The Unraveling of Strategy: What Trump’s National Security Strategy Reveals About the Future of American Power
A staggering 82% of geopolitical risk professionals believe great power competition will increase in 2024. This isn’t a prediction; it’s a reality already reflected in the disjointed, often contradictory, 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) released by the Trump administration. While widely dismissed as bombastic and incoherent, a closer look reveals a document that, despite its flaws, inadvertently clarifies emerging shifts in American foreign policy and exposes critical vulnerabilities in our approach to a rapidly changing world.
From Kissinger to “Lickspittles”: The Erosion of Strategic Thinking
The contrast is stark. Past National Security Strategies, crafted by figures like Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski – themselves products of displacement and deeply informed by historical context – were characterized by reasoned analysis, even if sometimes anodyne. This latest iteration reads more like a collection of self-serving pronouncements and fantastical claims. Assertions that Trump “single-handedly reversed more than three decades of mistaken assumptions about China” or brought peace to long-standing conflicts strain credulity. This isn’t strategic thinking; it’s a performance of power divorced from reality.
The Paradox of Populism: Isolationism and Interventionism Collide
The NSS embodies a fundamental tension: a populist rejection of the foreign policy establishment coupled with a desire to project American strength. It simultaneously champions alliances and flirts with “America First” isolationism. This internal conflict isn’t accidental. It reflects the fractured nature of the Trump coalition, a blend of competing factions and the president’s own mercurial impulses. This ambivalence isn’t just a stylistic quirk; it’s a strategic handicap, making it difficult for allies and adversaries alike to discern consistent American intentions.
The Monroe Doctrine Reboot: A Return to Intervention?
One of the more concerning elements of the NSS is the “Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.” While ostensibly aimed at protecting American interests in the Western Hemisphere, it essentially asserts the right to interfere in the affairs of any government the administration dislikes. This echoes a historical pattern of US interventionism, but without the constraints of international law or a clear articulation of long-term goals. The document lacks any emphasis on building consensus or strengthening democratic institutions, relying instead on transactional “deals” – a worrying sign for regional stability.
Beyond the Rhetoric: Glimmers of Pragmatism
Despite the overwhelming negativity, the NSS isn’t entirely devoid of insight. It correctly identifies a long-standing American tendency to neglect the Western Hemisphere until a crisis demands attention. The focus on commerce in Africa, shifting away from a purely aid-based approach, also represents a potentially positive development. While the administration undervalues the success of programs like PEPFAR, recognizing the importance of economic engagement is a step in the right direction. Furthermore, the move to integrate USAID into the State Department, while controversial, could streamline foreign aid and improve accountability.
Migration as a Defining Challenge
Perhaps most surprisingly, the NSS accurately identifies mass migration as a significant challenge, a point often downplayed by progressive voices. While the administration’s rhetoric about the “extinction of European culture” is hyperbolic, the underlying concern about the social and political consequences of uncontrolled migration is legitimate. This issue will only intensify in the coming years, demanding nuanced and pragmatic solutions that go beyond simplistic ideological positions. The Migration Policy Institute offers valuable data and analysis on this complex issue.
The Blob’s Demise and the Future of Expertise
The NSS’s disdain for the “foreign policy elites” – famously derided as “The Blob” by Obama speechwriter Ben Rhodes – signals a broader trend: the diminishing influence of traditional expertise in shaping American foreign policy. The current administration may represent the last gasp of a generation of seasoned diplomats and intelligence professionals. As the Democratic Party becomes increasingly influenced by its progressive wing, the prospect of a return to thoughtful, centrist foreign policy seems increasingly remote. This erosion of expertise poses a significant risk in a world characterized by escalating geopolitical tensions and complex challenges.
A World Without Clear Adversaries
Critically, the NSS fails to provide a coherent assessment of America’s adversaries. China is portrayed primarily as a commercial rival, Russia as a manageable Eurasian power, and Iran as a neutralized threat. This simplistic framing ignores the multifaceted nature of these actors and their evolving capabilities. Effective national security strategy requires a deep understanding of opponents – their motivations, strengths, and weaknesses. The current document offers only clichés and slogans, substituting analysis for assertion.
The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy isn’t a blueprint for American resurgence; it’s a symptom of a deeper malaise. It reveals a nation grappling with internal divisions, a declining faith in expertise, and a growing disconnect from the realities of a complex world. The challenge for the future isn’t simply to craft a better strategy, but to rebuild the intellectual and institutional foundations of American foreign policy. What steps can be taken to restore a culture of strategic thinking and informed decision-making in Washington? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
