Finally, what's happening is being acknowledged: the US and its national security strategy

By: Ricardo Israel - 07/12/2025

The United States recently released its National Security Strategy 2025. It is undeniable that the world is experiencing years of profound change, largely driven by the US, as the country that contributed so much to shaping the rules of the post-World War II international system is now modifying its own creation. This is undoubtedly the most profound change since the collapse of the USSR, with an added dimension: it now affects the international system of economic relations, which was largely untouched by the USSR's fall because it was always a marginal player in the financial sphere.

However, an explanation, or at least a formal acknowledgment, was needed, as the Trump administration has done a poor job of explaining its objectives. The result is that emotions prevail, hindering analysis, and style takes precedence over substance, focusing on how Trump says things rather than analyzing what he says and does. In this sense, on one hand, there are those who reject everything Trump says and does, whatever it may be, and on the other, those who applaud everything he says and does, more out of a sense of "like" or "dislike" than an understanding of the depth of the intended change.

This situation has been exacerbated by the Trump administration itself, which has failed to clearly explain its objectives, and by its critics, who seem unable to escape a passive rejection of Trump personally. Furthermore, there has been a scarcity of books that attempt to explain what is happening with some objectivity, without resorting to either flattery or automatic condemnation.

The newly published document comes at an opportune time for analysts, as no similar document existed that officially outlined what the U.S. is doing. While its content may be open to criticism, its key point is that it contains something unusual in this type of literature: in just 33 pages, it clarifies for all interested parties many decisions made by this administration. Perhaps for the first time, it acknowledges and explains what the U.S. intends, which is nothing less than a complete reversal of the course set under the Obama administrations, which, until now, had been the last significant change.

It is undeniable that it could fail, since what Trump intends has not yet become permanent laws, but rather is essentially an executive order—that is, a decree that could be overturned by a future Democratic administration or perhaps by the Supreme Court, which has not yet reviewed the substance of any of these measures. This is the institution that can terminate them or force their modification. All of this could happen, but as long as the Trump administration remains in power, these measures will set a course that, given the power of the United States, could force the rest of the world to adapt or join this moving train.

The document in question provides context for understanding what is happening. According to its pages, the US is moving away from a unipolar world, speaking more frankly about the type of relationship it wants with China, mentioning Russia almost in passing and without much emphasis, and telling Europe once again that it must take responsibility for its own security. It adds that, to remain the undisputed superpower in the 21st century, the US must first and foremost focus on three things: improving its economy, halting the decline of the West, and regaining dominance in its own hemisphere.

This is how, for Latin America, the term “Trump corollary” to the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine is used, which prevented other powers from challenging the United States' control of the Americas. In other words, the return of imperialism, coinciding with a rightward political shift in the region, may force countries to make choices, significantly reducing the current margin of maneuvering that has enabled China's strong economic penetration. In other words, the document provides context for what is happening off the Venezuelan coast, which undoubtedly lends credence to Trump's claim that the military deployment in the Caribbean “goes far beyond a pressure campaign” against Maduro and his regime.

However, this is still largely due to drugs and illegal immigration, so beyond its geographical location, Latin America remains relatively insignificant compared to other regions and sectors. In this regard, nothing in this Strategy is as striking as the fact that China no longer appears as the primary threat, but rather as the most important of the US's "competitors," confirming that the US is seeking a global agreement with China, through tariffs, that benefits Washington more than the current system and establishes a new framework to replace the one that emerged after World War II and is now disappearing. In other words, if there is an agreement with China, the economic power of both countries will be such that it will force every other country to integrate into the new framework.

In terms of military influence, this document seeks to "readjust the global military presence" of the U.S. "to focus on more urgent threats to the hemisphere." In other words, what is perceived as threats to U.S. territory itself takes precedence over external threats, which helps explain how central issues related to illegal immigration and drugs are, even in military terms, however exaggerated they may seem. That is to say, whatever is said outside the country, the U.S. has decided to concentrate vast resources on these problems.

