A National Security Strategy for MAGA

by David Bernell and Ambassador Thomas Graham (Retired)

The Trump administration released its national security strategy in early December. This is a document that presidents periodically publish, outlining their understanding of global affairs and their approach to meeting key objectives. Presidential administrations typically tout their strategies as a major break with the past, and this is sometimes the case, at least in part. The George W. Bush administration in 2002 explicitly stated that the United States would engage in “pre-emptive war,” as it saw fit, and this justification was part of the basis of the war in Iraq. More often, however, there is continuity in these documents, with language that talks about protecting core American security and foreign policy interests, including military capabilities, allies, economic interests, and depending upon partisan affiliation, the environment.

Trump’s national security strategy from 2017 contains plenty of language that reflects continuity in American foreign policy. It spoke about enhancing American military strength, stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction, addressing threats from Russia and China, building economic strength and competitiveness, and protecting European freedom and security, while responding to threats from terrorist organizations. One could easily read many parts of the 2017 strategy and not know what administration wrote it. This makes sense, considering that the administration included a number of people from the country’s (and particularly the Republican party’s) pool of defense and foreign affairs experts, such as James Mattis, John Kelly, H.R. McMaster, John Bolton, and Mark Esper. Even where the 2017 strategy called into question U.S. global economic policy since World War II, it did so in a way that indicated the United States sought mostly to reform global trade to stop “violations, cheating [and] economic aggression.” It seemed to go out of its way to reassure the American defense and foreign policy establishment that Trump wasn’t abandoning longstanding U.S. foreign policy goals and concerns.

Trump’s 2025 national security strategy also uses language that looks similar to previous iterations. It talks about pursuing the security of allies, ending trade imbalances and promoting domestic production, preventing adversaries from dominating the Middle East and oil supplies, and ensuring technological and commercial success in areas such as AI and biotech. At the same time, however, this document’s vision of an “America First” foreign policy is in reality a significant break from the past, including Trump’s first term. The current Trump administration has fewer members of the political, foreign policy and defense establishments serving in the government, and those who are serving (such as Marco Rubio as both Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, and John Ratcliffe in the CIA), seem to have little influence on the president. The people who seems to have the president’s ear are Stephen Miller, who is the key influence and driver in Trump’s harsh immigration policies, and Steve Witkopf, a real estate developer with no foreign policy experience, but who has been put in charge of negotiations on the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, with what appears to be a primary goal of convincing the Nobel committee to award Trump the Peace Prize. (Trump might now share the widespread opinion that his Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, is an incompetent embarrassment, but Trump cannot admit this as it would reflect poorly on his own decision to appoint Hegseth in the first place.)

Therefore, when the 2025 national security strategy was released, it was no surprise that it would look different from previous documents, marking a break with past policies and instead embracing a MAGA view of the world. There are several ways in which this is readily apparent.

What Trump Thinks Is a Problem

One thing that stands out is the repeated focus on immigration, and the dangers it produces, which are referred to as “cultural subversion” and “civilizational erasure.” In the President’s cover letter, immigration is the first policy referenced, saying he has acted to stop “the invasion of our country.” It also appears again as one of the first goals the United States should want to achieve, saying, “We want full control over our borders, over our immigration system, and…a world in which migration is not merely ‘orderly’ but one in which sovereign countries work together to stop rather than facilitate population flows.” Moreover, when turning to policy priorities, the first item on the list is immigration, with the subheading “The Era of Mass Migration Is Over.” Calling immigration an “invasion” is common in this administration. Use of the term signifies that this is a major national security issue. It provides legal cover to certain policies taken against immigrants at the border or anywhere in the country. More importantly, the term reflects the argument that the nation and its security is dependent upon who inhabits the country. In this view the type of the people in the country matter, and the “wrong” people threaten national security, as they constitute an “invasion” that lead to “cultural subversion” or worse, “civilizational erasure,” which is how the document describes the potential future of Europe.

One does not have to read too closely into the document to know the type of people that Trump and his administration favor. Trump’s has made numerous comments over the years regarding immigrants from Haiti or Somalia or Afghanistan, or what he has called “shithole” countries. At the same time, he has prioritized the immigration of white South Africans and offered them asylum in the United States, citing their alleged “genocide” against them in South Africa. He also speaks favorably of people from Europe as being acceptable immigrants in the United States.

