What’s in the 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy—and Why Everybody Is Talking About It

My last post ended with the following question: “Does the new National Security Strategy mention anything about Russia and investing more resources in Alaska?”

After reading the new U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) a few times, I can tell you that Russia is mentioned about 10 times, mainly in reference to how Europe needs to improve its relationship with Moscow. There is also nothing specific about the Arctic or Alaska, though I hope strategic planners included those areas within their broader Western Hemisphere focus.

Much of the news coverage surrounding the new strategy stems from the strong language directed at our European allies and the noticeably softer tone used when referring to Russia.

I wanted to compare this new strategy with previous ones, and to be fair, I’ll compare it with the 2017 NSS produced during Trump’s first administration. The differences between the two are enormous—not only in content but also in the professional quality of the documents themselves.

Before diving in, let me highlight a few definitions and explain what the National Security Strategy is.

In simple terms, strategy is a careful plan or method for achieving a particular goal, usually over a long period of time.1 In the business world, strategy is an integrated, overall concept of how a firm will achieve its objectives.2 On the first page of the new NSS, it is defined as “a concrete, realistic plan that explains the essential connection between ends and means: it begins from an accurate assessment of what is desired and what tools are available, or can realistically be created, to achieve the desired outcomes.”

The U.S. NSS is required by the Goldwater–Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of October 4, 1986. It identifies national security concerns and outlines how the current administration plans to address them. It also provides guidance for the National Military Strategy.3

The key U.S. strategic documents are: the NSS issued by the President, the National Defense Strategy (NDS) issued by the Secretary of Defense, the National Military Strategy issued by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), and the Joint Strategic Campaign Plan & Theater Campaign Plans issued by the CJCS and the Combatant Commanders.

For this post, I’m using Trump’s 2017 NSS instead of strategies issued by other presidents, simply for fairness. My goal is not to debate what other administrations did, but to stay focused on the current one.

The first thing I want to say about the 2025 NSS is the overall quality of the document compared to the 2017 version. I’m not used to seeing this level of staff work. It reads like a staff-level document not yet ready for prime time—but the president signed it, so it is official. All of its content is compressed into 33 pages, compared to the 50 or so in the 2017 version. Why am I mentioning document quality? Because it’s clear that the professionalism present in the first Trump administration is not reflected this time around.

Another interesting fact is that the name “Trump” appears about 27 times, compared to six times in the 2017 NSS (mainly as part of the title for each of the four pillars). That’s surprising for a document that is supposed to be about the United States as a nation—but we know the current president’s preference for having his name prominently featured.

The first paragraphs of the presidents’ cover letters are telling and set the tone for the differences between the two strategies.

Here is how Trump began the 2017 NSS:

“The American people elected me to make America great again. I promised that my Administration would put the safety, interests, and well-being of our citizens first. I pledged that we would revitalize the American economy, rebuild our military, defend our borders, protect our sovereignty, and advance our values.”

And here is how the 2025 version starts:

“Over the past nine months, we have brought our nation—and the world—back from the brink of catastrophe and disaster. After four years of weakness, extremism, and deadly failures, my administration has moved with urgency and historic speed to restore American strength at home and abroad, and bring peace and stability to our world.”

After that, it is a wild ride.

In essence, the difference between the two strategies comes down to this:

  • The 2017 NSS described a globally engaged America balancing realism with leadership, alliances, and influence.
  • The 2025 NSS is a sovereignty-centered, domestic-first strategy that limits global obligations and prioritizes borders, industry, and the Western Hemisphere.

The section about Europe and Russia is particularly striking, and explains why we’re seeing so much animosity:

“Continental Europe has been losing share of global GDP—down from 25 percent in 1990 to 14 percent today—partly owing to national and transnational regulations that undermine creativity and industriousness.

But this economic 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.

Should present trends continue, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less. As such, it is far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies. Many of these nations are currently doubling down on their present path. We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation.

This lack of self-confidence is most evident in Europe’s relationship with Russia. European allies enjoy a significant hard power advantage over Russia by almost every measure, save nuclear weapons. As a result of Russia’s war in Ukraine, European relations with Russia are now deeply attenuated, and many Europeans regard Russia as an existential threat. Managing European relations with Russia will require significant U.S. diplomatic engagement, both to reestablish conditions of strategic stability across the Eurasian landmass, and to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states.

… America is, understandably, sentimentally attached to the European continent—and, of course, to Britain and Ireland. The character of these countries is also strategically important because we count upon creative, capable, confident, democratic allies to establish conditions of stability and security. We want to work with aligned countries that want to restore their former greatness.” (pp. 25-26)

Really interesting language here.

