Last updated 1 month ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
The White House has released a document that dismantles the post-Cold War consensus on American foreign policy.
The 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS), signed by President Donald J. Trump during the first year of his second term, re-imagines the United States’ role in the world.
For decades, American strategy was predicated on the idea of global leadership through alliance networks, trade integration, and the promotion of democratic values. The 2025 NSS replaces this with a doctrine of “Civilizational Realism” and “Hard Sovereignty.”
It posits that the American Republic is under siege, not just from foreign adversaries like China, but from “internal subversion” and a crisis of cultural identity.
[daily_briefly]
The Enemy Within
The most striking departure in the 2025 NSS is its inversion of the traditional threat matrix. Historically, national security strategies have looked outward, scanning the horizon for rival superpowers or transnational terror groups. The 2025 document, however, directs its gaze inward. The strategy states that the ‘principal strain on the American Republic arises not from within our borders.’
Internal Subversion as Threat
The strategy introduces the concept of “internal subversion” as a primary national security threat. This is not used in the colloquial sense of political disagreement, but as a formal strategic category.
The document describes a “long twilight struggle” against an adversary that “operates from within our institutions, distorting systems of governance, undermining public trust, and weakening the civic and cultural foundations that uphold our constitutional order.”
The document describes certain domestic political, bureaucratic, and cultural dynamics as threats comparable to foreign aggression. The strategy explicitly links these internal challenges to foreign powers, alleging that “ideological infiltration” and “institutional capture” are mechanisms of “strategic psychological warfare” waged against the U.S. population.
This doctrinal shift provides the intellectual framework for restructuring what the administration describes as resistant federal bureaucracy.
By categorizing bureaucratic resistance or ideological divergence within the government as “subversion,” the NSS justifies sweeping personnel changes and the reclassification of civil service protections. The strategy argues that traditional approaches centered on deterrence are insufficient for this internal threat, calling instead for a strategy that “identifies and neutralizes the root causes of internal degradation.”
Response to Political Violence
The focus on internal threats must be understood in the context of the violent events of 2025. The strategy references a “surge in political violence” that the administration characterizes not as random crime, but as “sophisticated, organized campaigns of targeted intimidation.”
The strategy references a surge in political violence in 2025, including the assassination of conservative leader Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025. This follows prior assassination attempts on then-candidate Trump in July and September 2024, and Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in June 2022.
In response, the President issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) that integrates the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security into the national security apparatus in new ways. The NSPM directs the Attorney General to prioritize “domestic terrorism,” specifically targeting “politically motivated terrorist acts like organized doxing campaigns, swatting, rioting, and property crimes.”
The strategy targets the financial infrastructure of domestic groups. It instructs the Secretary of the Treasury to disrupt financial networks funding “political violence” and directs the IRS to strip tax-exempt status from entities that “directly or indirectly finance” such activities.
This moves the counter-terrorism financing tools developed after 9/11, originally designed for Al-Qaeda, and turns them toward domestic organizations labeled as subversive.
Restructuring the Civil Service
A key mechanism for combating “internal subversion” is the restructuring of the federal workforce. The administration has utilized the concept of “national security” to exempt entire agencies from collective bargaining requirements.
Executive Order 14251, signed earlier in 2025, strips union protections from agencies deemed to have “national security missions.”
The legal justification for this relies on a reinterpretation of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. While the Supreme Court in Cole v. Young (1956) held that “national security” should be limited to activities directly concerned with protection from internal subversion or foreign aggression, the 2025 NSS expands the definition of “subversion” to cover a much broader range of government activities.
This has led to significant legal battles, such as American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump, where unions argue that the administration is using national security as a pretext to dismantle the civil service.
However, the NSS frames these moves as essential to restoring “public accountability” and breaking the “centralized control” of an unelected bureaucracy.
Border Security as Primary Element
The 2025 NSS elevates border security to the apex of national priorities. “Border security is the primary element of national security,” the document states, explicitly rejecting the distinction between law enforcement and national defense.
The strategy declares that “the era of mass migration must end.” It frames migration not as a humanitarian challenge but as an invasion vector for “terrorism, drugs, espionage, and human trafficking.”
This language rationalizes the deployment of military assets to the border and the potential use of force to repel incursions.
The document asserts that a border “controlled by the will of the American people” is fundamental to the survival of the U.S. as a “sovereign republic.” This phrasing, “sovereign republic”, is recurrent throughout the text, emphasizing the nation-state as the only legitimate political unit and rejecting supranational obligations regarding refugees or asylum seekers.
The Trump Corollary in Latin America
If the domestic strategy is about purification, the regional strategy for the Americas is about domination. The 2025 NSS formally promulgates the “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, a policy shift that seeks to restore absolute American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere.
