Trump's Security Strategy Shifts the Overton Window
by Joakim Andersen
Joakim Andersen describes how Trump’s new National Security Strategy outlines a nationalist, realist vision focused on American strength, non-interventionism, and a critical stance toward Europe’s civilizational direction.
The Trump administration’s foreign policy may appear erratic and reactive to the casual observer, yet certain main features can nonetheless be discerned. These features and the strategy behind them are described in the document National Security Strategy of the United States of America. It makes for interesting reading for several reasons, not least in light of the relationship between the United States and Europe. The European states, if not full-fledged American satrapies, are at the very least heavily influenced by American policy.
The worldview that emerges in the document is a blend of several geopolitical schools. There are clear power-realist elements, evident for instance in the view of the Western Hemisphere and states with illiberal regimes, yet the connection between liberal institutions such as the market and freedom of speech and American security and strength is also emphasized. A certain class perspective is also present, particularly regarding the connection between reindustrialization, a strong middle and working class, and international strength and security. The shift away from liberalism in general, and especially from its “woke” variant, is noteworthy. The fundamental actor in international politics according to the strategy is the nation-state:
“the world’s fundamental political unit is and will remain the nation-state. It is natural and just that all nations put their interests first and guard their sovereignty. The world works best when nations prioritize their interests.”
One may note that the definition of nation does not entirely overlap with the European nationalist tradition, as well as the tension between statements like “we stand for the sovereign rights of nations” and the articulation of a revived Monroe Doctrine regarding Latin America. Regardless, it represents a positioning against transnational projects and extensive interventionist policies (“forever wars”). Linked to this is the now explicit disinterest in what form of government America’s allies may have (“maintaining good relations with countries whose governing systems and societies differ from ours”). Exceptions are made, however, for historically liberal allies, such as Europe and the Anglosphere.
The “flexible realism” described in the document is based on the goal of maintaining American superiority while avoiding costly and impossible projects such as actual world domination (hegemony in the global economy rather than turning it into a world empire, to borrow Wallerstein’s terms). A strong economy, a strong military, “soft power,” and a robust energy sector are among the objectives.
Interestingly, there is an insight that a strong nation also requires spiritual and cultural health, and that woke ideologies are seen as a weakening affliction:
“we want the restoration and reinvigoration of American spiritual and cultural health, without which long-term security is impossible. We want an America that cherishes its past glories and its heroes, and that looks forward to a new golden age.”
The document focuses on America’s core interests, noting that listing too many interests becomes counterproductive. The core principles of the security strategy are the Focused Definition of the National Interest, Peace Through Strength, Predisposition to Non-Interventionism, Flexible Realism, Primacy of Nations, Sovereignty and Respect, Balance of Power, Pro-American Worker, Fairness, and Competence and Merit.
The Trump administration may in part be understood as a recovery of American politics, with more emphasis on self-interest (compare the remarks on Greenland) and expectations that allies take greater responsibility for their own defense. This is presented as a pursuit of fairness, but can also be seen as an expression of America’s relative weakening on the global stage.
The section on Europe is in many respects the most interesting. European policy is described as pathological and dangerous both for Europe and for the United States. Excessive economic regulation has contributed to weaker growth, immigration policy means that several European states could, within our lifetime, have non-European majority populations, while the Eurocrats are attacking freedom of speech and the mechanisms of democracy. The document describes the real risk of “civilizational erasure” in a striking and eerie way. Europe could cease to exist as a result of its current policies. Beyond America’s emotional ties to Europe, such a development would mean losing strong allies. Thus, it is stated:
“we want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation.”
According to the document, the United States intends to play a more active role in European politics, including defending freedom of speech and “cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations.” As a positive factor, it notes “the growing influence of patriotic European parties.” A cynical interpretation might be that the Trump administration has assessed the patriotic wave as the most likely future scenario, and already wants to support, shape, and align with Europe’s future leadership. (The alternative scenario, in which the popular wave is instead crushed by Eurocrats and demographic change, spells game over for Europe.) But the cynical interpretation is likely only part of the picture.
Notably, the document openly criticizes the left-liberal discourse, which is portrayed as a weakness and disease. This also applies to mass immigration, as it states:
“throughout history, sovereign nations prohibited uncontrolled migration and granted citizenship only rarely to foreigners, who also had to meet demanding criteria. The West’s experience over the past decades vindicates this enduring wisdom.”
Consistent with the principles of flexible realism and a desire to avoid costly interventions is the document’s view of the war in Ukraine, where the goal is peace and the problem is framed as “European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the war perched in unstable minority governments, many of which trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition.”
The sections on the Western Hemisphere, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa also offer clues to priorities and plans. The continued Monroe Doctrine includes, for example, a not-so-veiled threat against Venezuela through the statement:
“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.”
Another major focus is on China as an economic competitor and geopolitical threat. The goal here is both to “rebalance America’s economic relationship with China, prioritizing reciprocity and fairness to restore American economic independence,” and to maintain “a robust and ongoing focus on deterrence to prevent war in the Indo-Pacific.” Allies are again expected to take responsibility for the project, and India’s importance is hinted at.
The section on the Middle East is unexpectedly brief and optimistic, explained by Iran’s weakened position and the United States’ reduced dependence on oil from the region. Regarding both the Middle East and Africa, the text expresses that attempts to export liberalism are now over and that the focus is instead on cooperation with selected allies.
All in all, it is an interesting document, although it also contains a fair amount of rhetoric. (It is not certain, for instance, that the refugees from Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh are as positive about Trump’s efforts as he himself is.) What is left unsaid is often just as interesting as what is said. For example, Christianity is mentioned only indirectly (as “American spiritual and cultural health”). Islamism is mentioned once directly as a terrorist threat in Africa, and once indirectly, in connection with the fight against “radicalization” in the Middle East. The sparse references to Israel can also be interpreted in different ways by different readers. International law is fairly absent from the document, and one might also note latent contradictions between the emphasis on freedom of speech and the concern about “influence campaigns,” as well as in the view of the nature of the American nation.
Regarding the European situation, the document is largely positive. The Eurocratic offensive against the mechanisms of democracy, not only freedom of speech, and the ongoing population replacement are explicitly described as problems the Trump administration will act against. This may involve concrete support for the European peoples and their representatives. Even without such support, it represents a shift in the Overton window and provides opportunities for domestic elites to connect with American rhetoric. This does not mean that American and European interests necessarily become identical, or that one should adopt an uncritical stance toward Trump (compare Greenland and Syria), but it does mean that the conditions for European politics are improving.
(Translated from the original Swedish article)
Buy Joakim Andersen’s Rising from the Ruins: The Right of the 21st Century
