The Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy (NSS) is only two days old, but Washington and America’s allies are already scrambling to interpret a document that could redefine U.S. leadership — or abandon it.
Released late on December 4, 2025, with no speech, no rollout plan, and no public briefing, the 29-page strategy marks one of the most ideological and sweeping reorientations of U.S. foreign policy in decades. The message lands unmistakably: America First is no longer a slogan — it’s the framework.
To understand the implications, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) convened seven of its senior experts. Their verdict: the new NSS represents a dramatic departure from the bipartisan foundations of U.S. national security and introduces profound uncertainty about America’s role in the world.
A Strategy Heavy on Polemic, Light on Policy
Rebecca Lissner, a senior fellow at CFR, argues the document breaks sharply from the 2017 Trump NSS — which, despite the chaos that followed, laid out a coherent strategy of great-power competition.
“This new NSS abandons that clarity entirely,” she says. “It reads more like a political manifesto than a strategic blueprint.”
Gone is the bipartisan consensus that framed China and Russia as the primary geopolitical rivals. Instead, China is reframed almost exclusively as an economic competitor — one the U.S. should seek a “mutually advantageous economic relationship” with. Russia, meanwhile, escapes direct criticism. The strategy instead asserts only that “many Europeans regard Russia as an existential threat,” a formulation experts found stunning.
Even long-standing U.S. concerns about Iran and North Korea barely register. North Korea isn’t mentioned at all.
Instead, the Western Hemisphere moves to the top of the priority list — alongside aggressive rhetoric about migration, “narco-terrorists,” and a new “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. The document leans heavily on domestic political themes, from border security to cultural nationalism.
A Western Hemisphere First Approach — Bold or Blinking?
Will Freeman, CFR’s Latin America expert, says the pivot isn’t entirely misguided: “Organized crime in the hemisphere kills more Americans than any foreign adversary.”
But he argues the administration’s approach is both militarized and economically unrealistic.
The NSS promises to “neutralize” cartels with lethal force and enlist regional governments to curb migration and reduce Chinese influence — even when doing so clashes with local political realities.
“The U.S. wants partners,” Freeman says, “but it’s not clear it wants equals.”
And because the document frames Latin America more as a source of threats than opportunities, he warns the U.S. risks alienating democratic partners while leaving China to expand its economic footprint.
The End of Great-Power Competition?
Perhaps the most consequential shift comes in Asia.
David Sacks, CFR’s China scholar, says the NSS effectively ends the era of “great-power competition” Trump himself launched in 2017.
“China is no longer described as a systemic rival,” Sacks notes. “Geopolitics is secondary. Economics is everything.”
There is strong rhetoric on defending Taiwan, but Sacks warns the strategy reduces Taiwan’s importance to microchips and geography — a framing that ignores its decades-long democratic significance.
More concerning, he says, is what’s missing. Key regional partners — including the Philippines, Pacific Island nations, and Southeast Asian states — aren’t mentioned.
“It’s a China policy without an Indo-Pacific strategy behind it,” Sacks concludes.
Europe Sees an ‘Ideological Assault’
If the NSS softens toward China and Russia, it does the opposite with Europe.
Liana Fix, CFR’s Europe specialist, says the strategy reads like a cultural indictment rather than a strategic plan. The document claims Europe suffers from “civilizational erasure,” warns of declining birthrates, and accuses the EU of suppressing political opposition.
“It is a worldview that aligns with Europe’s far-right movements — and explicitly seeks to empower them,” Fix says.
NATO is described in conditional terms. The administration opposes the alliance’s long-standing open-door policy and emphasizes U.S. frustration with European “dependence.” Russia, meanwhile, is largely spared criticism.
“For Europe,” Fix argues, “this is a rupture — not a recalibration.”
Middle East Priorities Clash With Reality
Steven A. Cook, CFR’s Middle East scholar, says Trump’s stated intention to “step back” from the region contradicts the administration’s actual footprint.
U.S. forces are deeply involved in Gaza reconstruction efforts and in Lebanon, and the White House is pressuring Israel and Syria toward security talks. Trump has also taken a personal interest in shaping Syria’s postwar transition.
“The NSS sends one message,” Cook says, “but U.S. actions send another.”
He also warns that pulling back from the Middle East while competing with China elsewhere is a strategic miscalculation:
“Beijing is expanding its influence in the region, and Washington risks creating a vacuum.”
Africa: Thin Strategy, Familiar Questions
Africa receives just three paragraphs.
Michelle Gavin, CFR’s senior Africa fellow, says the section “claims to be a dramatic shift” but largely repackages old ideas: conflict prevention, trade, and energy investment.
“The troubling part,” she argues, “is what’s missing. There is no mention of governance or corruption — two of the most important drivers of both conflict and economic underperformance.”
With extremist violence surging in the Sahel and weak states facing collapse, Gavin warns the NSS offers few answers.
Fact-Checking the ‘President of Peace’
Finally, CFR conflict-prevention expert Paul Stares takes aim at Trump’s claim that he has “settled eight raging conflicts.”
“Most of these claims don’t hold up,” Stares says. Some conflicts weren’t active. Others remain unresolved. Still others have already begun to unravel.
“Trump wants to be remembered as a peacemaker,” Stares notes. “But the reality is far more complicated — and far less triumphant.”
A Strategy That Raises More Questions Than It Answers
The overriding theme across CFR’s expert panel is discomfort: not with a recalibration of U.S. foreign policy — a normal and necessary process — but with the absence of clear strategy beneath the rhetoric.
The NSS prioritizes proximity over alliances, economics over geopolitics, and domestic ideology over international stability. It chastises allies, softens toward adversaries, and elevates threats close to home at the expense of a coherent global approach.
For America’s partners — and many in Washington — the question now is simple:
Is the NSS a blueprint for the next four years, or just a political document that will be contradicted by the administration’s own actions?
For now, the world is bracing for the answer.