Reviving the Monroe Doctrine
The Monroe Doctrine, first articulated in 1823, warned European powers against further colonization in the Americas. The 2025 NSS revives this doctrine with a specifically anti-Chinese and anti-Russian focus.
“After years of neglect,” the strategy says, “the United States will reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine… to protect our homeland and our access to key geographies.”
The explicit goal is to deny “non-Hemispheric competitors” the ability to position forces or threatening capabilities in the region, or own or control “strategically vital assets” (e.g., ports, energy grids, rare earth mines).
This serves as a direct challenge to China’s Belt and Road Initiative in Latin America. Investments such as the Chinese-controlled mega-port in Chancay, Peru, are now viewed by Washington not as commercial developments but as strategic beachheads that violate the Monroe Doctrine.
The strategy implies that the U.S. will use all tools of national power, economic coercion, sanctions, and potentially covert action, to roll back this influence.
The Militarized Cartel War
The most aggressive application of the Trump Corollary is the kinetic war against drug cartels. The NSS abandons the decades-old “law enforcement-only strategy,” which it deems a failure.
Instead, it categorizes major cartels, specifically citing the Sinaloa Cartel, MS-13, and the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs).
This designation is not merely symbolic, it provides the legal authority for military engagement. The strategy authorizes “targeted deployments” and the “use of lethal force” to defeat these groups.
By late 2025, this policy had transitioned from rhetoric to reality. In September and October 2025, the U.S. military commenced airstrikes and naval operations against vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific suspected of trafficking narcotics.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth confirmed strikes against “alleged drug vessels,” including an operation on October 24, 2025, that killed six men suspected of being Tren de Aragua operatives.
These unilateral actions have strained relations with regional neighbors. Mexico, in particular, has historically opposed U.S. military operations on its soil or in its territorial waters.
However, the NSS suggests a willingness to override sovereignty in the name of “homeland defense,” framing fentanyl trafficking as a form of chemical warfare that justifies a military response.
The Venezuela Focus
Venezuela occupies a central place in the 2025 threat assessment. The NSS identifies the Maduro regime as a nexus of “drug gangs,” authoritarian governance, and extra-hemispheric influence.
The administration alleges that Venezuela serves as a safe harbor for Iranian and Russian operatives, as well as a transit point for drugs destined for the U.S.
The strategy outlines a more aggressive posture than simple sanctions. Intelligence leaks reported by the Wall Street Journal in October 2025 indicate that the U.S. has identified specific targets within Venezuela, including ports and airstrips used by the military for trafficking, for potential destruction.
This suggests that the administration is preparing for, or is already engaged in, a low-intensity conflict to degrade the capabilities of the Maduro regime without necessarily committing to a full-scale invasion.
The Golden Dome Defense Shield
To support its assertive foreign policy, the 2025 NSS calls for a technological transformation of the U.S. military. The centerpiece of this effort is the “Golden Dome,” a comprehensive missile defense shield designed to make the American homeland invulnerable to attack.
Concept and Technology
The Golden Dome is described as a “layered defense shield” that goes far beyond existing capabilities. While the current Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system is designed to intercept a handful of missiles from a rogue state like North Korea, the Golden Dome aims to provide “peace through strength” by deterring large-scale attacks from major powers.
The system envisions a “Manhattan Project-scale” integration of three cutting-edge technologies:
Space-Based Interceptors: Weapons stationed in orbit capable of destroying ballistic missiles in their boost phase, before they can deploy multiple warheads or decoys.
Directed Energy Weapons: High-powered lasers and microwave systems capable of engaging hypersonic glide vehicles and drone swarms at the speed of light.
AI-Driven Command and Control: A neural network capable of identifying thousands of incoming threats, discriminating between real warheads and decoys, and assigning interceptors in milliseconds.
Lockheed Martin and other defense primes have been mobilized to deliver initial capabilities by the end of 2026, a timeline that skeptics call unrealistic.
The Budget Battle
The cost of the Golden Dome is a subject of intense debate. President Trump has stated the system will cost $175 billion, positioning it as a necessary investment in survival.
However, the Congressional Budget Office and independent analysts estimate the cost of a fully layered space-based system could exceed $500 billion.
Despite the sticker shock, the administration has pushed forward. The Fiscal Year 2026 budget request includes a massive 40% increase for the U.S. Space Force, allocating over $26 billion specifically for space-based defense projects.
This signals a shift in defense priorities, moving funds away from traditional legacy platforms (like tanks or aircraft carriers) toward space dominance and missile defense.
Strategic Impact
The Golden Dome represents a shift in nuclear strategy. For decades, strategic stability was based on Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), the idea that no side would attack because both would be destroyed.
