically.
2. Tense Signals Toward Europe and a Call for “European Greatness”
The document’s tone toward Europe is more pointed than in past strategies. While it acknowledges the importance of the transatlantic relationship, it criticizes what it calls Europe’s “lack of self-confidence,” which it argues has contributed to worsening relations with Russia.
Notably, the strategy does not mention Russia’s invasions of Ukraine or its ongoing cyber and political interference campaigns. Instead, it asserts that the U.S. is the world’s only credible mediator capable of helping Europe and Russia reestablish stability across the continent.
To that end, the document states that the U.S. should help “promote European greatness,” echoing themes Vice President J.D. Vance highlighted in a February speech in Germany. Analysts outside the administration have interpreted this as a shift toward more direct U.S. influence in European political conversations.
Pawel Zerka, of the European Council on Foreign Relations, summarized the dynamic bluntly, writing: “Washington is no longer pretending it won’t meddle in Europe’s internal affairs… It now frames such interference as an act of benevolence (‘we want Europe to remain European’) and a matter of US strategic necessity.” He says the priority as framed by Washington is “‘Cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations.’”
These remarks reflect a growing U.S. belief—at least under Trump—that some European governments are not aligning with American strategic aims and need nudging onto a different path.
3. Clearer Commitments to Taiwan Amid Growing China Tensions
While the section on Europe contains ambiguities, the NSS is more explicit about the Indo-Pacific, especially Taiwan. The Taiwanese foreign ministry welcomed the strategy, highlighting a line that “the U.S. National Security Strategy affirms that deterring conflict over Taiwan is essential to the region and the world.” The statement added: “A secure Taiwan anchors a stable Indo-Pacific, so we’ll continue to strengthen self-defense and contribute to peace and prosperity in the region.”
The strategy calls for the U.S. to preserve “military overmatch” in the region and states that “a favorable conventional military balance” is critical to American interests. It also places renewed pressure on partners like Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Taiwan to increase defense spending—part of a broader emphasis on allied “burden-sharing.”
Patrick Cronin of the Hudson Institute responded that the focus on economic cooperation and deterrence in Asia is “mainly sound,” while noting skepticism about the document’s more optimistic assumptions regarding China.
The administration has emphasized that it is not looking to seek conflict with Beijing, but sees Chinese behavior as a long-term strategic challenge that must be countered through regional alliances and economic policy.
4. A Downshift in the Middle East
Another notable shift in the NSS is the call to reduce the U.S. footprint in the Middle East. The document depicts Iran and its regional proxies as weakened, arguing that the Middle East is no longer the constant source of catastrophe it once was.
It states that “the days in which the Middle East dominated American foreign policy in both long-term planning and day-to-day execution are thankfully over — not because the Middle East no longer matters, but because it is no longer the constant irritant, and potential source of imminent catastrophe, that it once was.”
Still, the NSS recognizes that conflict remains the region’s core dynamic. Some analysts say the administration’s vision of a reduced role in the Middle East is ambitious but hard to implement. Jon Hoffman, of the Cato Institute, noted that many presidents—including Trump himself during his first term—ran on reducing U.S. involvement but often continued long-standing patterns instead.
He wrote: “Washington remains entangled, trying to micromanage the region’s affairs. This approach will not realize the stated objectives of this NSS. Whether Trump has the political will to fundamentally change course in the Middle East remains to be seen.”
5. Partisan Pushback and Domestic Fallout
Domestic reaction to the strategy was intensely divided. Democrats criticized the NSS as a dangerous departure from traditional U.S. leadership.
Rep. Jason Crow argued: “The world will be a more dangerous place and Americans will be less safe if this plan moves forward… It’s an attack on freedom and individual liberty at home and abroad.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal warned that the strategy “foreshadows setbacks – forsaking allies, throwing Ukraine under the bus, and abandoning key strategic goals and basic values. It will make America weaker, not safer. America first is America alone, and we’ll pay the price.”
Other analysts offered more nuanced assessments. Bradley Bowman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies commented that the strategy “includes some threads of continuity from previous national security strategies and some major departures… There are some laudable elements, some notable omissions, and some serious ‘say what?’ moments.”
Hegseth’s Speech Underscores the NSS—and Hardens Its Edges
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reinforced the NSS themes in a speech at the Reagan National Defense Forum. Speaking for roughly 40 minutes, he criticized decades of U.S. foreign policy, argued for a refocusing on the Western Hemisphere, and emphasized homeland security—especially border defense.
He said: “The War Department will not be distracted by democracy building, interventionism, undefined wars, regime change, climate change, woke moralizing and feckless nation-building. We will instead put our nation’s practical, concrete interests first.”
At one point he put it more bluntly: “Out with idealistic utopianism. In with hard-nosed realism.”
Hegseth repeatedly referenced the Monroe Doctrine and praised allied nations that have pledged to increase defense spending. He said: “Allies are not children. We can and should expect them to do their part.”
He also outlined a vision of expanded U.S. military involvement along the U.S.-Mexico border, noting plans to train and equip units specifically for border defense missions.
His tone on China was noticeably softer than in some past defense strategies, stating that the administration seeks “a stable peace, fair trade and respectful relations with China.” He added that the U.S. will respect China’s military buildup while maintaining a “clear-eyed” view of its speed and scale.
The Caribbean Controversy: A Growing Flashpoint
Hegseth’s appearance also came amid scrutiny over the administration’s strikes on boats in the Caribbean. These operations—more than 20 attacks resulting in over 80 deaths—are justified by the administration as necessary to stop drug traffickers. Some lawmakers and legal experts, however, have questioned whether at least one of the strikes constitutes a war crime.
When asked about the controversial Sept. 2 strike, which killed survivors clinging to a vessel after an initial attack, Hegseth defended the decision. “If you bring drugs to this country in a boat, we will find you and we will sink you,” he said.
He added that he “fully” supports the strike ordered by Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley, stating: “I would have made the same call myself.”
Hegseth also dismissed reporting suggesting he had ever issued an order to “kill everybody,” saying: “I don’t know where you get your sources, but they suck… You don’t walk in and say, ‘Kill them all.’ It’s just patently ridiculous.”
This episode reflects the broader challenge of the new strategy: when the U.S. defines criminal threats as military ones, questions inevitably arise about oversight, legality, and proportionality.
The Bigger Picture: What the Strategy Means Going Forward
Trump’s NSS crystallizes several long-brewing shifts in U.S. foreign policy:
A pivot toward the Western Hemisphere as the primary arena for U.S. power.
A harder line on borders and cartels, with more military tools.
A more skeptical stance toward Europe, combined with calls for internal political change there.
A clearer commitment to Taiwan and Indo-Pacific deterrence, balanced with calls for allied burden-sharing.
A modest step back from the Middle East, though questions remain about implementation.
An unapologetically transactional relationship with allies worldwide.
Whether the administration can fully implement these ideas is another question. Rebalancing military resources, reshaping alliances, and redefining America’s global role all require political capital, funding, and diplomatic finesse.
