America
New US national security strategy: The end of globalization and the return of the Monroe Doctrine
The Donald Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy (NSS), the publication of which had been delayed for a long time, has been released.
The 33-page document shapes the security perspective of the US at both global and national levels.
In writing the foreword for NSS 2025, Trump claims that they have turned the US back from “destruction and disaster” since the first day of his second presidential term. He asserts that after “four years of weakness, extremism, and deadly failures,” his administration has restored the power of the US at home and abroad at “historic speed” and brought “peace and stability” to the world.
Stating that “No country, region, issue, or cause—no matter how worthy—can be the focus of American strategy,” NSS 2025 points out that the purpose of foreign policy is the “protection of fundamental national interests.”
Argued that American strategies formed since the end of the Cold War have been insufficient, the new NSS criticizes relevant strategies for consisting merely of “a list of aspirations or desired end states.”
Suggesting that previous strategies failed to “clearly define what the US wanted,” NSS 2025 believes that instead, expressions consisting of “vague clichés” were used, and often, “what the US should want” was evaluated incorrectly.
NSS 2025 states the following:
“Since the end of the Cold War, American foreign policy elites convinced themselves that permanent American dominance over the entire world was in our country’s best interest. However, the affairs of other countries concern us only insofar as their activities directly threaten our interests.”
Viewing the “nation-building” processes of the US, particularly in the Middle East, critically, NSS 2025 says, “Our elites vastly miscalculated the willingness of the American people to forever bear global burdens that they viewed as having no connection to national interests.”
The strategy document argues that previous foreign policymakers overestimated the ability of the US to simultaneously fund a massive military, diplomatic, intelligence, and foreign aid complex alongside a massive social welfare, regulatory, and administrative state. It asserts that they made “extremely wrong and destructive bets” on globalization and free trade, thereby hollowing out “the middle class and industrial base upon which the American economy and military superiority depend.”
Directing criticisms at international institutions as well as the US bearing the burden of its “allies,” NSS 2025 says the following:
“They allowed allies and partners to offload defense costs onto the American people and sometimes drag us into conflicts and disputes that were central to their interests but insignificant or irrelevant to ours. And they tethered American policy to a network of international institutions, some driven by open anti-Americanism, and most by a transnational approach explicitly aiming to eliminate individual state sovereignty. In short, our elites not only pursued a fundamentally unwanted and impossible goal, but in doing so, they also undermined the means necessary to achieve that goal—namely, the character of our nation, which forms the foundation of our power, wealth, and morality.”
Describing Trump’s policies as a “necessary correction,” the new NSS argues that the US primarily wants “the government to ensure the existence and security of the US as an independent, sovereign republic that secures the God-given natural rights of its citizens and prioritizes their welfare and interests.”
Emphasizing the desire to protect the country from “military attacks and hostile foreign influences such as espionage, predatory trade practices, drug and human trafficking, destructive propaganda and influence operations, cultural destruction, or other threats to our nation,” NSS 2025 counts full control over borders, the immigration system, and transportation networks where people enter the US “legally and illegally” among its fundamental goals.
Placing special emphasis on military capacity, the NSS writes, “To protect the American people, America’s assets abroad, and its allies, we want to possess the world’s most robust, reliable, and modern nuclear deterrence system and next-generation missile defense systems, including a Golden Dome for the American homeland.”
Acknowledging that the US industrial base is also critical for its global-military role, NSS 2025 announces that it will prioritize industrial policies:
“American national power depends on a strong industrial sector capable of meeting production demands in peacetime and wartime. This requires not only direct defense industry production capacity but also defense-related production capacity. Developing American industrial power must become the highest priority of national economic policy.”
Going for a “correction” regarding American “soft power” as well, NSS 2025 declares that while displaying the soft power of the US, they will respect the different religions, cultures, and governance systems of other countries “without feeling regret about the country’s past and present.”
The document states, “‘Soft power’ that serves America’s true national interests can only be effective when we believe in our country’s innate greatness and honesty.”