Regarding global or regional challenges, the regions that get the greatest attention in the 2025 strategy are Western Europe and the Western Hemisphere (one expects that the governments of these regions do not welcome the type of attention they receive). The focus on these two places reveals more than anything the Trump and MAGA worldview that animates this document. This is because the countries most hostile to American interests and security – Russia, China, Iran and North Korea – get little consideration as threats. Russia is not once identified as a danger or adversary, but is instead largely characterized as a country that Europe fears due to its economic weakness and lack of self-confidence. Rather than opposing Russian aggression against Ukraine and the rest of Europe, the strategy says the goal of U.S. efforts with Russia will be to “reestablish strategic stability” in Europe. China, and Asia as a whole, are largely discussed in economic terms. Tellingly, in the section about the importance of deterring military threats in Taiwan and the South China Sea, the document does not specifically name China as the source of any potential threats, and again frames potentially adverse outcomes primarily as economic in nature. As for Iran, it barely gets acknowledgement in the 2025 strategy, noted only for being weakened by Israeli and American military strikes, and that it was party to one of the many “peace” agreements Trump claims to have negotiated. North Korea isn’t mentioned at all. This lack of focus on strategic competition with Russia and China, or assessment of Iranian and North Korean actions, will surely provide some relief for the governments of these countries. This is very much in contrast to Trump’s 2017 document, which explicitly stated that, “China and Russia want to shape a world antithetical to U.S. values and interests,” and that “the dictatorships of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to destabilize regions, threaten Americans and our allies, and brutalize their own people.”

By contrast, the heavy focus on Western Europe and on the Western Hemisphere reveal the priorities and concerns of President Trump and his MAGA team: immigration, the welfare and electoral prospects of parties of the far right, and the dominance the United States in Latin America, which the United States often treated in the past as its legitimate sphere of influence to dominate.

What’s Wrong with Europe?

In Europe, the national security strategy calls on NATO to increase defense spending and take on more of the burden of maintaining security in the region, with less reliance on the United States. This call for more burden sharing in NATO long predates Trump. It is an unsurprising message. Also, the goal of further distancing the United States from its NATO allies is consistent with Trump’s previous words and deeds on the topic. It too is not unusual. The document also states that Europe suffers from economic decline – and again, there’s nothing new to see here. What is striking is what the White House says is Europe’s larger problem. The passage is quite derisive (and it is worth quoting at length):

“American officials have become used to thinking about European problems in terms of insufficient military spending and economic stagnation. There is truth to this, but Europe’s real problems are even deeper…[European] decline is eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure. The larger issues facing Europe include activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence.”

Included in this passage are Trump’s most notable fixations. Every item listed speaks to immigration and to national identity and strength in terms of “blood and soil.” This phrase characterizes the view that there is a legitimate national community united in terms of race or ethnicity, and whose origins are rooted in a particular place. In short, this passage is saying that cratering birthrates and migration policies are leading to the replacement of national communities and identities in Europe (French, Italian, German, etc.) by outsiders from Africa, the Middle East, and Asia who do not share longstanding national or European identities and interests. These circumstances, the document says, are leading to the loss of confidence and at worst, the end of a distinctly European civilization.

The way to save Europe (or “Promoting European Greatness” in the words of the strategy), must therefore be to bring to power political parties of the far right, who share the same types of immigration goals and thinking on national identity as the MAGA movement. However, European countries are said to be engaging in “censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition” to stop these parties. This is a key focus of Trump’s foreign policy toward European countries, and this language echoes the words of Vice President J.D. Vance, who chastised European countries in February 2025 at the Munich Security Conference. Citing what he called examples of anti-democratic behavior (such as listing the far-right AfD party in Germany as an extremist party that rejects the constitutional principles of democracy and the rule of law, arresting someone publicly burning copies of the Quran and another protesting an abortion clinic within a designated buffer zone around the clinic, banning certain types of hate speech on social media), Vance said that European governments themselves were the problem, engaging in anti-democratic behavior, suppressing free speech, policing “thought crime,” and persecuting Christians. He that told them that, “You cannot win a democratic mandate by censoring your opponents or putting them in jail… nor by disregarding your basic electorate on questions like who gets to be a part of our shared society.”

In short, European governments can now see, since the administration put in an official document – and not just a Trump social media post – what the policy of the American government really is. They can take away from the national security strategy this fundamental message (even if it is not explicitly stated in this way): “If immigrants are out, and populist parties of the right are in (power), then all will be well.”

In this message the issues of restricting immigration, stopping the decline of birthrates, asserting a particular form of national identity, and the rise of populist parties of the right are all connected. Moreover, they are all characterized as the protection of democracy and freedom. This connection provides a certain type of logical consistency to the argument being made. When one thinks of the “democratic backsliding” of the Trump administration (which now includes a Justice Department directive to investigate and prosecute as domestic terrorists those who have “extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders, adhere to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity,” or have “hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality”), and MAGA’s adoration of Victor Orban’s government as a model for other European countries, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the American government under Trump now stands in favor of advocating anti-democratic and racially discriminatory behavior and policies while characterizing them as the embodiment of democracy itself.

