Trump’s National Security Strategy and American Strategic Continuity

Summary

This article argues that the United States National Security Strategy (NSS) documents issued under different administrations—Republican and Democratic alike—do not differ in their fundamental objectives. From Reagan to Trump and from Clinton to Biden, these strategies consistently aim to preserve and reinforce American global hegemony and prevent the emergence of rival powers. The primary distinction between Republican and Democratic strategies lies not in goals, but in style, rhetoric, and methods of implementation. Democratic administrations emphasize soft power, multilateral institutions, and normative language such as democracy and human rights, whereas Republican administrations favor blunt rhetoric, overt coercion, and explicit assertions of dominance. Using a comparative analysis of Biden’s 2022 strategy and Trump’s 2025 strategy, with particular attention to burden-sharing, the Western Hemisphere, and the Middle East, this article concludes that Trump’s strategy represents a stylistic escalation rather than a substantive departure from long-standing American strategic doctrine.

Analysis

Continuity of U.S. National Security Strategy Across Administrations

A careful examination of U.S. National Security Strategy documents reveals no fundamental difference between those issued by Republican presidents—such as Reagan (1988), Bush Sr. (1990), Bush Jr. (2002), and Trump (2017, 2025)—and those issued by Democratic presidents, including Clinton (1994, 1998), Obama (2010, 2015), and Biden (2022). Across decades, parties, and personalities, these documents share a single, consistent objective: the maintenance and reinforcement of American global leadership and hegemony.

The distinction between these strategies lies primarily in language, presentation, and tactical approach, rather than in strategic intent. Republican administrations tend to articulate American dominance directly and unapologetically, while Democratic administrations employ diplomatic, normative, and often ambiguous language centered on democracy, cooperation, human rights, and multilateralism. Despite these rhetorical differences, both approaches serve the same structural goal: preserving the American-led international order.

This article focuses on these stylistic and methodological differences, particularly between the strategies of President Joe Biden and President Donald Trump, without engaging in an exhaustive examination of each document’s detailed policy provisions.

Party Culture and Strategic Expression

An earlier analysis issued on 18/11/2016 argued that the broad outlines of U.S. policy do not substantially differ between Republicans and Democrats, but that each party reflects a distinct political culture. Republicans historically project power through overt displays of strength, coercion, and unilateralism, while Democrats rely more heavily on persuasion, institutional legitimacy, and moral framing.

This cultural distinction is reflected symbolically in the historical origins of party imagery and substantively in presidential rhetoric. Republican administrations tend to normalize the open use of force and intimidation, whereas Democratic administrations emphasize moral justification and diplomatic engagement, even when pursuing identical strategic outcomes.

Accordingly, Democratic presidents are often more successful in presenting U.S. dominance as benevolent or necessary, while Republican presidents tend to present it as a natural entitlement of power.

Biden’s Strategy Versus Trump’s Strategy

The contrast between Biden’s and Trump’s National Security Strategies illustrates this pattern clearly.

Biden’s 2022 strategy seeks to sustain American leadership through concepts such as cooperation, democracy, diplomacy, and human rights. It relies heavily on alliances, international institutions such as NATO and the United Nations, and the discourse of shared values. While framed as multilateral and rules-based, the strategy explicitly affirms the United States’ role as the guarantor of global order and rejects the emergence of rival powers capable of challenging American primacy.

Trump’s 2025 strategy, by contrast, articulates the same objective—American preeminence—but does so in explicit and confrontational terms. It emphasizes slogans such as “America First” and “Peace Through Strength” and openly prioritizes American dominance across military, economic, energy, and financial domains. Trump’s strategy states unambiguously that its purpose is to strengthen American power and preeminence above all others.

Under the section titled “Priorities,” Trump’s document repeatedly stresses the protection, expansion, and sustainability of American dominance, including economic security, supply chain control, defense industrial capacity, energy dominance, and financial supremacy.

Burden-Sharing and Alliance Management

Another key difference between Democratic and Republican strategies concerns alliance management. Democratic administrations frame alliances as shared responsibilities rooted in common values, even while expecting allies to support American leadership. Republican administrations, particularly under Trump, frame alliances as transactional arrangements.

Trump’s 2025 strategy explicitly demands that allies pay for American protection. Under the heading “Burden-Sharing and Burden-Shifting,” NATO members are urged to spend 5 percent of their GDP on defense. This approach reflects a coercive interpretation of alliance politics, in which security guarantees are conditional on financial contribution.

Despite this difference in tone, both approaches serve the same function: preserving American dominance while distributing its costs in a manner favorable to U.S. interests.

Historical Roots of Strategic Continuity

The persistence of these objectives can be traced to the origins of the American state and its political parties. Following European colonization, the displacement of Indigenous populations, and territorial expansion through acquisition and annexation, the United States emerged as a centralized republic committed to expansion and dominance.

The Democratic and Republican parties emerged from this same historical context. Although they diverged over domestic policies and political style, both parties share a foundational commitment to American supremacy. Their differences lie in methods, rhetoric, and leadership style rather than in strategic purpose.

The Western Hemisphere as a Case Study

The Western Hemisphere provides a clear illustration of these differences. Since the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, successive U.S. administrations have asserted exclusive influence over the region.

Biden’s strategy frames U.S. dominance in the hemisphere through economic integration, democratic values, migration management, and institutional cooperation. It emphasizes trade, shared prosperity, and humane immigration systems while ensuring that no external power rivals U.S. influence.

Trump’s strategy, however, adopts a confrontational and militarized posture. It explicitly invokes the Monroe Doctrine to justify exclusive U.S. control over the hemisphere and threatens direct action against states perceived as aligned with rival powers. Trump’s approach relies on intimidation, coercion, and overt assertions of sovereignty, even toward allies.

These actions have been described as constituting a “Trump Doctrine,” characterized by open threats and unilateral enforcement of American dominance.

In conclusion, the 2025 National Security Strategy announced by President Trump does not represent a fundamental departure from previous U.S. strategies, including those issued under President Biden. Rather, it represents a change in style, rhetoric, and method. While Democratic administrations cloak American hegemony in the language of norms, institutions, and cooperation, Republican administrations assert it openly through forceful rhetoric and transactional demands.

Despite these differences, the core objective remains unchanged: maintaining American global leadership, consolidating hegemony, and preventing the rise of any rival power capable of challenging U.S. supremacy.

Copyright © LCIR 2026