Regarding China: The 2017 NSS viewed China as a major strategic competitor with global ambitions that opposed U.S. interests. In the 2025 NSS, China is framed more as an economic rival and regional security factor, with the relationship centered on trade, deterrence, and balancing interests rather than ideological conflict.

As for the Western Hemisphere, the 2025 NSS focuses on border security, migration routes, cartels and non-state networks, Chinese influence in Latin America, and stability in the Caribbean and Central America. There is a reference to a revival of the Monroe Doctrine, but centered on threats moving north from south of the border.

I like the focus on border security, cartels, and Chinese influence, although the administration’s approach seems a bit extreme in my view. But if the same people who drafted the 2025 NSS are advising on Western Hemisphere policies, then I’m not surprised by what we’re hearing in the news lately.

The 2025 NSS will guide the next major document in the strategic process—the National Defense Strategy (NDS)—which I’m looking forward to reading.

I really don’t know what to think about all the aspects of the 2025 NSS, and we’ll see how it evolves over the next few years or whether it receives updates along the way. But I do think the strategy falls short when you compare what is happening in our country with this statement:

“Finally, we want the restoration and reinvigoration of American spiritual and cultural health, without which long-term security is impossible. We want an America that cherishes its past glories and its heroes, and that looks forward to a new golden age. We want a people who are proud, happy, and optimistic that they will leave their country to the next generation better than they found it. We want a gainfully employed citizenry—with no one sitting on the sidelines—who take satisfaction from knowing that their work is essential to the prosperity of our nation and to the well-being of individuals and families. This cannot be accomplished without growing numbers of strong, traditional families that raise healthy children.” (p. 4)

I believe in the intellectual capacity and strength of this country. We can take care of our needs and still support our global commitments if we remove politics from the equation. The president is limited in what he or she can do; it’s Congress that should be doing more. They are our direct representatives and should know what this country needs, yet for some reason they are stuck fighting over the unimportant instead of doing what the Constitution mandates. One person cannot do it all, but 100 senators and 435 representatives can do far more to get this country back on track.

  1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strategy ↩︎
  2. Dubrin, Andrew J. Leadership – Research Findings, Practice, and Skills. (p. 391). 
    Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2007. ↩︎
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Strategy_(United_States) ↩︎

56 thoughts on “What’s in the 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy—and Why Everybody Is Talking About It”

    1. Absolutely! With all the issues we have in this country, Congress should be producing bills to solve them and sending them to the president to be signed into law. That is the responsibility of Congress, but they have abdicated that power. They are certainly not earning their pay. Thank you for reading and commenting.

      Like

      Reply

  5. I love this post – you provide such great context and do it in a measured and fair way that demonstrates yet again what a fantastic leader you are. Able to separate out the dramatic in order to create a fair assessment. The last paragraph included doesn’t seem at all like what we have now — even if we just pick “optimistic about the future” as one measuring stick.

    A conclusion that congress should be doing more makes so much sense. Thank you for the reminder to keep reaching out to my representatives!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thank you so much, Wynne. I think Congress is the key, and like you said, we need to reach out to our representatives and hold them accountable. Healthcare is the next problem, so we’ll see how they are going to solve it, even though it’s not looking promising.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  7. Wow…I am grateful to you, Edward, for your research and exploration about how the two versions of the NSS are different, comparing the 2017 and 2025 versions. Striking conclusions! Especially your insight about the softening toward Russia, a sovereignty focus…domestic focus. I think you are brilliant and ought to be an analyst getting air time to discuss this comparative work more broadly. And of course your thoughtful observations about the quality (or lack thereof) of the documents…speaks volumes, too. Many thanks for this, my friend. You are a tremendous educator and resource!
    ❤️❤️❤️

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      1. You painted the picture so well in your essay, Edward. It’s super grounding and healthy – mentally and emotionally for me – to soak up facts. Very steadying and you so often provide just that. Zeroing in. Thank you! ❤️🥰❤️

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

      1. I like that you defined “strategy.” In my experience most people haven’t been taught the difference between the words strategy and tactics, and that can make communicating across disciplines difficult. (Although, in your field, that might be defined in early years.) 👍

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  9. Thanks for this summary – it really helps. As an Australian, the main thing we hear about it, is that the US is dictating to us how much we should be putting towards defense spending. It feels odd to have someone else tell us how to spend our tax money! It feels like it’s going to be a ‘wild ride’ for everyone moving forward!

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. You’re welcome, Linda. I think a bad leader is one who always puts the blame on others instead of looking inward to understand what he is doing wrong and correcting it so that he can lead by example. I hope this country can go back to leading by example one day.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Yeah, I hate sounding negative, but the USA was ‘the best’ at everything when I was younger (sport / science /art etc) – now I feel like you guys are struggling – then again, there are still plenty of other places struggling more (sadly)! I think you will be world leaders one way or another, due to your sheer size and wealth… I hope that in Australia though we can set some moral benchmarks (like banning guns and social media for kids) – time will tell!