Reassertion in “America’s Backyard”

With respect to considering Latin America and the Caribbean, this is the first region addressed in the strategy document’s section on regional issues. This section is notable in that the goals identified go far beyond questions of immigration and its threat to the United States, or the promotion of political parties and movements that are consistent with MAGA. These are mentioned. But the real prize that the Trump administration seeks is the wildly expansive objective of a return to the days of American dominance of the Western Hemisphere. Articulating nothing less than a new “Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine” the administration says that, “the United States will reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere.” The way to do this will be an expansion of the American military presence in the region, and applying pressure and incentives to both governments and businesses to “deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets” such as ports, infrastructure, and military installations.

(The Monroe Doctrine was a statement of U.S. policy contained in President James Monroe’s message to Congress in 1823. Monroe warned European powers against further colonization or intervention in the Western Hemisphere, saying that these actions would be seen as hostile to the United States. President Theodore Roosevelt extended this policy in 1904 by saying the United States proclaimed a right to intervene as an “international police power” to “curb chronic wrongdoing” in the affairs of Latin American and Caribbean countries. This assertive American policy soon led to the deployment of U.S. troops in the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Haiti, and a long period of American dominance and political influence in the region. The use of the term Monroe Doctrine by the Trump administration indicates that countries in the Western Hemisphere are likely to see new assertions of American policy and control. See here and here and here for further discussion of the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary.)

These measures are said to advance the additional goals of increasing American exports, promoting business opportunities for American companies, and stopping migration and drug smuggling to the United States. These are worthy objectives and goals that are routinely a part of U.S. policy in the region. The element that makes this national security strategy so extraordinary is the call for American preeminence, for a return to the Monroe Doctrine. And to remove any doubt about how the President and his administration view the region, and who gets to take ownership of directing the region’s future, the strategy repeatedly refers to “our Hemisphere.” This is language that hearkens back to the numerous references in the long history of American foreign policy toward the Caribbean and Latin America to “America’s backyard,” and countries “on our doorstep.” These metaphors suggest that proximity entitles the United States to consider the Western Hemisphere as the home of the United States, a home that the homeowner has the right to defend, and from which it can legitimately expel those it sees as intruders.

In short, the objectives sought in Latin America offer a foreign policy component of “making America great again.” They put the world on notice that the U.S. will not hesitate to take whatever actions it sees fit in a place it considers as its sphere of influence. This is already underway with military attacks on drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean, the seizure of a Venezuelan oil tanker, a blockade on oil shipments, and a massive military buildup near Venezuela that may be a precursor to military action against the country to overthrow the current government and bring about regime change. The current government of Venezuela has oppressed its people, ended democracy, and impoverished the country. There is little to like about it. Nonetheless, when the American government is emulating Russian actions against Ukraine, deploying its military in a show of force, seeking the overthrow of an unfriendly government, claiming its right to some level of control over the country, and maybe even launching military action against it, the United States under Trump is reproducing some of the worst elements of U.S. foreign policy, while offering a degree of legitimacy to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and any plans that China may have for an invasion of Taiwan.

The Implications of a MAGA Security Worldview

It is important not to overstate the importance of this document. The United States remains in NATO, the WTO, the UN, and countless international organizations. The U.S. still supplies intelligence to Ukraine. The Trump administration has not overturned the whole global political environment. Besides, it is useful to remember that these strategies are often avenues for advancing political ideas or arguments, but “they often have little influence on an administration’s actual day-to-day conduct. They may provide after-the-fact rationalizations of more ad hoc decisions. Or they may reveal the outcome of inter-agency struggles over the budgetary pie.” After all, how much does anyone remember President Biden’s 2022 national security strategy?

At the same time, it is important not to understate the importance of this document either. Sometimes these documents do say something important and warrant serious attention. In the early years of the Cold War, a strategy developed in the Truman Administration – NSC 68 – clearly spelled out a view of the superpower conflict that can be seen in American policies and actions throughout the Cold War. Trump’s strategy may be of similar importance, signaling a new direction in U.S. foreign policy. It reveals core goals and fears of the current American government, and a direction in which it wants to take U.S policy in the world – including less engagement and alignment with Europe and much more aggressive behavior in Latin America. The world is now on notice that the priorities of the American government are not identified as democracy, human rights, shared global prosperity, or countering serious threats from Russia and China. Rather, they revolve a great deal around immigration and fears that this can lead to erosion of Western culture and civilization in Europe and the United States. The only way to combat these things, according to the strategy, is by paving the way for political parties and movements that share the views of MAGA to come to power in Europe and stay in power in the United States. At the same time, the United States will seek to entrench itself as the master of its Western Hemispheric home, and use economic tools to capture a greater share of the global economy for the United States at the expense of other countries.

This document is very clearly a national security strategy in the image of Trump and MAGA. The goals of U.S. domestic policy and U.S. foreign policy under this administration are very much in alignment.