The president’s new National Security Strategy memorandum defines the freedom to coerce others as the core of US sovereignty. This foreboding document, if left unchallenged, is destined to create lasting problems for the United States.
The 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) unveiled by President Donald Trump positions itself as a roadmap for revitalizing American power. However, it suffers from four critical misconceptions.
Firstly, the NSS is rooted in an overblown view of US superiority, assuming dominance across all major areas of influence. Secondly, it adopts a starkly Machiavellian outlook, viewing foreign nations as mere tools for American gain. Thirdly, it embodies a naïve nationalism that dismisses international law and global institutions as impediments to US sovereignty, ignoring their role in enhancing both American and worldwide security.
Fourthly, the NSS signals a brazen use of the CIA and military force under Trump’s direction. Shortly after the NSS release, the US boldly confiscated an oil tanker transporting Venezuelan oil on international waters—based on tenuous claims that the ship had breached US sanctions on Iran.
This action was neither defensive nor lawful; international law does not permit seizure of vessels on the high seas due to unilateral American sanctions, a power reserved only for the UN Security Council. Rather, the act aims to enforce regime change in Venezuela. It follows Trump’s announcement directing the CIA to conduct secret operations inside Venezuela to destabilize its government.
American security cannot advance by behaving as an oppressor. Instead, this approach undermines it—morally, structurally, and strategically. A major power that intimidates allies, bullies neighbors, and flouts international norms drives itself into isolation.
Put simply, the NSS is not merely an arrogant policy paper; it is swiftly being put into aggressive action.
A Moment of Realism Quickly Overshadowed by Arrogance
The strategy does offer some overdue acknowledgments. It admits the US cannot and should not attempt global domination, recognizing that certain allies have dragged Washington into unnecessary and costly conflicts against its true interests. It also rhetorically distances itself from an endless great-power quest and dismisses the fantasy of imposing a universal political order.
Yet these modest reassurances are fleeting. The NSS soon reaffirms America’s status as holder of “the world’s single largest and most innovative economy,” “the world’s leading financial system,” and “the world’s most advanced and most profitable technology sector,” backed by the “world’s most powerful and capable military.” These assertions function not just as patriotic boasts but as grounds for wielding American predominance to dictate terms to other nations. Smaller countries are expected to bear the consequences, given that the US cannot outright defeat other nuclear-armed powers.
Blatant Machiavellianism Embedded in Policy
The NSS’s grand ambitions are entwined with egregious Machiavellianism. Rather than seeking cooperative international relations for mutual benefit, it focuses on how the US can leverage its dominant position—in markets, finance, technology, and security—to extract maximum concessions from other states.
This stance is most evident in the section on the Western Hemisphere, proclaiming a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. According to the NSS, the US will guarantee that Latin America is “kept free of hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets,” and conditions aid and alliances on “winding down adversarial outside influence,” a clear reference to Chinese investments, infrastructure, and loans.
The NSS explicitly demands that US partnerships with the countries “that depend on us most and therefore over which we have the most leverage” result in exclusive contracts for American companies. It calls for efforts to “push out foreign firms” building infrastructure in the region and to reshape multilateral bodies like the World Bank to align with “American interests.”
Latin American governments, many of which trade extensively with both the US and China, are effectively instructed: choose to work with us exclusively or face repercussions.
This policy is strategically shortsighted. China remains the primary trade partner for much of the world, including numerous Western Hemisphere states. The US will not succeed in forcing Latin American countries to oust Chinese companies, and will severely damage diplomatic relations in the process.
Brazen Bullying that Worries Even Close Allies
While the NSS advocates a doctrine labeled “sovereignty and respect,” in practice it reduces sovereignty to a privilege reserved solely for the US while leaving others vulnerable. What is most remarkable is that this intimidatory stance is alarming not only small Latin American nations but also America’s closest European allies.
In an extraordinary turn, Denmark—one of America’s most reliable NATO allies—has openly identified the US under Trump as a potential risk to Danish security. Danish defense officials have publicly expressed concern that Washington might not respect Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland, and have begun planning for the possibility of a coercive US attempt to seize the island.
This is remarkable on multiple fronts. Greenland already hosts the US Thule Air Base and is integrated into Western defense frameworks. Denmark is not hostile toward the US nor seeking confrontation but is prudently responding to a global environment in which American behavior has become unpredictable—even toward its closest partners.
That Denmark is prompted to consider defenses against the US signals a profound crisis. It implies that the US-led security order is cracking from within. If even Denmark must hedge against the US, this extends far beyond vulnerabilities in Latin America. It signifies a broader loss of trust among nations that once viewed the US as a cornerstone of stability but now see it as a potential aggressor.
Essentially, the NSS channels its efforts away from grand conflict with other superpowers and toward intimidating smaller nations. While America may be less eager to embark on trillion-dollar military campaigns, it increasingly resorts to sanctions, financial pressure, asset seizures, and maritime theft.
The Crucial Omission: Law, Reciprocity, and Integrity
The NSS’s most significant shortfall lies in what it leaves out: a genuine dedication to international law, mutual respect, and fundamental decency as cornerstones of American security.
The strategy portrays global governance frameworks as hindrances to US agendas. It dismisses climate cooperation as mere “ideology”—and, according to Trump’s recent UN speech, a “hoax.” It downplays the UN Charter, envisioning global institutions mainly as tools to mold in America’s favor. Yet these legal frameworks, treaties, and predictable norms have traditionally safeguarded US interests.
The US founders clearly recognized this. After winning independence, thirteen newly sovereign states adopted a constitution to share powers such as taxation, defense, and foreign policy—not to diminish sovereignty but to secure it through the US Federal Government. Similarly, post-World War II US foreign policy created the UN, Bretton Woods institutions, the World Trade Organization, and arms-control treaties.
The Trump NSS now subverts this tradition, framing sovereignty as the ability to coerce others. The Venezuelan tanker seizure and Denmark’s concerns exemplify this troubling mindset.
Athens, Melos, and America’s Future
This arrogance will eventually backfire on the United States. The ancient Greek historian Thucydides wrote that in 416 BC, imperial Athens bluntly told the smaller island Melos that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” However, Athens’ pride was its downfall. Just twelve years later, in 404 BC, Athens fell to Sparta. Its arrogance and disdain for smaller states fueled the coalition that defeated it.
The 2025 NSS echoes a similar tone: prioritizing power over law, force over consent, and dominance over diplomacy. Such a posture will not enhance American security but will weaken it in every respect. A dominant state that intimidates allies, coerces neighbors, and disregards international norms eventually isolates itself.
America’s national security policy should be grounded in entirely different principles: embracing a diverse international order; understanding that sovereignty is reinforced—not undermined—by adherence to international law; recognizing the necessity of global collaboration on climate, health, and technology; and acknowledging that true influence arises from persuasion rather than coercion.
Original article: commondreams.org
About the Author