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. Yes, time will tell. I like what Australia did by banning social media for kids. I think it’s going to be hard at first, but the results will be great for the country in the long run.

          Like

          Reply

  10. I commend you for presenting legitimate criticism here outside of the polarized political lens, Edward. In particular, your mention of the generations-long Congressional concession of authority is relevant.

    Contrary to, I think, many of your readers, I am sympathetic to the idea that the post-WWII order has significantly and substantively changed, and though I’m no fan of the current President, that shift did not begin with this administration, and it isn’t all the fault of the U.S. That said, this was a poor product, and over the top when juxtaposed against the massive global threats that don’t appear (or are at least minimalized by rare mention).

    This is one of those times that, though I suspect we would have some differences, that I greatly respect your substance. Kudos!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Scott. I don’t think we are too far apart on the issue. I do believe this didn’t start with the current president, it’s really decades in the making. I think we missed an opportunity after the USSR collapsed to bring them closer to Europe and support their needs during that transition. Also, the U.S. and Europe are not really listening to ALL citizens or trying to address their grievances. That, in my opinion, is causing the rise of populism here and in Europe, and it’s affecting decision-making.

      When you read the news, people in the U.S. and Europe are highlighting the same issues: immigration, housing, jobs, and healthcare. Politicians continue to avoid addressing these, and the result is what we have now, a bit of a mess. People get tired of not getting answers, so they start voting for incompetent people who can talk a lot of nonsense, but it’s pleasing to the ears of those who feel ignored.

      These kinds of issues are hard to fully flush out in a post, but thank goodness for the ability to interact through the comments section.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Nevermind…… you’re right; we aren’t far off at all. I agree with every word of that. All that doesn’t make for good sound bites in the 24 hour news cycle though.

        With the tremendous challenge we face from China, for example, I was disturbed at the about-face you point out between the two Trump administration’s. Very well said, Edward!

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  11. While reading your lines and highlights, it came to my mind that sometimes it’s easier to focus on the bad state of your neighbor’s grass than to tend to your own. At least everyone gets distracted and even entertained. We can do so much better than this, both locally and globally! The right people with the right intentions can truly make things work to the greatest good. Thank you, Edward, for this detailed information! It’s always important to be informed! Light and blessings to you, my friend, always! 🙏✨

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Susana. Yes, I think keeping people distracted and entertained is the main purpose. Sadly, it’s coming down to that. We can definitely do better than that. Blessings, and I hope you have a wonderful weekend, my friend.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  13. congress has checked out and the players behind the scenes control the puppet in the presidential palace. to push our allies away and welcome in the strong-arm regimes is a huge mistake. the Monroe Doctrine returns. the top 1% rule, while the rest suffer.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  14. “Civilizational erasure.” One could go on. The meaning of such phrases also says much about our domestic situation, the approach to border “security,” people being taken into custody without due process, and the language used by the administration to describe people of other countries, languages, and skin colors to which they assign little or no worth and much menace, without evidence.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Absolutely! There are some dangerous maneuvers coming out of this administration. The language being used in this document, at rallies, and in press conferences is concerning. I know a lot of minorities who supported him are now regretting their vote, and I’m not sure why they voted that way in the first place, since what is happening was common knowledge.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  15. Thank you for reading these documents and sharing your perspectives Edward. It seems Mr. Trump and his allies talk about making our country strong while enriching his family, cronies, and the elite, and gutting its working people, social services, infrastructure, and relationships around the world. A recipe for the continued decline of our country and values they claim to care about.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Yes, and that’s the part I don’t understand. They have a weird sense of “fixing” our country. I mentioned to somebody else that he put some tariffs in place that affected Iowa and Illinois farmers because China went and bought soybeans from Brazil. So, to fix the problem he created, he is sending $12 billion to farmers to help with the issue he caused in the first place. The farmers have already said that $12 billion is not going to be enough. Also, I just read a news article stating that calls to mental health hotlines by farmers are on the rise in Iowa. Again, a weird way of “fixing” things.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  16. It seems to me that conservatives, especially the extremists, either learned nothing from the Second World War, its causes and aftermath, and the fallacy that isolationism and ultranationalism result in great economies and international stability.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

      1. And…I just realized…I omitted half of my thought.

        What I intended to write was:

        It seems to me that conservatives, especially the extremists, either learned nothing from the Second World War, its causes and aftermath, and the fallacy that isolationism and ultranationalism result in great economies and international stability, or some of them think the Third Reich was a good idea implemented poorly.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

Leave a reply to Alex Diaz-Granados Cancel reply