Special for followers of codigopostalrd.net
On December 4, 2025, the Trump administration released its 2025 National Security Strategy, a 29-page document that serves as the executive branch’s guide to U.S. foreign policy and security priorities.
Described by President Trump as a “roadmap to ensure that America remains the greatest and most successful nation in the history of humankind,” this strategy builds on the “America First” approach of his first term but introduces more radical changes, including a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine for the Western Hemisphere and a predisposition toward non-interventionism.
The National Security Strategy (NSS) criticizes post-Cold War U.S. strategies as excessive and naive, particularly regarding engagement with China and the promotion of global democracy, while emphasizing sovereignty, economic reciprocity, and selective engagement to deter threats and foster U.S. prosperity. whitehouse.gov
news.usni.org
The document prioritizes fundamental national interests—such as border security, economic dominance, and preventing adversarial hegemony—over global leadership.
Key sections outline principles such as “peace through strength” (acknowledging Trump’s agreements to resolve eight global conflicts, including the ceasefire in Gaza), regional approaches (e.g., reaffirming U.S. primacy in the Western Hemisphere and urging Europe to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP), and threats ranging from Chinese economic coercion to mass migration and the “erasing of civilization” in Europe due to low birth rates and EU policies.
The release of the NSS prompted swift and polarized reactions, highlighting its role as both a signal and a political statement. Nationally, he galvanized Trump’s base by presenting his second term as a “welcome corrective” to previous administrations, merging domestic strategy with campaign rhetoric (for example, promoting Trump as “The President of Peace”).
Republicans praised his focus on worker prosperity and trade reciprocity, viewing it as a pragmatic rejection of “endless wars” and globalist overreach.
However, Democrats condemned him as isolationist and dangerous, with figures like Senator Jack Reed warning that he “portends setbacks: abandoning allies, leaving Ukraine exposed, and abandoning key strategic objectives.”
Critics, including progressive media outlets, denounced his background of “explicit white nationalism,” pointing to language about European demographics and migration as an “advocacy for the use of the state to enforce white supremacy.”
On X (formerly Twitter), reactions ranged from enthusiasm for his anti-EU stance (“Fantastic! The transatlantic crowd in Europe must be panicking”) to alarm over his “racist and fascist ideology,” with users debating its implications for global hegemony.
Internationally, allies expressed concern. European leaders, particularly in Brussels and Berlin, considered him an “existential threat,” and his calls to “cultivate resistance” against EU “censorship” and “open borders” indicated US support for far-right parties like Germany’s AfD.
NATO partners were outraged by demands for a “Hague Compromise” to increase defense spending, interpreting it as a “burden-sharing” rather than a sharing of resources.
In Asia, the document’s hardline stance toward China—promising tariffs and burden-sharing among allies to deter Taiwanese aggression—was welcomed by hawks but raised fears of trade disruptions.
Markets showed slight volatility, with US defense stocks rising 1% to 2% on expectations of a reoriented military posture, while European indices fell amid alliance jitters.
The inward focus of the National Security Strategy (NSS) and its rejection of multilateralism could transform global dynamics, with ripple effects across all regions:
By prioritizing the Western Hemisphere and the Indo-Pacific, the US risks distancing itself from Europe, which could accelerate NATO’s erosion.
Calls for a ceasefire in Ukraine and the normalization of relations with Russia could embolden Moscow, leading to a more isolated and weaker US stance, as analysts predict.
Greater European defense autonomy is expected (for example, through EU initiatives), but also short-term instability, including hybrid threats from Russia.
The strategy’s economic “reciprocity” (tariffs, reshoring) seeks to counter Beijing’s “unrestricted war,” but could trigger retaliatory trade wars, disrupting global supply chains.
Deterrence through alliances like the Quad is robust, but without the promotion of democracy, it could isolate the US from soft power tools, allowing China to expand its influence in the Global South.
The “Trump Corollary” reinforces US dominance against non-hemispheric rivals (e.g., China in Latin America), promising military adjustments for border security and anti-cartel operations. This could stabilize migration flows, but risks backlash from neighboring countries, fostering resentment and an unequal distribution of the burden. Global Order and US Hegemony: Focusing solely on “core interests” negates the liberal international order, potentially creating a multipolar vacuum where regional powers (China, Russia) fill the void. Critics warn of a “fractured future,” with diminished US credibility eroding alliances and prompting questioning of norms such as freedom of navigation. On the positive side, it could optimize resources for domestic reindustrialization, aiming for a $40 trillion economy by the 2030s.
Other broader risks include increased domestic polarization, as cultural critiques of the National Security Strategy (e.g., regarding Europe’s “falling birth rates”) fuel accusations of ethnonationalism, which could undermine U.S. soft power abroad.
Conclusions
The 2025 National Security Strategy represents a bold, albeit controversial, shift toward a transactional, sovereignty-focused U.S. foreign policy that prioritizes American economic and security achievements over ideological crusades.
Its strengths lie in realistic assessments of threats (e.g., intellectual property theft by China, migration pressures) and innovative tools such as deal diplomacy, which could generate efficiencies in a world of limited resources.
However, its short-sighted pragmatism—dismissing alliances as opportunistic and interfering in allies’ politics—may accelerate global fragmentation, weakening the United States over time by eroding trust and attracting opportunistic rivals.
Ultimately, success hinges on execution: if the burden can be shared and deterrence exercised without isolation, it could usher in the promised “new golden age.”
Yet, as one analyst noted, “selfish decisions can lead to a far lonelier, weaker, and more fractured future.” At this crucial time, this document does not merely outline a strategy; it tests whether the United States can thrive by leading from a position of strength or risk decline by retreating inward.
