Yves here. The recent National Security Strategy (NSS) document from the Trump administration has stirred significant controversy, particularly due to its sharp criticism of Europe and dismissive remarks regarding Russia, suggesting the need to reintegrate it after what they perceive as an economically productive isolation.
While the Trump administration has made some bold statements—essentially conveying sentiments akin to “I hate you, and I want a divorce”—the feasibility of implementing these strategies is uncertain. This uncertainty is compounded by the argument made by Sachs below, which contends that the heavy-handed tactics employed by the U.S. to maintain its waning empire will only lead to greater backlash.
At the Munich Security Conference in February, the Trump administration publicly expressed its reluctance to continue the previous levels of military aid to Europe. Notably, Secretary of State Rubio missed a NATO meeting of foreign ministers in December. However, Trump’s influence is constrained by entrenched bureaucratic interests leaning toward neoconservatism, along with hawkish figures like Lindsey Graham. For example, we and others have suggested that the U.S. could exert control over Zelensky by cutting off intelligence support, including targeting information, but Trump reportedly fears the fallout from such a move.
That said, the U.S. may turn to alternative methods to achieve its objectives concerning Europe and Ukraine. Michael Hudson has warned about the increasingly detrimental economic policies the U.S. is imposing on Europe. A recent report indicates that the U.S. may even have more overt destabilization strategies. According to the Brussels Times (thanks to Micael T):
Sources suggest that the U.S., under President Donald Trump, is attempting to convince four EU nations to follow the UK’s lead and exit the EU, according to a leaked version of the American National Security Strategy obtained by U.S. defense site Defense One.
The document allegedly states that the Trump administration aims to draw Austria, Italy, Hungary, and Poland away from the EU and into closer alignment with U.S. interests, framed as a part of a new strategy to “Make Europe Great Again.”
The U.S. government has, however, dismissed the authenticity of this draft. As mentioned in the same article:
The leak raised alarms on social media and in European news outlets, prompting the White House to deny the allegations, asserting that there is no other version of the NSS aside from the one released last week.
“No alternative, private, or classified version exists,” stated White House spokesperson Anna Kelly. “President Trump is transparent and has signed only one National Security Strategy that clearly outlines his principles and priorities for the U.S. government.”
Even if this strategy is under contemplation, it reflects a concerning lack of understanding. The UK’s exit was feasible primarily because it has its own currency, which is not the case for Italy and Austria, both part of the Eurozone. As we elaborated during Greece’s 2015 bailout, attempting to exit the Eurozone could spur bank runs and potentially collapse the banking system. Hungary is too small and heavily integrated economically with the EU for such a move to be viable. Nearly 80% of Hungary’s trade is with the EU, and data shows that 74% of Poland’s exports and 67% of imports are tied to the bloc.
By Jeffrey D. Sachs, University Professor and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University. Originally published at Common Dreams
The 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) recently released by President Donald Trump positions itself as a blueprint for the resurgence of American strength. However, it is fundamentally flawed in four critical aspects.
First, the NSS is steeped in grandeur, assuming that the United States holds unrivaled supremacy in all essential facets of power. Second, it adopts a starkly Machiavellian worldview, treating other nations as mere tools to be manipulated for U.S. advantage. Third, it reflects a simplistic nationalism that views international law and institutions as barriers to U.S. sovereignty instead of frameworks promoting both American and global security.
Fourth, it reveals a troubling aggression in Trump’s use of the CIA and military. Shortly after the NSS’s release, the U.S. seized a tanker transporting Venezuelan oil on the high seas, claiming the vessel had previously breached U.S. sanctions against Iran. This act was neither a defensive measure prompted by an imminent threat nor legally justified; such authority lies solely with the UN Security Council. Instead, this seizure appears designed to incite regime change in Venezuela, following Trump’s directive for covert CIA operations aimed at destabilizing the regime.
American security will not be bolstered by adopting a bully’s tactics; such an approach risks structural, moral, and strategic weakening. A great power that intimidates its allies, coerces its neighbors, and flouts international norms ultimately faces isolation.
The NSS is not merely a document of hubris; it is actively being executed through brazen actions.
A Glimmer of Realism, Then a Lurch into Pride
It is worth noting that the NSS does include moments of overdue realism. It implicitly acknowledges that the United States cannot and should not seek to dominate the entirety of the globe and rightly identifies that certain allies have misled Washington into costly misadventures that were not in America’s genuine interest. The strategy temporarily retreats—at least in rhetoric—from an all-encompassing crusade for great-power domination, rejecting the notion that the U.S. can or should impose a universal political order.
However, this modesty is fleeting. The NSS rapidly reaffirms that America boasts the “world’s largest and most innovative economy,” “the foremost financial system,” and “the most advanced and profitable technology sector,” all underpinned by “the most powerful and capable military.” These assertions serve not merely as patriotic slogans but as justifications for wielding American dominance to impose its terms on others. Smaller nations bear the consequences of this arrogance since the U.S. finds it increasingly challenging to counter other great powers, particularly those armed with nuclear weapons.