In this context, listing its expectations from the world, the American administration declares with an overt reference to the Monroe Doctrine that it will not allow a breach in US hegemony in the “Western Hemisphere”:
“We want to ensure the Western Hemisphere is a reasonably stable and well-governed region to prevent and deter mass migration to the United States; we want a Hemisphere where governments cooperate with us against narco-terrorists, cartels, and other international criminal organizations; we want a Hemisphere that is not subject to hostile foreign attacks or the seizure of significant assets and that supports critical supply chains; and we want to maintain our access to key strategic locations. In other words, we will add a ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine and enforce it.”
The document openly declares that after “years of neglect,” the US will reinstate and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American superiority in the “Western Hemisphere” and to “protect the homeland and access to key geographical areas in the region.”
NSS 2025 states, “We will prevent adversaries outside the Hemisphere from positioning forces or other threatening capabilities in our hemisphere or from owning or controlling assets of vital strategic importance”:
“Our goals for the Western Hemisphere can be summarized as ‘Enlist and Expand.’ We will enlist our established friends in the hemisphere to control migration, stop the flow of drugs, and strengthen stability and security on land and at sea. While increasing our country’s appeal as the hemisphere’s preferred economic and security partner, we will expand by developing and strengthening new partners.”
In this context, it is stated that the global military presence of the US will also be re-evaluated with the Western Hemisphere in mind.
Stopping and reversing the damage caused by “foreign actors” to the American economy, while also keeping the Indo-Pacific region “free and open,” protecting freedom of navigation on all major sea lanes, and “maintaining secure and reliable supply chains and access to critical materials” are also among the priorities of NSS 2025.
Stating that they want to support allies in “protecting Europe’s freedom and security” while Europe restores “self-confidence” in its own civilization and its “Western identity,” NSS 2025 appears to continue the criticism of “endless wars” that began during the Barack Obama era by saying, “We want to prevent a hostile power from dominating the Middle East, its oil and natural gas resources, and the chokepoints through which they pass, and at the same time prevent the ‘endless wars’ that drag us into a quagmire in that region at great cost.”
Noting that they want to ensure US technology and US standards lead the world forward, particularly in the fields of artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and quantum computing, the new strategy asserts that all these are “fundamental and vital national interests” of the US and states, “While we have other interests, these are the interests we must focus on above all else, and which will be to our detriment if we ignore or neglect them”:
“President Trump’s foreign policy is pragmatic without being ‘pragmatist,’ realistic without being ‘realist,’ principled without being ‘idealist,’ strong without being ‘hawkish,’ and measured without being ‘dovish.’ It is not based on traditional political ideology. It focuses above all on what works for America, in two words: ‘America First.’”
Stopping regional conflicts before they turn into “global wars dragging in entire continents” is seen as a priority of this administration.
Stating, “A world on fire, where wars reach our shores, is bad for American interests,” NSS 2025 claims that Trump uses “unconventional diplomacy,” “America’s military power,” and “economic leverage” to “surgically extinguish” the sparks of violent wars caused by divisions between nuclear-armed countries and “centuries-old hatred.”
Continuing to point to the magnitude of the US military power globally and the reserve currency role of the dollar, the document underscores that, in addition to these, they will revitalize the “culture of competence” and competitiveness by reversing diversity policies known as “DEI.”
Making a “middle class” emphasis as well, the document points specifically to energy and industrialization:
“To support growth and innovation, strengthen and rebuild the middle class, unleashing our massive energy production capacity as a strategic priority;
To re-industrialize our economy to further support the middle class and control our own supply chains and production capacity.”
In this context, the document values the role of tax cuts and deregulation and dreams of making the US “the most suitable place to do business and invest capital.”
In this regard, it is emphasized that the Trump administration’s foreign policy will be guided by the following principles:
- Focused Definition of National Interests
- Peace Through Strength
- Inclination Toward Non-Intervention
- Flexible Realism
- Primacy of Nations
- Sovereignty and Respect
- Balance of Power
- Supporting the American Worker
- Justice
- Competence and Merit
NSS 2025 states in this context that the era of mass migration has ended; fundamental rights and freedoms will be defended; burdens will be both shared and differentiated; rearrangements will be made through peace; and importance will be given to economic security through balanced trade, industrialization, and securing access to critical supply chains.
