A Reading in the U.S. National Security Strategy (2) Most prominent transformations

The U.S. National
Security Strategy, issued by the White House on December 4, 2025, reflects a
clear transformation in American strategic thinking since the end of the Cold
War. The document marks a clear transition from “liberal hegemony” to a new
American model that combines realism and nationalism. As a result, the strategy
is distinctly “Trumpian.” Its purpose is to crystallize President “Trump’s”
approach and frame his ideas. This led to several transformations, which can be
outlined as follows:

1- The
transformation of the concept of “threat” from the outside to the inside:

The new National
Security Strategy represents a major turning point in Washington’s strategic
thinking, with the transformation of the concept of threat from external to
internal. The claims of “leading the free world,” “expanding international
participation,” and “defending global democracy” have passed, and border
security has been elevated to the level of national defense.

In clearer terms,
Washington now considers monitoring immigration, combating human trafficking,
fighting drugs, and managing borders among the priorities of national security,
not merely immigration policies. This is considered an implicit acknowledgment
that the cohesion of the American اinside
and confronting internal threats is a condition for the United States’
continued power on the international stage.

2- The silent
abandonment of leading the international system:

Despite the document’s
confirmation that the United States’ global engagement has drained its
resources and borne costs unrelated to its direct interests, it did not
explicitly state an American desire to abandon its position at the head of the
international system.

And this is reflected
in avoiding terms such as “the liberal international system” or “global
responsibility,” not to mention the repeated references to the end of the phase
of “leadership by values” and the beginning of the phase of “management by
interest.”

This means allowing
the space for interpretations related to the existence of an implicit American
acceptance of a world of multiple centers of power, in light of the Trump
administration giving priority to national interests and its pursuit of
redefining the limits and scope of Washington’s role as the “policeman of the
world,” and relying on selective strategic competition that provides the United
States with relative advantages.

3- The
transformation from alliances to burden-sharing:

The document reflected
a clear shift in the United States’ position toward alliances, which it sought
to strengthen over decades; the view toward these alliances is no longer from
the angle of historical commitment, but from the angle of return and cost.

And accordingly, the
strategy relied on an assumption that allies should be transformed from
“strategic partners” into a “cost that must be controlled.” That is, what the
strategy stipulates goes beyond the narrow view of demanding allies to increase
defense spending to indicating a transformation in Washington’s perception of
the importance of allies and their role in serving American interests.

This means that
alliances are no longer a value in themselves or based on permanent structures,
but rather are temporary tools subject to freezing or renegotiation if they
fail to advance direct American interests.

4- Militarizing the
economy instead of liberating it:

The document
introduced the economy, industry, and supply chains directly into the core of
American national security, and also viewed interdependence as a “point of
weakness” rather than a “feature” or “opportunity.”

And it is a matter
that can be interpreted in light of the Trump administration’s escalation of
protectionism, the politicization of technology, and the trade wars, as part of
a broader security strategy rather than merely economic policies.

And the document
considered that reactivating industry is a main pillar of American power;
therefore, it did not call only for rebuilding the manufacturing sector but
also for establishing strategic industries ready for war.

In addition, the
document stipulated that the intelligence community will monitor the main
supply chains and technological progress worldwide to understand the points of
weakness and the threats to American security and prosperity.

5- Dealing with
international multilateralism as a burden:

Despite what the
international system in its current form represents as a lever for American
influence in light of Washington being the dominant great power, the National
Security Strategy document did not present any support for the international
system and did not encourage or enhance international institutionalization, but
rather the American administration tended, in a main way, toward bilateral and
flexible arrangements.

And it is the matter
that carries indicators of the continuation of President “Trump” in the policy
of doubting the rules-based international system, and even the continuous
undermining of international institutionalization. This will contribute to the
erosion of the international system and deepening international chaos, and even
encourage other states to follow the same behavior.

6- Encircling China
as an alternative to confronting it:

The new document did
not adopt a sharply confrontational tone toward China and instead clarified
that Beijing’s growing economic, commercial, and technological power poses a
threat to the United States’ interests.

And in this context,
as an alternative to confrontation, the strategy adopted a path aimed at
encouraging Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, Mexico, and others
to adopt trade policies that would redirect the compass of the Chinese economy
toward domestic consumption.

In addition to forming
alliances that exploit Washington’s relative advantages in financing and
technology to build export markets with “cooperating countries.”

The document also
noted that the American administration is committed to using its “leading
position” to enhance the role of international financial institutions in ways
that serve American interests amid Chinese investments.

7- Criticizing
allies and silence toward adversaries:

The strategy adopted a
new tendency, the meaning of which is to criticize allies rather than
adversaries; it considered China a main strategic competitor that requires
containing its economic and military influence, and even went so far as to
consider the goal a “mutually beneficial economic relationship with Beijing.”

And about Russia, the
document did not view it as an enemy or even as a competitor to the same degree
as China, but rather presented it in an ambiguous context that did not define
the nature of the threat it poses to American interests.

And it even adopted an
unusual formulation, the meaning of which is that “many Europeans consider
Russia an existential threat.”

In a clearer
expression, the document did not classify Russia as an adversary to Washington,
nor did it direct any criticisms toward it, in return directing criticisms toward Europeans for
their lack of real peace efforts regarding Ukraine, and for their “unrealistic”
expectations that it considered contradictory to the desire of European
citizens for peace.

8- Returning Latin
America to the forefront of priorities:

Asia topped the list
of priorities in the American National Security Strategy, but the new document
returned the Western Hemisphere to the forefront.

And it is the matter
that can be looked at according to two different analyses; the first goes to
the logic of this transformation in focusing on the backyard of the United
States after years of commitment to more distant geographical regions, while
the second is based on the fact that this transformation represents an
isolationist retreat and an unnecessary sacrifice of American influence in
favor of adversaries.

And regardless of
differences in interpreting the impact of this transformation, there remain
strong motives behind the American interest in the Western Hemisphere, as it
enjoys abundant natural resources and a strategic location, not to mention
threats related to irregular migration, organized crime, and drugs.

9- The battle of
technological dominance:

The document clearly
reflects the Trump administration’s awareness of the importance of the
technological dimension in ensuring the United States’ continued position on
the international stage.

The strategy confirmed
that technological competition is not “economic only,” but is also related to
security and power.

Therefore, the
strategy focused on the fields related to artificial intelligence,
biotechnology, and digital infrastructure.

And it confirmed the
need to restrict the transfer of advanced technologies, encourage local
production, enhance cooperation with the private sector, and ensure
Washington’s dominance over new technologies in a way that serves its global
leadership.

Overall:

In sum, the National
Security Strategy document for the year 2025 does not only carry a set of
messages regarding the vision of the Trump administration and its goals, but it
also reflects a set of prominent transformations internally and on the international
arena as well, in a way that indicates that the “Trumpian” current will
influence the American model for extended years that may exceed the period of
President Trump’s presence in power.