It is clear, then, that in terms of priorities, what most interests the US today are its borders and internal security, and related to this, the Western Hemisphere, including the resurgence of the Monroe Doctrine as a central element of foreign policy. Equally important is economic security, which includes the poorly understood issue of reindustrialization, supply chains, and the strength of the dollar, seen as a crucial element for US power and national security. And in terms of global regions, China and the Indo-Pacific, that is, India, are acquiring an importance that is replacing the Atlantic and Europe, which is increasingly appearing as an area of diminished relevance, almost of the past.

Europe no longer has the importance of yesteryear, but is seen as a continent in inevitable decline, not as an equal, but as a civilizational loss; however harsh it may sound, it is seen as being in structural and systematic decline.

In other words, for the US, the unipolar era that followed the end of the USSR is over, as is the pursuit or imposition of liberal hegemony. In its place, a kind of new pragmatism is offered, along with the return of the US to its own hemisphere, from where it can realign what is called the West on new foundations, so that with US leadership its decline in values can be halted.

Although he doesn't use these words, my interpretation is that everything indicates that once the idea of the West is reconstituted with more self-confidence, and the legacy of the Enlightenment and Judeo-Christian culture is respected, there would be a foundation that allows the US to undertake other tasks, such as better military, political, and economic conditions to remain the undisputed power in the 21st century, where we assume that the necessary power supplement should be something that the document itself doesn't say, but that is evident from everything that Washington is doing today, in the sense that the new power scenario is defined by Artificial Intelligence.

It is a scenario where not only does Europe appear increasingly diminished in Washington's eyes as a national security element, but the Middle East itself is presented with reduced importance, lacking the centrality of previous documents, reduced to a subsection. This would indicate that the US is returning to an old Kissinger idea of relying on some country in each region with sufficient power to lead that part of the world in collaboration with Washington, but without the cost that this entails. This is how the proposals that Trump has circulated for a future peace make sense, proposals that reinforce what has emerged in recent years alongside the fight against Iran: an alliance of some kind between Israel and the Sunni Arab countries. For its formal realization—and this is my addition—a Peace Treaty between Saudi Arabia and Israel is required, the signing of which today is conditional upon the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Reading this document allows us to relate it to other events, so it should not be surprising that, in parallel, on the same days, it has come to light that 2027 is the deadline set by the US for Europe to take charge of NATO matters on that continent, or else the US will simply abandon its commitment to some duties that currently fall to the Pentagon.

There is no doubt that China intends to replace the US as the superpower of the 21st century, a fact evident in its replication of the US's strategy from the last century to dethrone the UK. However, the document introduces a dose of realism, acknowledging that while Washington's dominance remains, China's progress is so significant that the gap has narrowed year after year. Furthermore, in economic terms, China's resistance to tariffs achieved what no other country could: US recognition that China needed greater patience and special negotiations. This was undoubtedly influenced by the fact that Beijing not only successfully withstood sanctions but also responded in such a way that Washington was forced to acknowledge China's undisputed dominance in rare earth elements, crucial for new technologies and the defense industry—a prime example of the long period of US complacency that allowed Beijing to achieve such prominence.

To arrive at this document, my impression is that for a more sober analysis of the current moment in the US, there are facts that in my opinion must have influenced it, such as the failure of the economic sanctions that sought to stop the Russian invasion of Ukraine and also the demonstrated dominance by China of the supply chains and the market of medicines during the pandemic, which coincided with the first Trump administration.

That said, the statement regarding China is certainly surprising, since after so many high-sounding declarations, everything seems to ultimately focus on economic competition, as evidenced by the assertion that "we will rebalance the economic relationship with China, prioritizing reciprocity and equity to restore American economic independence." Similarly surprising is the departure from the rhetoric of recent years regarding Taiwan, which instead seems to advocate for maintaining the status quo, while simultaneously urging Japan and South Korea to contribute more to the island's defense.

What is not surprising is the enthusiasm for strengthening ties with India, a country on track to displace Europe as the third or fourth largest power in the 21st century. The general sense of this National Security Strategy suggests that, for the remainder of the Trump administration, the issue with Beijing will not be framed as “authoritarianism” versus “democracy,” however much an economic agreement for the 21st century is being sought, similar to the “détente” negotiated with the USSR in the last century.

