Executive Summary

• The new NSS (National Security Strategy) is a clear departure, some call it radical others refreshing, from previous NSS documents over the past 20 years. Not isolationist but focused.
• Commonalities are few and predictable. Differences are marked and unapologetic.
• The welfare of Americans, through economic strength, is primary.
• Threats are not explicitly named, North Korea is not even mentioned, and the Western Hemisphere is raised to preeminence.
• Background

The NSS is mandated by the National Security Act of 1947, amended by the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986. Section 603 of Goldwater-Nichols requires the President deliver a comprehensive, annual “national security strategy report”.

A NSS should:

• Communicate the vision for the future, the “Ends” to protect vital interests,
• Outline “Ways”, how strategies shape the global environment and provide security,
• Finally, address the capabilities the nation needs, the “Means” to achieve the vision.

A NSS usually addresses broad and enduring goals, acknowledging changes in the World Order while prioritizing threats to America.  The current NSS objects to previous NSS goals and sets a new stage for American power with insight into their underlying philosophies.

Commonality

There is little commonality between this NSS and previous strategies.  All claim to protect the security of American interests and defend the nation.  Energy is mentioned 20 times, mostly in terms of getting more from our own resources and from imports.  But no new energy policies are advanced, except the desire to have more.

For Taiwan, the NSS leaves no room for interpretation: “We will also maintain our longstanding declaratory policy on Taiwan, meaning that the United States does not support any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.”[1]  The ways are to reinforce U.S. and allies’ capacity to deny any attempt to seize Taiwan or achieve a balance of forces so unfavorable as to make defending the island impossible.  But not alone: it calls on allies to finance their own security and partner with the US Military in the region.

Common themes are elements of power and how they can be used to help shape the world order to enhance American security.  However, the following passage though similar in the previous four NSS documents, has a very different tone today:

(2006) Because democracies are the most responsible members of the international system, promoting democracy is the most effective long-term measure for strengthening international stability; reducing regional conflicts; …and extending peace and prosperity.[2]

(December 2025) Seeking peace deals at the President’s direction, even in regions…peripheral to our immediate core interests, is an effective way to increase stability, strengthen America’s global influence, realign countries and regions toward our interests, and open new markets.[3]

It is not a great leap to see the phrase “peace deals” in the current NSS as also including financial deals for America. This is where the similarities end.

How the 2025 National Security Strategy Differs from Previous Documents

There are many fundamental differences between the last two strategies. 2025 NSS Threats discussed are unchecked migration, terrorism, drugs, espionage and human trafficking. It does not echo previous discussions on Great Power Competition (introduced in 2017 by Trump), Weapons of Mass Destruction, Cyber Threats/Terrorism, or Climate Change (stated 63 times in 2022 but only once in 2025 as a “disastrous ideology).  Neither China nor Russia are listed as threats to American security.  The discussion on non-Hemispheric competitors is an uncharacteristically gentle approach to these nations.

The NSS criticizes previous “elites” for taking on too many burdens at the expense of Americans.  It differs from previous ones due to the partisan language and targeted derision of previous administrations. “Our elites … miscalculated America’s willingness to shoulder forever global burdens to which the American people saw no connection to the national interest.”  The NSS claims these elites overestimated our ability to fund a massive domestic budget (deficit) with welfare, regulations that burdened American business, and a vast military, diplomatic, intelligence, and foreign aid bureaucracy.  The claim on foreign aid is overblown, as the entire FY24 aid budget, $84 billion, is 10% of the DoD budget.

These misguided and destructive bets on globalism and… “free trade” hollowed out the very middle class and industrial base on which American economic and military preeminence depend. They allowed allies and partners to offload the cost of their defense onto the American people, and sometimes to suck us into conflicts.

In sum, not only did our elites pursue a fundamentally undesirable and impossible goal, in doing so they undermined the very means necessary to achieve that goal: the character of our nation upon which its power, wealth, and decency were built.[4]

The last 11 months of tariffs, foreign aid changes, support to allies, and global economic turmoil reflect these views.  No longer will the US be the basis for international security, which will affect all nations.  This clearly departs from Biden’s Presidential Memorandum to direct US funds to low- and middle-income nations to finance infrastructure improvements in climate and energy security, health, connectivity, and gender equality and equity.  Biden’s approach failed almost completely.  As with the 2004 Bush Millennium Challenge Account for Africa, many nations lack basic infrastructure and financial institutions to execute allocated funds.  The 2025 NSS strongly rejects that approach.

Europe: Time to Wake up and Smell the Future

The NSS takes on European culture and the effects of reliance on the US directly.  The continent has seen its share of global GDP reduced by almost half in the last 35 years.  The NSS claims this reduction is due in part to the effect on creativity from EU regulation but also warns that Europe we have known will slowly morph in 20 years due to migration and declining birthrates. In 2023, 3.67 million babies were born in the EU, a 5.4% decrease from 2022: the largest annual decline since 1961.  Since 2001 birthrates have stayed around 1.5 births per woman, below the 2.1 needed to sustain a society.  Muslim women, especially recent emigrees have notably higher birthrates than Europeans.  Between 2015 and 2020 Muslim birthrates ranged from 1.8 (Ireland) to 3.1 (Finland).[5] Research indicates second and third generation women trend toward lower rates, merging with the societies they join.

Immigration has been a political issue recently, evidence that Europeans recognize this fact in some measure.  The research also points out that long-term conclusions about these rates are affected by many societal factors.  The NSS prediction is extreme.