America
Milei hardens Falklands stance with oil sanctions and defence push
Argentine President Javier Milei has said he will tighten sanctions on companies involved in oil projects around the Falkland/Malvinas Islands.
Milei also said he would increase defence resources in the south of the country and submit a bill to Congress aimed at strengthening Argentina’s response to what he described as violations of sovereignty.
In a televised address, Milei said he would sign a decree to accelerate sanctions under Argentine law against companies participating in oil and gas extraction activities in the territory, which Argentina considers its own but which remains under British control.
Speaking in an address to the nation early on Friday morning, Milei said the United Kingdom was facing a migration and economic crisis, adding that this meant Argentina would prevail in its claim over the Falkland Islands:
“If we look at the structural crisis in the United Kingdom, it is clear that the country is facing multiple crises on many fronts, including migration, demographics, and a difficult economic situation. It is clear that Argentina’s future is extremely promising and that Argentina will prevail.”
Milei said Argentina would intensify efforts to sanction not only the companies involved, but also their shareholders, executives, and suppliers.
“We will continue to prevent companies that are directly or indirectly involved in projects (on the islands) without Argentina’s permission from operating on Argentine territory,” the Argentine leader said.
He also stated that the government would issue an emergency decree to expand defence resources, under which a naval base would be built in the nearby province of Tierra del Fuego and telecommunications capabilities would be strengthened.
Milei added that he would submit an urgent “national defence of sovereignty” bill to Congress in order to stiffen penalties for unauthorised activities around the islands, extend sanctions to suppliers, and broaden the legal framework to cover other activities affecting Argentina’s natural resources.
Milei noted that Argentina had determined that the Sea Lion offshore project, operated by Navitas Petroleum and Rockhopper Exploration, could begin oil exploration work in the coming months, presenting an imminent threat to Argentine interests.
The remarks mark a harder line from Milei, who had previously called for the Falkland Islands dispute to be resolved through diplomacy even while seeking warmer ties with Britain.
A British overseas territory located roughly 500 km east of the Argentine mainland, the Falkland Islands have long been claimed by Argentina.
Britain has controlled the islands since 1833, and the two countries fought a brief war over them in 1982.
London maintains that residents of the Falkland Islands voted on their political status and right to self-determination in a referendum held in March 2013. An overwhelming majority of 99.8% voted to remain an overseas territory of the United Kingdom.
In his speech, Milei stated that residents of the Falkland Islands do not possess the right to self-determination and called on the country to unite around its claim to the islands.
Arguing that the global wind is currently “blowing in favour of Argentina’s demands”, Milei said: “A short time ago, President [Donald] Trump announced that the US is reconsidering its historic stance on the Malvinas islands.”
The British conservative newspaper The Telegraph wrote that the move would appease the US president, who intervened in the dispute and implied he would not assist the United Kingdom in fighting off an invasion of the Falkland Islands.
Asked whether the US would “come to the aid” of Britain, Trump referred to his confrontation with Iran, saying: “Your country was not there to help me.”
Trump then questioned whether Britain would have the capacity to defend the islands, telling GB News:
“Look, I was there when the first war broke out. That was a very long time ago, and I watched it very closely. You handled yourselves very well. You took the islands back quite decisively, but it is very far away.”
Speculation is mounting that Buenos Aires and Washington are discussing an agreement granting the US access to oil extracted off the Malvinas.
On the eve of Milei’s speech, Argentine Minister of Energy and Mining Daniel Gonzalez Casartelli was in Washington to discuss energy investments with American oil companies and members of the Trump administration.
Meanwhile, Benjamin Netanyahu’s son Yair clashed with the British right by demanding that the Falkland Islands be placed under Argentine sovereignty.
According to Bloomberg, Argentina is currently in the midst of an oil boom. Drilling activity is accelerating in the Vaca Muerta shale formation in Patagonia, which already produces more than 1 million barrels of oil and gas per day.
The country also has some offshore production operations, and exploration activities have been carried out in South Atlantic waters in recent years.
Meanwhile, Milei met Sarah Rogers, a senior US State Department official, at a conservative political forum held in Chile.
Reiterating Argentina’s claim to the islands, Milei said: “We must take back these islands, which are negligible in national terms. There is no other way forward. This is the best way to pay tribute to those who sacrificed their lives for this cause.”