The Golden Dome seeks to replace MAD with Defense Dominance. If successful, it would theoretically allow the U.S. to strike adversaries without fear of retaliation.
Critics argue this will trigger a dangerous new arms race. Russia and China are likely to accelerate their development of asymmetric weapons, such as nuclear-powered torpedoes or fractional orbital bombardment systems, designed specifically to bypass missile shields.
The NSS, however, dismisses these concerns, arguing that vulnerability is not a virtue and that the U.S. must “protect our country from invasion” in all domains.
Europe and “Civilizational Erasure”
The 2025 NSS offers a critical assessment of Europe, marking a significant shift in transatlantic relations. The document moves beyond disagreements over trade or defense spending to a fundamental critique of European society itself.
The Warning
The document uses language that echoes rhetoric from European nationalist movements when discussing immigration. The strategy warns of the “stark prospect of civilizational erasure” in Europe. It attributes this to three factors:
Mass Migration: The NSS claims that current migration policies are “transforming the continent” and leading to a “loss of national identities.”
The European Union: The EU is depicted not as a partner but as a source of “regulatory suffocation” and a threat to “political liberty and sovereignty.”
Suppression of Opposition: The document accuses European governments of censorship and suppressing “patriotic” political opposition, alluding to crackdowns on far-right speech or protests.
This language, “civilizational erasure”, echoes the “Great Replacement” theory often cited by nativist movements. Its inclusion in a formal U.S. strategic document signals Washington’s ideological alignment with Europe’s populist right (e.g., in Hungary or Italy) against the liberal establishment in Brussels, Paris, and Berlin.
The 5% NATO Demand
The administration’s disdain for the status quo manifests in a new, non-negotiable demand for NATO allies: 5% of GDP must be spent on defense.
This figure is more than double the previous 2% target, which many nations struggled to meet. The NSS makes U.S. security guarantees conditional on meeting this target.
“American military support may be reduced” for those who fail to pay, the strategy warns. This creates a two-tier alliance:
Tier 1: Nations like Poland or the UK that prioritize defense are treated as full allies.
Tier 2: Nations like Germany or Belgium that fail to meet the threshold effectively lose Article 5 protection.
Furthermore, the strategy calls for a halt to NATO expansion, stating the alliance should not “expand uncontrollably.” This shuts the door on Ukrainian or Georgian membership, reflecting a desire to close the open-ended security commitments of the past.
Russia Reset
The strategy abandons the Biden administration’s goal of “constraining” Russia. Instead, it seeks to “reestablish strategic stability” with Moscow.
The war in Ukraine is viewed as a drain on resources that should be focused on China.
The NSS declares that a “swift end to the war in Ukraine” is a vital U.S. interest. It implies a peace settlement based on the current front lines, ceding occupied territory to Russia in exchange for a cessation of hostilities.
The document criticizes European leaders who support the war for “ignoring the will of their people,” suggesting that the U.S. will bypass Kyiv and Brussels to negotiate directly with Moscow if necessary.
This pivot aims to “peel” Russia away from its deepening alliance with China. The administration believes that by reintegrating Russia into a European security architecture, it can isolate Beijing.
Economic Nationalism in the Indo-Pacific
While Europe is viewed with skepticism, the Indo-Pacific is identified as the decisive theater for the future of American power. The NSS identifies the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the primary “systemic rival,” but the nature of the competition is redefined from ideological to economic.
The Tariff Wall
The strategy enshrines Economic Nationalism as a core component of national security. It explicitly rejects “globalism” and “free trade,” arguing that these policies “hollowed out the American middle class.”
To reverse this, the NSS codifies the tariff policies introduced by executive order in April 2025:
Universal Tariff: A 10% baseline tariff on all foreign imports.
Reciprocal Tariffs: Higher, punitive tariffs targeted at countries with large trade surpluses with the U.S., specifically China.
These measures are enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), treating the trade deficit as a national emergency. The goal is to force the “reshoring” of critical manufacturing, particularly in defense and high-tech sectors.
The Semiconductor War
A key focus of this economic warfare is the semiconductor industry. The strategy seeks to break reliance on Asian supply chains for advanced chips. This has created tension even with partners like Taiwan.
While the NSS commits to the defense of Taiwan and the “First Island Chain,” it simultaneously pressures Taiwanese firms like TSMC to move more manufacturing to the U.S.
The “Made in America 2025” initiative aims to ensure that the U.S. possesses domestic capacity for the entire chip lifecycle, insulating it from a potential blockade of Taiwan.
Regional Partners
Militarily, the U.S. continues to support the Quad (U.S., Japan, India, Australia) but demands more “action” from its members. The strategy states that allies “must step up and spend, and more importantly do, much more.”