Russia’s responsibility for the aggression against Ukraine is omitted, but Russia is not treated like an equal either, which will frustrate Moscow because appearance is more important than reality.  The document apparently seeks to “reset” ties with Russia, recalling the failed “reset” attempt by Obama and Clinton in 2009.  This section was also possibly written months before Putin’s flip-flops on a peace deal and was kept out of hope for a deal.

NSS 2025 Ends or Goals

The NSS takes two pages to spell out what Americans should want.  Protecting the territory and economy from attack and foreign influence in any form as well as upgrading our infrastructure are primary.  The economy, industrial base, energy sector and overall intellectual property are listed as things we need to have for security gained through economic growth.  Achieving these goals will lead to a “restoration and reinvigoration of American spiritual and cultural health” where all Americans are employed, satisfied, and part of a strong traditional family.  This is intentionally narrower than previous documents.

Example: Ukraine

The NSS lays responsibility for helping Ukraine at the Europe’s feet, without blaming Russia for aggression. The NSS lays out the view that European relations with Russia will require a significant U.S. role to reestablish stability and mitigate the risk of conflict with Russia.  The document states:” It is a core interest of the United States to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine”.  A stable and prosperous Europe is also in the interests of America.  “Europe’s cutting-edge scientific research and world-leading cultural institutions also mean the US cannot afford to ignore Europe because it would be self-defeating the strategy.” Of concern, the document states Washington “finds itself at odds with European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the war” in Ukraine. It then says that “a large European majority wants peace, yet that desire is not translated into policy, in large measure because of those governments’ subversion of democratic processes.” It claims Europe suffers from a lack of self-confidence, in part due to reliance on the US in the past, and consequently they view Russia as an existential threat.  This is simply not true.  Europe is clearly united against a more aggressive Russia, and they view Russia as a threat because of its past actions.[6] That said, Trump’s success getting NATO nations to spend more on defense has had parallels in the EUs support of Ukraine.

In 2023 the EU budget enabled €19.5 billion in short-term assistance, including a support package of €21.5 billion in loans for Ukraine.  In 2024 that increased to €18.1 billion, for 2026 and 2027 it increases to €90 billion ($105 billion).  In addition, the EU has launched a dedicated financial instrument for 2024 to 2027.  These actions are substantial but also point to how they view Russia. Denmark and the Netherlands are directly supporting Ukraine’s defense industry with rapid allocation vehicles to get funds to industries who can achieve rapid (2 to 6 month) deliveries of equipment and munitions to the front.  Although many increases in Ukraine support were prior to Trump taking office, recent moves seem to indicate that this trend will continue and likely increase.

The Trump Corollary

The first region discussed is the Western Hemisphere and the introduction of the Trump

Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.  “After years of neglect, the United States will reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere, and to protect our homeland and our access to key geographies throughout the region. We will deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets, in our Hemisphere.” [7]

The policy clearly states the ways of accomplishing the goal: Enlist and Expand.  The US will enlist friends to control migration, stop drug flows, and strengthen stability and security. Next the strategy is to Expand by cultivating and strengthening new partners while bolstering our own nation’s appeal as the “Hemisphere’s economic and security partner of choice”.  The Ways include changes to previous approaches: deployments to secure the border and defeat cartels with a more appropriate Coast Guard and Navy presence, including where necessary the use of lethal force to replace the “failed law enforcement-only strategy”.  The operation to arrest President Maduro clearly qualifies.

The strategy seems to be on uneven ground, as it describes strengthening of the US economy, through tariffs and “reciprocal” trade agreements to help partner nations build up their economies. This approach contrasts with China’s Belt and Road Initiative in South America, which has, for years, built relationships with nations to our south, while America tried to be everything, everywhere for everyone. Without naming China, the NSS admits that some foreign influence will be hard to reverse, but it can be accomplished by showing current and future partners the actual costs embedded in Chinese “low cost” foreign assistance. “The choice all countries should face is whether they want to live in an American-led world of sovereign countries and free economies or in a parallel one in which they are influenced by countries on the other side of the world.” The 23-page Chinese policy paper on building stronger relationships with Latin American countries is a long and pandering piece that lays out their goal of building a global south, on the basis of the One China Principle.[8] The NSS is correct; Chinese inroads to South America will, in fact, be very hard to reverse, but it sees the threat from China as principally economic, not military.

Conclusion

As with most things Trump, except for Great Power Competition, there is little hidden or unspoken. It is a roadmap of changes and options, with Iran and Venezuela as examples for all.  In the Western Hemisphere we should expect some nations to change, perhaps subtlety, policies that cross the line of harming American interests or of appearing to not take the administration seriously.  Columbia will likely be the next test case, and if they make some changes in drug enforcement, particularly in distribution channels, they might avoid more harsh measures and could raise their status in the administrations’ eyes.

Other areas are also mentioned such as Africa and Southwest Asia.  The themes are the same, nations should no longer rely on the US to be everywhere and should focus on making their own societies great.  The focus on burden shifting and away from the US carrying most of the financial and resource burden are themes throughout the paper.  Burden sharing, in 2025’s context, means the US will organize a burden-sharing network, with our government in support but not the primary financial pillar.  For anyone who has followed the rhetoric from the last 18 months, it should be no surprise that the following statement, closing the section on Competence and Merit, underpins the entire strategy: “In our every principle and action, America and Americans must always come first.”

[1] See: https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/national-security/

[2] See: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2006/

[3] See: https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/national-security/

[4] See: Ibid.

[5] See: Muslim Birthrates in Europe

[6] See: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2025/06/23/views-of-russia-and-putin-2025/

[7] See: https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/national-security/

[8] See: China’s Policy Paper on Latin America and the Caribbean

Learn more about the author, Advisory Board member and retired U.S. Air Force Major General Michael Snodgrass.