America
US House passes bill to strip federal aid over Israel boycotts
The US House of Representatives has passed a controversial bill to strip federal financial aid from colleges and universities that participate in boycotts against Israel.
The Republican-led measure targets calls for accountability directed at the Tel Aviv government over its military campaign in the Gaza Strip, as well as expressions of solidarity with Palestine on university campuses.
Entitled the “Protecting Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026”, the legislation was approved on Thursday in a 237–169 vote.
Only two Republican lawmakers voted against the measure, while 33 Democrats broke party lines to vote in favour. The bill will now proceed to the Senate.
Designated as H.R. 4795, the proposal bars colleges and universities that benefit from federal student aid programmes from engaging in commercial boycotts against Israel.
Institutions receiving Title VI funding for international studies and foreign language programmes are also required to certify that they do not prevent students or faculty from participating in academic programmes in the occupied territories, nor restrict Israeli students and academics from accessing their campuses.
The bill was co-sponsored by Representative Virginia Foxx, a North Carolina Republican, and Representative Josh Gottheimer, a New Jersey Democrat.
Representative Tim Walberg, chairman of the House Education Committee, argued that taxpayer money should under no circumstances flow to institutions that “discriminate against Israel”.
Gottheimer, a staunch supporter of the Israeli government, stated that the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement is a campaign “targeting a single country and a single religion”.
Opponents of the bill emphasised that the measure seeks to solve a non-existent problem and constitutes an attack on constitutionally protected free speech.
The ranking Democrat on the committee, Representative Bobby Scott, pointed out that not a single US college or university has actually joined the global BDS movement. Scott recalled that while student and faculty bodies have announced support for BDS, university administrations have refused to implement those demands.
During the floor debate, Scott said: “We must fight antisemitism wherever it appears, but we should not do so by penalising protected free speech or conflating a student’s view with university policy.”
Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat who opposes the BDS movement, also voted against the bill. Nadler noted that the only way to protect opinions one agrees with is to defend the right to express opinions one does not agree with.
The liberal Jewish organisation J Street was also among the actors opposing the bill. The group warned that the measure conflates boycotts of the Israeli government with those directed at companies linked to illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.
J Street stated that the bill places Israel in an exceptional position, does nothing to protect Jewish students, and risks inflaming antisemitism rather than countering it. By contrast, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) openly backed the legislation.
The vote follows nearly three years of sustained protests by students and faculty against Israel’s war in Gaza.
According to data from the Ministry of Health in Gaza, attacks carried out following the 7 October 2023 operation and the subsequent military campaign launched by Israel have killed more than 73,000 Palestinians, while flattening the vast majority of the region’s universities, schools, and civilian infrastructure.
Encampments erected on university campuses demanded an end to the carnage and called on universities to divest financial holdings from companies profiting from the occupation and the war.
The Washington administration and its allies frequently characterised these protests as antisemitic. The Trump administration, meanwhile, targeted universities with various investigations and threats to freeze federal funds.
Aiming to protect their congressional majority in the November midterm elections and during the final two years of Trump’s term, House Republicans are keeping the issue on the agenda to deepen divisions among Democrats, who have grown increasingly critical of Israel as mass casualties in Gaza mount.
In July, amid accusations that the campaign in Gaza had reached genocidal proportions, more than 100 House Democrats supported an initiative to cut certain military aid to Israel, a US ally.
Critics argue that the latest bill is an extension of anti-BDS legislation previously enacted across more than 30 US states, which compels public contractors and public institutions to pledge not to boycott Israel.
Free speech advocates have long maintained that these state laws conflict with the First Amendment of the Constitution.
The measure passed by the House of Representatives aims to expand this pressure to the entire federal student financial aid system.
Although no US university has formally adopted a BDS decision, the bill makes even limited commercial or academic distancing from the Israeli government—including entities operating in the occupied Palestinian territories—grounds for terminating federal funding.
America
Pentagon office takes 35% stake in Venezuela oil venture
The Trump administration’s oil agreement with Venezuela represents the riskiest venture to date for a Pentagon unit originally established for an entirely different purpose.
