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
Iran war costs US economy $265 billion as household burden mounts
The economic toll of the conflict on the US has reached $265 billion in the roughly eight months since the start of joint US and Israeli strikes against Iran.
According to calculations by Moody’s Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi, this amount imposes an additional burden of approximately $2,000 on the budget of an average American family.
Sharing data on his X account on Tuesday, Zandi noted that the cost per household since the war began stands at about $2,000, with nationwide economic losses reaching $265 billion.
This estimate is seven times higher than the direct military spending figure reported to Congress by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, which covers the period between the start of the strikes on 28 February and the end of July.
While Hegseth’s official figures cover only direct military operations, the conflict’s impact on global markets and oil prices is driving up inflation and day-to-day living costs, deepening the real burden on household budgets.
Fuel and heating costs strain budgets
Energy items account for the largest share of the additional expenses facing American households. The surge in fuel, home heating, and transport costs has generated an extra bill of about $1,100 per family.
Zandi noted that the price of regular petrol, which hovered just below $3 per gallon before the war, has risen to $4.37, while diesel has exceeded $6 and jet fuel has nearly doubled.
Pointing out that a marked rise in residential heating fuel costs is driving up spending as winter approaches, Zandi said current price levels continue to add roughly $50 a week to family budgets.
Researchers at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs are also tracking the impact of rising fuel prices on consumers.
According to data from the institute, US consumers have paid an extra $133.3 billion for fuel products since 28 February.
During this period, petrol prices rose by more than 46% and diesel climbed by over 70%. Of this additional burden borne by consumers, $73.5 billion stemmed from petrol and $59.8 billion from diesel. This calculation translates into an extra cost of $1,017.76 per household nationwide.
Loan interest rates and operational outlays inflate the bill
Another decisive factor in the economic picture has been the rise in interest rates.
Zandi reported that climbing interest rates have created a cost of approximately $540 per household.
Fixed-rate home mortgage rates, which stood below 6% before the war, have climbed to roughly 7.5%, Zandi said, adding that long-term rates have also increased substantially.
Direct military operations, meanwhile, represent a cost of $360 per household based on Pentagon data.
However, experts point out that repair, maintenance, and equipment replenishment expenses are excluded from the published figures, meaning actual military spending on the ground could exceed Pentagon estimates.
Linda Bilmes, a war budget specialist who teaches public policy at Harvard Kennedy School, said she is certain the conflict’s bill will reach $1 trillion, adding, “Maybe we’re already there.”
Trump defends spending as public support drops
The mounting economic strain is fuelling backlash against the military campaign and US President Donald Trump’s handling of the process.
A Pew Research Centre survey conducted on 28 September-4 October among 5,062 adults revealed that 65% of Americans disapprove of the way Trump is handling the Iran strikes.
The proportion of those who consider the use of military force justified dropped four percentage points compared with March, falling to 34%.
Emphasizing that the total cost has wiped out roughly half of the average American household’s income gains over the past eight months, Zandi said it is natural for public support for the war to remain so low.
According to figures shared by pollster Nate Silver, Trump’s net approval rating has tumbled to an all-time low of minus 23.5 points.
Defending the military intervention against Iran, Trump described the costs as “a small price to pay to keep our country and the world safe.”
With the surging cost of living piling pressure on Republicans ahead of the November midterm elections, Trump announced last month that he would provide a $5,000 cash payment to every adult in the country if his party maintains its majorities in both chambers of Congress.
America
US fines Bank of America $1.21bn over money laundering and sanctions
The US Department of the Treasury has imposed a total of $1.21 billion in financial penalties on Bank of America, one of the country’s largest financial institutions, for violating anti-money laundering legislation and sanctions regimes.
According to a statement published by the department, the bank was accused of failing to report suspicious transactions in a timely manner, failing to monitor financial movements that posed national security risks, and providing services to clients on sanctions lists.
Decisions by units operating under the Treasury Department accounted for the largest components of the penalty package.
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) penalised the bank for failing to report more than $5 billion in suspicious transactions in a timely manner.
More than $1 billion of that amount was noted to be directly linked to national security risks, including the operations of China-based money laundering networks.
Under the settlement reached with FinCEN, Bank of America admitted to willfully violating the Bank Secrecy Act. The bank was required to conduct an additional review covering suspicious transactions and to assess the effectiveness of its financial monitoring system.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) separately fined the bank $750 million over structural deficiencies in its financial monitoring system.