However, the missionary sense does not disappear entirely, but is reserved for that area known as the West, and which in the near future could explain both elements of closeness and distance with individual Latin American countries, which will have to choose to have better relations with the US, where to receive Washington's support loyalties will be demanded in a similar way to what took place in the cold war.

In the case of Europe, the US seems to want good relations with the countries, but not through the European Union, which, in many statements and decisions, the US appears to blame for immigration policies and the progressive Islamization of the streets in several of its member states, as well as attacks on American technology companies and freedom of expression. In other words, it seems to believe that as long as it has this structure, the EU should strengthen the power and freedom of its member states instead of imposing a centralized vision, which Washington now seems to attribute to the gradual disappearance of a magnificent civilizational history, since this bureaucracy is supposedly undermining the freedom and sovereignty of the member states.

Hence, it is now official US policy to combat what it calls censorship of freedom of expression, an element that Vice President JD Vance has been in charge of.

The tour through the different regions demonstrates how little influence marginal areas like Africa seem to have today, despite the significant economic presence of China and Russia. Russia, in recent years, has benefited from coups in Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso, a region where France has been displaced as a former colonial power and where Russia predominates thanks to the Wagner Group, now entirely dependent on the Kremlin after the death of its founder. Even more serious is the fact that this is currently the region with the fastest-growing jihadist movement in the world, fueled by terrorist organizations that claim the banners of the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda—elements whose past importance has vanished in the new strategy.

Given all of the above, it is striking that the most noteworthy point is the paragraph that calls for an obvious transition from a paradigm of foreign aid to one of investment, so that Africa can effectively take advantage of its natural resources.

This gives an idea of the decreasing, not increasing, importance of natural resources for the US in its relationship with the developing world. The current energy policy, which domestically moves away from environmental restrictions to stimulate oil and gas production on US soil, necessitates a review of old approaches that explained US decisions based on its "thirst" for oil. Everything points to strengthening its self-sufficiency, so unlike in the past, neither today nor in the near future will decisions regarding Venezuela be directly related to oil supply; they will be motivated by other factors.

This document shows that, regardless of one's opinion of Trump, he has had enough influence to make the possibility of the US shifting towards other scenarios a serious consideration. While this shift may sometimes be slow and fraught with setbacks, the US, still a major global power, possesses the strength and will to create a new reality that the rest of the world will have to adapt to, even if some countries don't want to.

It is undeniable that it will take different forms, and the little that is said about the Middle East gives an idea that military interventions in this period should not have as their primary objective the imposition of a model, and if the fleet is used as is happening today with Venezuela, it is perhaps as it was in the time of Monroe, to bring down the regime rather than to bring troops into that territory.

In this new realignment, the missionary spirit remains and does not disappear, aligning the so-called West, including Latin America, behind the White House. This includes support for political allies and also allows for a more nuanced analysis of US conflicts and alliances. Personally, I am convinced that, in the case of Brazil, the situation where Trump himself sees himself reflected in Bolsonaro is undeniably influential, but there are also other factors at play. For example, the distancing from Lula began when he launched a campaign to replace the dollar as the almost sole currency of international trade, and the sanctions against Judge Alexandre de Moraes would also be explained by the White House as part of its crusade against the X platform and Elon Musk. This is therefore interpreted as an attack on freedom of expression, similar to how the EU's tax on US technology companies is characterized.

In conclusion, a detailed critique of this National Security Strategy would require another column. For now, given its timeliness and importance, it's crucial to emphasize the need for those wishing to comment on it to at least read it, so that there's a more informed perspective than simply applauding or condemning it based solely on Trump's position. This document allows for a better understanding of some of the decisions made by the superpower that the United States still is.

@israelzipper

-Master's and PhD in Political Science (University of Essex), Bachelor of Laws (University of Barcelona), Lawyer (University of Chile), former presidential candidate (Chile, 2013)

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».