The White House announced this week that the Office of Strategic Capital (OSC), an entity operating under the Department of Defence, will acquire a 35% stake “at no cost to American taxpayers” in North American Blue Energy Partners, a firm headed by politically connected Venezuelan investor Alejandro Betancourt.
The objective is to make Venezuelan oilfields more attractive to US investors, thereby increasing revenue for Caracas whilst simultaneously squeezing out Chinese and Russian firms.
According to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the OSC has already facilitated equity acquisitions in at least five other companies during President Donald Trump’s second term. The OSC was created to provide loans for the development of critical technologies.
However, because the Venezuelan agreement involves petroleum rather than conventional critical technology, it stretches the agency’s statutory boundaries even further and has already prompted Democrats to pledge congressional investigations.
Should Democrats regain power in Washington this November, any oversight drive could place the office’s efforts to secure state equity positions in private corporations under intense scrutiny.
In an interview with Semafor, a former OSC official stated:
“Acquiring equity was never intended when the OSC was founded; that circumstance alone does not necessarily constitute a problem. Nevertheless, it raises some legitimate legal and ethical questions.”
Jon Hillman, who directs the council’s tracking system, noted in an interview that the Venezuelan oil deal “appears to be uncharted territory”, adding that the office’s “mission is to catalyze private investment into specific, critical supply chain technologies necessary for national security.”
The statute that established the OSC defines its authority to provide “capital support” as extending and guaranteeing loans and offering technical assistance.
A Pentagon spokesperson initially told Reuters that the office was “not acquiring equity” in private enterprises due to this constrained remit.
On Tuesday, however, a US official offered a contrasting account to journalists, stating that the authority to acquire a stake in Betancourt’s company via “penny warrants” was “granted to the OSC when it was enacted into law under the Biden administration.”
A “penny warrant” is a financial contract that confers upon its holder the right to purchase corporate shares at a negligible, nominal price.
The US official added:
“This is an entirely standard arrangement in terms of the OSC’s capacity to maintain the financial position it holds under this agreement, and all financial positions granted to the OSC comply fully with the law.”
Peter Harrell, a visiting scholar at Georgetown University Law Center, said in an interview that it was “impossible to render a definitive legal opinion” because officials had “not advanced a precise legal theory.”
Harrell added that the Trump administration may be banking on no party possessing either the legal standing or the inclination to bring a lawsuit over the transaction.
That calculation encompasses oil corporations hoping to profit from the newly reopened Venezuelan petroleum sector.
Cari Stinebower, an attorney at the law firm Steptoe who advises petroleum firms seeking to conduct business in Venezuela, said: “I suspect everyone may be quietly perplexed. Yet I do not believe anyone will speak out, because virtually everyone wants to participate in the investment opportunities in Venezuela.”
Jack Reed, the senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, is among those already demanding further particulars regarding the agency’s statutory authority to conclude the agreement.
Certain Republicans are likewise keen to obtain additional information concerning the Venezuelan deal.
The Biden administration formed the OSC in 2022 to provide loans to businesses developing technologies deemed “vital” to national security.
Recent legislative initiatives aimed at formally expanding its authority to encompass equity investments have so far foundered.
Yet under the direction of Deputy Secretary of Defence Steve Feinberg, the administration pressed forward regardless, enlisting bankers to help deploy a lending authority that surged from $1 billion to $200 billion courtesy of recent party-line Republican tax legislation.
The current director of the OSC, David Lorch, previously served as a managing director at Cerberus Capital Management, the private equity firm founded by Feinberg.
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoUS strikes fail to break Iran as regional anchors rise, Dr. Moeini says
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoBlackwater founder Erik Prince creates air defence venture with Kyiv
-
Europe2 weeks agoUK and Russia edge closer to conflict over long-range drone supply
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoSouth Korea begins first commercial voyage via Northern Sea Route
-
Opinion2 weeks agoWhat did the Israeli attack in Syria reveal?
-
Asia2 weeks agoChina and Arab states launch 5-year anti-desertification plan
-
Russia1 week agoPutin circle weighs tactical nuclear risk as Ukraine talks stall
-
America1 week agoPentagon to fully purge Anthropic AI from systems by end of September