India is singled out as a “critical partner.” The administration praises New Delhi’s realist foreign policy and seeks to deepen defense ties, viewing India as a necessary counterweight to China’s influence in the Global South.
The strategy overlooks differences with India on issues like Russian energy purchases, prioritizing the anti-China alignment above all else.
Middle East and Africa
In the Global South, the 2025 NSS adopts a posture of “Transactional Realism.” The era of nation-building and human rights conditionality is officially over.
Middle East: Accepting Reality
The strategy declares that the U.S. will “accept the region, its leaders, and its nations as they are.” This signals a warm embrace of authoritarian partners in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE, prioritizing stability and energy security over political reform.
The document claims that Iran has been “greatly weakened” by Israeli actions and a specific U.S. operation: “Operation Midnight Hammer” in June 2025.
While details remain classified, the NSS asserts this operation “significantly degraded Iran’s nuclear program,” allowing the U.S. to reduce its permanent military footprint in the region while relying on “offshore balancing” to keep the Strait of Hormuz open.
Africa: The Mineral Battle
The strategy pays significant attention to Africa, viewing it not as a recipient of aid but as a battleground for resource competition with China. The focus is on Critical Minerals essential for the energy transition and defense industrial base.
Key initiatives include:
The Lobito Corridor: Accelerating the development of this railway project to transport minerals from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Zambia to the Atlantic coast, bypassing Chinese-controlled routes.
Conflict Resolution: The administration claims active involvement in mediating the DRC-Rwanda conflict and the war in Sudan, viewing stability as a prerequisite for resource extraction.
Trade over Aid: The strategy proposes “reinvigorating and repurposing” the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) to focus on reciprocal trade agreements rather than unilateral preferences.
This approach treats African nations as strategic assets in the supply chain war, stripping away the development-focused rhetoric of previous administrations in favor of hard commercial interests.
Constitutional Implications
The 2025 National Security Strategy is not just a foreign policy document, it’s a challenge to the constitutional order of the United States. Its implementation relies on an expansive interpretation of executive power that is currently being contested in the federal courts.
Governing by Emergency
The strategy relies heavily on the declaration of “National Emergencies” to bypass Congress. The use of IEEPA to impose tariffs and the designation of border security as a national security imperative allow the President to reallocate funds and rewrite regulations by fiat.
This “governing by emergency” model is central to the administration’s speed of action. It argues that the legislative process is too slow and captured by special interests to deal with the “unprecedented immediacy” of the threats facing the nation.
The Judicial Battlefield
The battle over the civil service is the domestic front of this constitutional struggle. By asserting that the President has the authority to exempt agencies from civil service laws in the name of national security, the administration is attempting to push unitary executive theory to its absolute limit.
The courts are currently the primary battlefield. Cases like AFGE v. Trump will decide whether the judiciary accepts the administration’s broad definition of “internal subversion” as a valid legal basis for firing career employees.
The NSS makes it clear that the administration views the judiciary’s deference to national security claims as essential to its strategy.
Key Policy Shifts
| Policy Area | Post-Cold War Consensus (1991-2024) | 2025 NSS (Trump II) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Threat | External (Authoritarian States, Terror) | Internal (“Internal Subversion,” “Deep State”) |
| Border Policy | Management & Law Enforcement | Militarization (“Primary Element of Security”) |
| NATO Funding | 2% of GDP Target (Aspirational) | 5% of GDP Target (Mandatory for Protection) |
| Trade Policy | Free Trade / WTO Integration | Universal Tariffs (10%) / Reciprocity |
| Russia Strategy | Containment / Isolation | Strategic Stability / Reintegration (Anti-China) |
| Latin America | Partnership / Cooperation | Monroe Doctrine / Kinetic Strikes on Cartels |
| Defense Tech | Deterrence (MAD) | Defense Dominance (Golden Dome) |
| Civil Service | Merit System / Union Protections | At-Will Employment for “National Security” Roles |
The 2025 National Security Strategy presents a vision of a “Fortress America”—armed with space lasers, surrounded by tariff walls, and purged of internal dissent. It’s a strategy that bets everything on the restoration of national sovereignty and the utility of raw power.
If successful, it could force a recalibration of the global order, creating a world of “strong nations” dealing transactionally to maintain stability. If it fails, it risks isolating the United States from its allies, triggering economic wars that impoverish the middle class, and fracturing the domestic social fabric under the weight of “internal subversion” hunts.
As 2026 approaches, the world is watching to see if this new American realism will lead to a promised era of “Peace Through Strength” or a descent into chaotic isolationism. The only certainty is that the rules of the game have been irrevocably changed.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.