The Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy introduces a notable pivot in American defense priorities. It shifts the focus from Islamic terrorism and Middle Eastern policies to asserting U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere while identifying mass migration as the foremost national security concern. This departure from post-9/11 strategies marks a significant reevaluation in how the U.S. approaches global stability.
In this strategy, the White House explicitly states, “The days in which the Middle East dominated American foreign policy in both long-term planning and day-to-day execution are thankfully over.” This signals the administration’s belief that while the Middle East still holds importance, it no longer represents the constant threat it once did. “It is rather emerging as a place of partnership, friendship, and investment,” the document suggests. Such language reflects an optimistic view of the region’s role while looking inward at potential threats closer to home.
The introduction of a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine also reveals a commitment to countering foreign influence in the Americas. This revival of an old doctrine signals an intent to reshape how the U.S. engages with its neighbors. However, not everyone is convinced this is the right path. Alex Plitsas, a former Army intelligence officer, warns against the administration’s emphasis on hemispheric threats at the expense of understanding global risks. He notes, “The most significant threats to the United States — whether terrorism or near-peer adversaries — are not in the Western Hemisphere.”
The document posits that instability in Latin America, marked by soaring migration flows, cartel violence, and the growing presence of China and Russia, now poses a more immediate danger to the U.S. homeland than conflicts thousands of miles away. Officials are framing the Western Hemisphere as the “front line” of defense, emphasizing that the security and integrity of U.S. borders are now paramount. Emily Harding from the Center for Strategic and International Studies observed that while Islamic terrorism seems more contained, the Middle East has a history of drawing the U.S. back into conflicts unexpectedly. She captured this sentiment with a line from “The Godfather Part III”: “You try to get out, and then it sucks you back in.”
This strategy surfaces as U.S. officials are grappling with recent incidents that underscore the ongoing nature of terrorism risks, such as the shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, D.C., by an Afghan national. Additionally, arrests tied to ISIS-linked activities serve as reminders of the persistent threats that linger. However, the administration contends that these incidents illustrate failures in border security rather than a resurgence of global terrorism as a leading danger. The strategy states, “We must protect our country from invasion, not just from unchecked migration but from cross-border threats such as terrorism, drugs, espionage, and human trafficking.”
The document’s discussions about terrorism are notably brief, relegating it to a category alongside migration issues. There is also a single mention of Islamic terrorism, urging caution towards potential threats in Africa while asserting a preference against long-term military commitments. This reclassification could suggest a narrowing scope of security priorities, raising questions about the potential risks of underestimating the ongoing threats from violent extremist groups worldwide.
Plitsas raises valid concerns regarding the implications of shifting focus away from ongoing global threats. He remarked on the operational capacity of groups like ISIS-Khorasan and noted the vast Sahel region in Africa where extremist factions can operate with little resistance. His caution highlights the reality that while the U.S. may aim to pivot away from the Middle East, persistent threats could re-emerge. “The United States may be done with the Middle East and terrorism, but terrorism and the Middle East are not done with us,” he argues.
The document warns of the consequences of U.S. withdrawal from the region, suggesting that adversaries like Iran could exploit any vacuums created. This echoes a longstanding concern: if U.S. forces retreat, it risks breaking established security commitments, potentially inviting greater instability. Even while the strategy focuses on the Western Hemisphere, it acknowledges the significant factors posed by China and stresses the importance of maintaining strong deterrence in the Indo-Pacific. It dedicates considerable attention to how China is expanding its presence in Latin America, stating that countries choosing to align with the U.S. will be rewarded, while those opting for China may face repercussions.
As the U.S. continues to navigate these complex security dynamics, the effectiveness of this new strategy hinges on whether it can be translated into actionable policies. Previous administrations have often struggled to align their strategic narratives with the realities on the ground. Thus, while the emphasis on the Western Hemisphere signifies a clear shift, the ability to implement these ideas into tangible military and diplomatic actions remains a crucial challenge for the administration ahead.
"*" indicates required fields