Pure Machiavellianism in Doctrine
The NSS’s grandiosity is closely tied to unvarnished Machiavellianism. Its question is not how the United States and other nations can collaborate for mutual benefit but how to leverage American power—over markets, finance, technology, and security—to obtain maximum concessions from other countries.
This approach is especially evident in the NSS’s treatment of the Western Hemisphere, where it proposes a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. The document states that the United States will guarantee that Latin America “remains free of hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets,” with alliances and aid contingent upon diminishing adversarial outside influences. This antagonism clearly targets Chinese investments, infrastructure, and lending.
The NSS explicitly states that agreements with nations that depend most on the U.S.—and over which the U.S. holds the most leverage—must culminate in sole-source contracts for American firms. U.S. policy should strive to “push out foreign companies” involved in regional infrastructure development, and the U.S. is urged to reshape multilateral development institutions, such as the World Bank, to better serve American interests.
Countries in Latin America, many of which trade extensively with both the U.S. and China, are effectively being told: you must engage with us, not China—or face consequences.
This strategy is strategically naive. China is now the primary trading partner for a significant number of countries worldwide, including numerous nations in the Western Hemisphere. The U.S. will struggle to compel Latin American countries to eject Chinese firms, ultimately harming U.S. diplomacy in the process.
Thuggery So Overt Even Close Allies Are Alarmed
The NSS promotes a doctrine of “sovereignty and respect,” but its actions have effectively reduced that principle to sovereignty for the U.S. alone, leaving others vulnerable. The emerging doctrine’s extraordinary nature is highlighted by the fact that even America’s closest allies in Europe are beginning to express concern about U.S. intentions.
In a striking example, Denmark—one of the U.S.’s staunchest NATO partners—has openly labeled the United States a potential threat to its national security. Defense planners in Denmark have publicly suggested that the U.S. under Trump cannot be relied upon to respect Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland, and that they must now prepare for the possibility of a coercive U.S. attempt to claim the island.
This revelation is remarkable for several reasons. Greenland already hosts the U.S. Thule Air Base and remains a part of the Western security structure. Denmark is not anti-American nor seeking to provoke the U.S.; rather, it is responding rationally to a situation where the U.S. has shown itself to be increasingly unpredictable—even toward its so-called friends.
The need for Copenhagen to contemplate defensive measures against Washington speaks volumes, indicating that the legitimacy of the U.S.-led security architecture is eroding from within. If even Denmark feels the need to shield itself from the U.S., the concern transcends Latin America’s vulnerability; it highlights a systemic crisis of trust among nations that once regarded the U.S. as a stabilizing force but now perceive it as a potential aggressor.
In essence, the NSS appears to refocus the energy previously directed at confronting great powers towards exerting dominance over smaller nations. While the U.S. may seem slightly less inclined to engage in trillion-dollar conflicts abroad, it is more willing to weaponize sanctions, financial coercion, asset confiscation, and piracy on the high seas.
The Missing Pillar: Law, Reciprocity, and Decency
Perhaps the NSS’s most significant flaw is its omission of any commitment to international law, reciprocity, and basic decency as foundations of American security.
The NSS views global governance frameworks as obstacles to U.S. actions. It dismisses climate cooperation as “ideology,” and even a “hoax,” as Trump recently stated at the UN. It downplays the importance of the UN Charter, seeing international institutions primarily as tools to be manipulated to suit American preferences. Yet it is precisely these legal frameworks, treaties, and predictable regulations that have historically safeguarded U.S. interests.
The American founders understood this concept well. After the War of Independence, thirteen newly sovereign states quickly adopted a constitution to centralize key powers—over taxation, defense, and diplomacy—not to erode the states’ sovereignty, but to secure it by creating a federal government. Post-World War II American foreign policy followed a similar logic through the establishment of the UN, the Bretton Woods institutions, the World Trade Organization, and various arms-control agreements.
The Trump NSS fundamentally reverses that principle. It interprets the freedom to coerce others as the essence of sovereignty. The recent issues surrounding the Venezuelan tanker seizure and Denmark’s concerns illustrate this new policy.
Athens, Melos, and Washington
This hubris is likely to haunt the United States. The ancient Greek historian Thucydides recounts how imperial Athens confronted the small island of Melos in 416 BC, stating, “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.” However, Athenian hubris also led to its downfall. Twelve years later, in 404 BC, Athens succumbed to Sparta. Their arrogance and overreach, combined with disdain for smaller states, helped galvanize the alliance that ultimately led to their defeat.
The 2025 NSS exhibits a similarly arrogant tone. It stands as a doctrine that prioritizes power over law, coercion over consent, and dominance over diplomacy. Acting as a bully will not strengthen American security; rather, it will undermine it—structurally, morally, and strategically. A great power that intimidates its allies, coerces its neighbors, and disregards international norms will eventually find itself isolated.
America’s national security strategy should rest on fundamentally different principles: an acceptance of a multipolar world; the understanding that sovereignty is fortified, not diminished, through international law; an acknowledgment of the necessity for global cooperation on climate, health, and technology; and a recognition that America’s global influence is rooted more in persuasion than in coercion.
