US President Donald Trump’s administration published its strategic vision for the position and role of the United States in the world on 4 December 2025. The document, titled The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, spans 29 pages and is preceded by a presidential foreword of less than two pages. It is divided into four main sections: an introductory critique of post-Cold War US strategies; a discussion of strategy as understood by the Trump administration; an outline of the tools available to achieve US objectives; and a final section presenting the core strategic vision in terms of principles, priorities and regional approaches.
Upon publication, the strategy generated widespread commentary from analysts, policymakers and figures close to governments around the world. Despite the diversity of perspectives, there was broad agreement that the document represented a qualitative shift in Washington’s view of the international system and signalled a retreat from the traditional US role as the singular dominant global power of the past three decades.
This reading of the document seeks to understand it from the perspective of its authors, while also considering domestic US constraints that may limit or shorten the lifespan of its policies. It further places the strategy within the context of ongoing international power competition.
The Trump administration’s theoretical framework begins with a blunt rejection of previous US strategies since the end of the Cold War. According to the document, effective strategy must be realistic, coherent and capable of linking objectives with available means. Past administrations, it argues, failed in this regard, offering instead aspirational “wish lists” that lacked clear priorities. Washington elites pursued global hegemony even where no direct threat to US national security existed, contributing to policies—such as unrestrained globalisation and free trade—that weakened America’s industrial base and middle class.
The document frames three central questions: What does the United States want? What means does it possess? And how can goals and means be coherently linked? At the most general level, the answer is the preservation of the United States as a sovereign, independent republic that prioritises the welfare of its citizens. In foreign policy terms, this translates into five core objectives: ensuring stability and good governance in the Western Hemisphere in line with the Monroe Doctrine; countering external policies that harm the US economy; supporting European allies while encouraging them to regain confidence in their civilisational heritage; preventing hostile powers from dominating Middle Eastern energy resources and strategic corridors without becoming trapped in endless regional wars; and maintaining US leadership in advanced technologies, from biotechnology to artificial intelligence.
To achieve these goals, the strategy emphasises enduring American strengths: a self-correcting political system, the world’s largest economy and leading financial system, technological innovation, extensive alliances, unmatched military power, geographic security, abundant natural resources, cultural influence, and the resolve of the American people. The task of the strategy is to align these assets realistically with US global objectives.
Building on this framework, the document outlines key principles guiding Trump’s foreign policy. These include a clear definition of national interests with national security as the overriding priority; peace through strength; a general preference for non-intervention, with strict conditions governing any intervention; flexible realism that avoids imposing Western values on societies with different historical and cultural foundations; the primacy of the nation-state and the defence of sovereignty against transnational organisations; respect for US sovereignty alongside that of others; maintenance of a global balance of power to prevent any rival from achieving dominance; prioritisation of American workers rather than abstract growth; fairness in alliances and trade through burden-sharing and protection against predatory practices; and, finally, efficiency and merit, encapsulated in the principle of “America First”.
The strategy’s stated priorities include border control and migration restriction, protection of fundamental rights in the United States and Europe, equitable burden-sharing within alliances such as NATO, rebuilding alliances through peace-making, and achieving economic security by rebalancing trade, securing supply chains, rebuilding industrial and military capacity, ensuring energy dominance, and preserving US financial leadership.
Regionally, the world is divided into five strategic circles. The Western Hemisphere receives the greatest emphasis, with the administration explicitly rejecting any military presence by rival powers and reaffirming a Trump-era extension of the Monroe Doctrine. Asia, particularly the Indo-Pacific, is framed around containing China’s rise through deterrence, trade correction, and alliances with Japan, Australia, South Korea and India. Europe is approached under the banner of “supporting European greatness”, encouraging self-reliance, reduced hostility toward Russia, resolution of the Ukraine war, resistance to NATO expansion, and greater openness to US goods. The Middle East is treated as a region of reduced priority, focused on burden shifting, preventing regional hegemony (especially by Iran), securing trade routes, safeguarding Israel, and avoiding nation-building. Africa receives minimal attention, with emphasis on selective partnerships, counterterrorism without long-term commitments, and a shift from aid to trade and investment.
The document ultimately portrays a United States seeking to reduce unilateral global burdens while restoring economic, industrial and technological primacy—especially vis-à-vis China and Europe. Yet it also reveals internal contradictions, such as commitments to sovereignty alongside tolerance of selective secession, and opposition to regime change paired with active efforts to undermine governments in Latin America.
Finally, the strategy’s durability is questioned. Congressional actions—such as record defence spending, restrictions on troop withdrawals, and continued military aid to Ukraine—suggest limited institutional consensus. This raises uncertainty about whether the Trump administration’s strategic vision represents a lasting shift in US foreign policy or a temporary departure tied to a single presidency.
*This is a summary of a policy brief originally written in Arabic available here.