The OCC stated that the bank failed to maintain adequate oversight over trillions of dollars in fund transfers and did not remedy the violations despite a formal notice served in December 2024.
The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) also stepped in over millions of dollars in transactions carried out in breach of sanctions regulations. OFAC reached an $11.6 million settlement agreement with Bank of America concerning 475 distinct potential sanctions violations.
Assessing the matter, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said, “The actions taken today send a clear message that even the largest financial institutions are not above the law.”
UK fines banks over breaches of Russia sanctions
Alongside the penalty decision in the US, similar sanctions scrutiny is being carried out across European financial centres.
In September, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI), an agency of the UK Treasury, fined Citibank’s London branch (CBNA London) £4.7 million for violating sanctions targeting Russia.
According to findings by the British regulator, between February and November 2022 following the outbreak of armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the bank processed 970 payments worth a combined £19.7 million, circumventing asset freezes and other restrictions. The government stated that the majority of the violations were linked to corporate accounts owned or controlled by sanctioned individuals. Russia, meanwhile, describes sanctions imposed by Western nations as illegal.
During the spring, OFSI also fined the London branch of Germany’s Deutsche Bank £165,000 ($221,000) for transferring funds to the Russian online streaming platform Okko.
Over the same period, the watchdog imposed a £390,000 fine on Apple’s European entity, Apple Distribution International (ADI), for a similar violation.
America
Musk boosts Republican midterm funding despite pledge to curb spending
The world’s richest person, Elon Musk, has donated $276 million over the past three months to political action committees and conservative organizations supporting Republicans ahead of the upcoming US midterm elections.
The latest transfer brings the total midterm donations from Musk, the chief executive of Tesla and SpaceX, to $366 million.
First reported by The New York Times, the figures were confirmed to The Hill by a spokesperson for America PAC, which Musk founded. These latest expenditures establish Musk as the largest known donor of the 2026 midterms.
The bulk of Musk’s financial backing between July and September was directed towards congressional races.
The US billionaire transferred $158 million to the Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC supporting Republican Senate candidates, and $20 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund, which finances House Republicans.
Millions divided among various committees
Musk, who provided more than $76 million during the period to America PAC, an entity he founded during the 2024 election cycle, also funded state-level contests.
The businessman transferred $10 million to the Lone Star Liberty PAC, which supports Texas Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton, while donating $10 million to the Republican Governors Association and $2 million to the Republican Attorneys General Association.
In statements given to The New York Times and confirmed by The Hill, America PAC spokesperson Andrew Romeo argued that if Democrats take control in Washington and win critical state races, the country faces the risk of becoming one with indefensible borders.
Romeo said the investments enable the Republican apparatus to deliver its messages to voters.
Field spending continues despite talk of retreat
Musk, who kept his distance from politics for many years, entered the arena by spending hundreds of millions of dollars for Donald Trump during the 2024 election.
Accompanying Trump on campaign trails, Musk subsequently took charge of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which sparked controversy through federal employment and budget cuts.
Musk stepped down from his White House role in late May 2025 and remained politically quiet for months following a public rift with Trump.
After announcing last May that he would sharply scale back his political spending, Musk told The Economist in a July interview that he had become overly involved in politics and had gone too far.
Despite those remarks, Musk pressed ahead with political activity in July by authorizing America PAC to spend between $100 million and $120 million on a fresh field operation aimed at driving conservative voter turnout in the 2026 midterms.
Having repaired ties with Trump following their public spat, Musk joined the US president on an official visit to China in May and was also present during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Washington last month.
-
America2 weeks agoMusk appointed co-director of Pentagon future warfare initiative
-
Europe2 weeks agoGermany expands North Sea military ports and plans new naval base
-
Europe2 weeks agoLe Pen proposes German-style debt rule to soothe French bond market
-
Middle East2 weeks agoUS waives human rights terms on $320m military aid to Egypt
-
Russia2 weeks agoUS and Russia hold multi-billion-dollar talks on Lukoil foreign assets
-
Europe1 week agoFrance and Germany urge EU market kill switch against trade threats
-
America2 weeks agoUS AI spending needs 9% of GDP by 2032 to justify capital boom
-
Europe2 weeks agoEuropean nations unite against US pressure over strategic oil stocks
