Trump national security strategy outlines radical shift in U.S. priorities, boosting dominance in Latin America while reducing focus on other regions.
 |
| US President Donald Trump speaks during a signing ceremony for a peace agreement with Rwandan President Paul Kagame and Democratic Republic of the Congo President Felix Tshisekedi at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington, DC, on December 4, 2025. Photo by Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images |
The Trump national security strategy released on Friday has set the stage for a major transformation in how the United States positions itself around the world. From the first paragraph, the Trump national security strategy defines a new direction that limits U.S. involvement in global affairs while strengthening its dominance in Latin America and intensifying its battle against migration. The strategy paper marks one of the most significant shifts in U.S. foreign policy in decades, laying out how the administration intends to reshape American priorities, alliances, and regional commitments.
The Trump national security strategy offers one of the clearest expressions of the administration’s America First doctrine, translating campaign slogans and early policy decisions into a structured foreign policy outlook. Unlike previous strategies that elevated Asia as the central theater of U.S. competition, the Trump strategy paper places surprising emphasis on the Western Hemisphere. However, China still appears prominently as a core economic and geopolitical rival.
Within the strategy, the administration also issues unusually sharp criticisms of traditional allies in Europe. It signals that the United States will support political forces opposed to European Union–backed norms, particularly in areas such as immigration, multiculturalism, and the balance between national sovereignty and shared governance. This rhetoric reflects the president’s long-standing skepticism toward EU institutions and his willingness to align with nationalist parties gaining strength in several European states.
In a notable departure from decades of U.S. strategic thinking, the Trump national security strategy states that the country “rejects the ill-fated concept of global domination for itself.” The document emphasizes that Washington seeks neither to rule the international system nor to enforce its standards across the world. Instead, it argues that the United States should focus on preventing other major powers from achieving dominance in regions of strategic significance.
The strategy underscores that this shift does not imply a wholesale withdrawal from international commitments. Rather, it calls for a reevaluation of which theaters matter most to U.S. interests and which no longer justify significant military or financial investment.
A central component of the Trump national security strategy is the call to reposition U.S. military resources. The document proposes “a readjustment of our global military presence to address urgent threats in our Hemisphere, and away from theaters whose relative import… has declined.” This reflects the administration’s view that instability and competition in Latin America require greater attention, while conflicts in other regions may not be as critical to U.S. security as they once were.
The approach moves away from the traditional U.S. strategy of projecting power across multiple continents and instead prioritizes security closer to home. The strategy suggests that threats such as drug trafficking, political instability, and foreign influence in the Western Hemisphere merit a consolidated response backed by both diplomatic and military tools.
A striking portion of the Trump national security strategy is its emphasis on asserting U.S. dominance in Latin America. Over recent years, the administration has stepped up operations against alleged drug traffickers at sea, challenged leftist governments such as Venezuela, and signaled interest in exerting greater control over strategic assets like the Panama Canal. The strategy frames these actions as part of a broader effort to revive a modern version of the Monroe Doctrine.
The document explicitly refers to this approach as the "Trump Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine, drawing a direct connection to the 19th-century policy that barred European powers from controlling Latin America. Now, Washington characterizes its role as preventing new rivals — including China — from gaining a foothold in the region. The strategy claims that ensuring U.S. primacy in the Western Hemisphere is essential to national security and economic interests.
Beyond Latin America, the Trump national security strategy delivers some of its strongest language toward Europe, a region long considered a pillar of U.S. alliances. The document asserts that Europe is in decline both economically and culturally, and suggests that the United States should encourage “resistance” inside European nations to the EU’s political direction. The tone is unprecedented for an official U.S. government document addressing allies.
Germany issued a quick response, stating that it did not need “outside advice” on how to manage its internal affairs. Still, the strategy insists that Europe faces what it describes as a potential “civilizational erasure” if current trends continue. This type of rhetoric mirrors themes popular among far-right political movements in Europe, which have gained traction in recent years.
The strategy also questions the long-term trajectory of NATO. As the administration seeks to end the war in Ukraine under terms likely to benefit Russia, the strategy argues for reducing the perception that NATO is continuously expanding. Critics say the language signals a retreat from U.S. leadership in Europe, while supporters argue it reflects a realistic reassessment of American priorities.
Another significant shift in the Trump national security strategy is its reduced focus on the Middle East. For decades, the region dominated U.S. foreign policy decisions, driven by conflicts, counterterrorism goals, and energy needs. The new strategy argues that domestic energy production diminishes the strategic necessity of deep engagement in the Gulf.
While the strategy reaffirms a commitment to Israel’s security, it adopts more restrained language than earlier Trump-era documents. It also avoids outlining broader ambitions for reshaping Middle Eastern politics or committing to long-term stabilization missions.
The Trump national security strategy maintains that the United States seeks a “free and open” Asia-Pacific but places less focus on China than some analysts expected. The document identifies China primarily as an economic challenger rather than a military threat requiring expanded U.S. presence in Asia.
Speculation had grown over whether the administration might alter its approach to Taiwan, a key point of U.S.–China tension. Instead, the strategy reiterates support for maintaining the decades-old status quo while urging allies such as Japan and South Korea to take greater responsibility in securing Taiwan’s defense.
Africa receives only limited attention in the Trump national security strategy. The document proposes shifting away from what it calls “liberal ideology” and aid-based relationships, emphasizing instead the need to secure access to critical minerals and reduce U.S. obligations that do not directly benefit national interests.
Overall, the Trump national security strategy represents a profound reordering of U.S. foreign policy. It reflects the administration’s belief that America must step back from its historic global leadership role, focus its resources on regions that present immediate threats, and redefine long-standing relationships with allies.
With its focus on Latin America, reduced involvement in the Middle East, recalibrated stance toward Europe, and restrained posture in Asia, the strategy outlines a vision in which the United States selectively engages based on narrowly defined national priorities. Whether this transformation strengthens or undermines U.S. influence remains a point of intense debate, but the Trump national security strategy makes clear that the administration sees this realignment as necessary for confronting the world as it is today.
