The Shifting Sands of US National Security: Beyond “America First” and Preparing for Real Threats
The global landscape is rarely static, but the speed of change today demands a constant reassessment of national security priorities. The recently released Trump administration National Security Strategy (NSS) signals a significant departure from previous approaches, even those adopted during President Trump’s first term. While both the 2017 and 2025 strategies champion an “America First” philosophy, the nuances reveal a potentially troubling disconnect between stated objectives and the realities of a complex world. Understanding these shifts – and the expert critiques surrounding them – is crucial for anticipating the geopolitical challenges ahead.
A Renewed Focus on Military Strength, But at What Cost?
One element consistently highlighted across administrations is the commitment to maintaining a dominant military. The 2025 NSS doubles down on this, aiming to field “the world’s strongest military.” However, as Kori Schake of the American Enterprise Institute points out, this ambition faces a daunting logistical hurdle. China’s shipbuilding capacity currently dwarfs that of the United States – by a factor of 230, according to some estimates. Closing this gap would require sustained investment of approximately 6% of GDP over a decade, a substantial commitment even in favorable economic conditions.
More critically, Schake warns that this military build-up could be undermined by strained alliances. A truly effective national security strategy isn’t built in isolation; it requires robust partnerships. Alienating allies in pursuit of unilateral strength could leave the US vulnerable, particularly in regions where collective security is paramount.
De-emphasizing the “Rules-Based Order”: A Pragmatic Shift or a Dangerous Retreat?
Perhaps the most notable change in the 2025 NSS is the downplaying of the “rules-based international order.” This phrase, a cornerstone of US foreign policy for decades, refers to the network of treaties, institutions, and norms that have underpinned global stability since World War II. Daniel DePetris of Defense Priorities views this as a refreshing move, suggesting it acknowledges the limitations and imperfections of the existing system.
However, abandoning the concept of a rules-based order doesn’t eliminate the need for international cooperation. It simply shifts the focus. The question becomes: what principles will guide US engagement in the absence of a shared framework? Without a clear alternative, the risk of increased instability and a descent into power politics looms large. This shift also raises concerns about the potential for other nations to exploit the vacuum, challenging US interests and values.
The Real Threats: Beyond Europe
A key criticism leveled against the new strategy is its misidentification of primary threats. Schake rightly points out that Europe is not the primary source of danger to US national security. The real challenges lie with nations like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea – all of whom possess the capability and, in some cases, the demonstrated willingness to challenge the existing international order.
Focusing on perceived threats within allied nations risks diverting resources and attention from these more pressing concerns. It also creates unnecessary friction with partners who share common strategic interests. This inward focus, critics argue, prepares the US for a “culture war” against friends rather than a serious confrontation with adversaries.
The Rise of Great Power Competition and the Future of Deterrence
The underlying theme of the 2025 NSS – and the broader trend in global security – is the resurgence of great power competition. China’s economic and military rise, coupled with Russia’s assertive foreign policy, is reshaping the geopolitical landscape. This competition extends beyond traditional military domains to encompass technology, economics, and information warfare.
Effective deterrence in this new era requires a multifaceted approach. It’s no longer sufficient to simply maintain a strong military. The US must also invest in technological innovation, strengthen its economic resilience, and build robust alliances. Furthermore, it must develop effective strategies for countering disinformation and protecting critical infrastructure from cyberattacks. The Council on Foreign Relations offers a detailed analysis of the challenges posed by China’s rise and potential US responses.
Implications for US Foreign Policy and Defense Spending
The 2025 NSS signals a potential shift towards a more transactional and less idealistic foreign policy. This could lead to a re-evaluation of US commitments around the world, with a greater emphasis on burden-sharing and a willingness to prioritize national interests over multilateral obligations.
Defense spending is likely to remain high, but the allocation of resources may change. Increased investment in advanced technologies, such as artificial intelligence, hypersonic weapons, and cyber capabilities, is likely to be prioritized. However, as Schake’s analysis suggests, simply throwing money at the problem won’t be enough. Strategic planning, effective leadership, and strong alliances are equally crucial.
Ultimately, the success of the 2025 National Security Strategy will depend on its ability to adapt to a rapidly changing world. A rigid adherence to “America First” principles, without a clear understanding of the interconnectedness of global security, could prove to be a costly mistake. What are your predictions for the evolving role of the US in a multipolar world? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
