Caitlin Talmadge, faculty affiliate at the Center for Nuclear Security Policy (CNSP), discusses President Trump's National Security Strategy document, arguing that it does not present a coherent strategy for securing the United States and reveals the contradictions in the administration's ideology.
US President Donald Trump delivers remarks regarding the Administration's National Security Strategy at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington DC.
Nothing is substantively surprising in this document—the ethno-nationalism, militarism, xenophobia, transactionalism, and mercantilism are all totally familiar to anyone who has been awake since 2016. Still, the document’s admirable clarity and concision on these themes bring the hypocrisy and internal contradictions of the administration’s worldview into sharp relief.
The strategy touts Trump as “The President of Peace,” even as he has ordered illegal and unnecessary military operations against civilian drug traffickers in the Caribbean. It warns against the dangers of “fruitless ‘nation-building’ wars,” even as the president toys with launching a regime change campaign in Venezuela. And the document repeatedly harps on the importance of sovereignty, even as the administration seems eager to reward Russia for brutally violating that principle in its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Amazingly, the document informs us that “all human beings possess God-given equal natural rights,” a notable contrast with the administration’s cruel treatment of immigrants and decision to dramatically curtail refugee admissions. It loftily proclaims the need to preserve “America’s historic advantages in science, technology, industry, defense, and innovation,” which will be difficult given the administration’s decision to gut billions in research funding affecting all of these areas. The cherry on top is the anti-DEI lecture on the importance of “competence and merit” from the employer of Pete Hegseth, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Kash Patel.
This document does not present a coherent strategy for securing the United States, but it reveals plenty about the hollowness of the administration’s ideology.
