On December 4, the Donald Trump administration released a new National Security Strategy (NSS) that sharply criticized U.S. allies in Europe while pledging to enhance U.S. influence within the Western Hemisphere. This document outlines principles centered around non-interventionism and the motto “America First,” representing a significant shift from the previous 2022 NSS, which focused on strengthening democracy and maintaining peace in the global order.
The newly released strategy emphasizes that the resolution of the Russia-Ukraine war is a primary interest of the United States. However, it employs harsher language towards long-time U.S. allies in Europe than towards Russia, which was previously identified as a chief geopolitical rival during Trump’s first term. The document also calls for a re-evaluation of U.S. military presence, shifting troops from the Middle East to concentrate on security and combatting drug trafficking from the Western Hemisphere.
In addition to addressing the challenges posed by Russia, the NSS calls for allies in the Indo-Pacific region to increase their burden-sharing responsibilities in deterring potential conflicts with China, particularly in the Taiwan Strait. To analyze the implications of this new strategy, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) convened a panel of experts to discuss its global ramifications.
Rebecca Lissner, a senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at CFR, notes that Trump’s second NSS marks a radical departure in both substance and tone from past strategies, including the original NSS released eight years prior. The earlier document set a new direction for U.S. foreign policy, emphasizing great power competition with China and Russia. The strategic clarity provided in the 2017 NSS is notably absent in the new document, which is more focused on polemics than policy.
The 2025 NSS shifts the emphasis from great power competition to economic relations, stating that economics are “the ultimate stakes.” The new objective for U.S. policy toward China is framed around establishing a “mutually advantageous economic relationship,” a stark contrast to the previous characterization of China as a systemic threat. In this new context, discussions of Russia are vague, with the document failing to adequately define the threats posed by Moscow.
Will Freeman, a fellow for Latin America studies at CFR, highlights that the Western Hemisphere has ascended to the top of U.S. security priorities, a position it last held in 2006. Although some view this as a prudent shift after years of U.S. overcommitment to distant regions, others argue that it reflects an isolationist retreat that could cede influence to China and Russia. The NSS aims to address organized crime, migration, and securing U.S. dominance in the region.
The NSS prioritizes halting mass migration, describing it as a pressing national security issue. The document suggests granting citizenship “only rarely” to foreigners, claiming that increased immigration strains social cohesion and labor markets. While the NSS outlines strategies to combat organized crime and narco-terrorism through military action, it fails to address the underlying issues contributing to these problems.
David Sacks, a fellow for Asia studies at CFR, observes that this NSS effectively signals the end of the great-power competition era with China. While the previous NSS highlighted China’s attempt to reshape global norms, the new document relegates such geopolitical concerns to a secondary role, prioritizing economic competition instead. This shift raises questions about the U.S. commitment to its allies in the region.
Liana Fix, a senior fellow for Europe at CFR, notes that the NSS adopts a “civilizational” approach toward Europe, viewing the continent through the lens of nationalist conservative values. This perspective diverges drastically from previous administrations and raises concerns about the future of U.S.-European alliances. Europe is criticized for perceived failures in upholding Western values, with the document suggesting a shift towards partnerships that align with Trump's ideological framework.
Steven A. Cook, an expert on Middle East and Africa studies, highlights that the NSS downplays the Middle East’s significance in U.S. policy, aligning with Trump’s previous assertions against American nation-building in the region. However, this stance contradicts the administration’s ongoing military engagements and peace efforts in areas like Syria and Israel.
Michelle D. Gavin, a senior fellow for Africa policy studies, critiques the NSS for failing to present a comprehensive strategy for Africa. While it reiterates themes of conflict resolution and trade, it lacks specific strategies for governance and accountability, raising doubts about its effectiveness in addressing the continent's challenges.
The newly unveiled NSS from the Trump administration reflects a significant recalibration of U.S. foreign policy priorities, emphasizing economic relations and regional security while sidelining traditional alliances and geopolitical competition. As the world watches how these strategies will play out, the true impact on U.S. global standing and relations with allies remains to be seen.