The US National Defense Strategy in the Context of Donald Trump’s Policy
As part of the revision of US conceptual documents on national security and defense issues, in January this year, Donald Trump’s administration adopted a new National Defense Strategy. The defining feature of this document is “hard realism”, namely, the identification of real military threats to America and ways to prevent them without concealing or embellishing various aspects. Some provisions of the strategy have already been covered in the media, but without reference to the situation and without analysis of the reasons for the relevant decisions and measures taken by the USA. Therefore, the perception of America’s military policy may be somewhat inaccurate and needs more detailed consideration.
The US administration is strengthening President Trump’s political course with corresponding changes in conceptual documents on national security and defense. Thus, in December 2025, a new US National Security Strategy (NSS 2025) was adopted, and in January 2026, a new National Defense Strategy (NDS 2026) was adopted. This practice is traditional in nature. As a rule, such documents are adopted at the end of the first and beginning of the second year of each US presidential term. Of course, they differed from their predecessors, but previously, American policy was mostly consistent and without sharp fluctuations in one direction or another. With a few exceptions…
Unlike his predecessors, the US President has fundamentally adjusted state policy, applying different methods to implement it. Therefore, these documents deserve special attention. We discussed the new US National Security Strategy in our previous article at the end of last year, when we drew attention to Donald Trump’s concept of “America – first” https://igp.org.ua/publikacii/nova-strategiya-nacionalno%d1%97-bezpeki-ssha/.
The new National Defense Strategy developed on its basis focuses on military-political and military aspects of ensuring the USA’s security. The document has already been discussed in the media, including comparisons with its previous version. However, its main points have mostly just been stated. Therefore, we consider it appropriate to examine it from a broader geopolitical point of view, so to speak.
Like the National Security Strategy, the new US National Defense Strategy reflects Donald Trump’s views on the current geopolitical situation in the world. In general, these views correspond to the current state of affairs, with adjustments for the President’s particular mindset. In principle, they are already well known and have been repeatedly reflected in his public statements and observed in practice. It is worth considering them again in a comprehensive manner.
For example, Donald Trump and his supporters believe that the world is characterized by an “asymmetrical bipolar” nature. The main center of power in the world is the United States. The second center is China, which is catching up with America but still lags behind in terms of economic and military potential, scientific and technological development, and global influence.
As the dominant center of power, the USA has exclusive rights to a zone of influence where it can sort out all important issues on its own, without regard to other countries. This zone is the Western Hemisphere. This region must be completely under the USA’s military control. The Asia-Pacific region, Europe, and what is known as the “Greater Middle East” (from the eastern Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf) are also extremely important to the USA. The United States will not dominate there, but will make every effort to defend its interests.
The USA and China, as the strongest centers of power, must share responsibility for the fate of humanity. Plus, they are the largest trading partners. Therefore, relations between them must be constructive. At the same time, China is America’s rival and competitor, so it needs to be restrained.
After China, Europe and Russia are most important for the USA. However, they are only regional power centers with some influence at the global level. The USA also keeps an eye on a number of other countries, but only in terms of specific aspects of American interests.
Europe remains the USA’s main ally and a powerful trading partner. However, European policy does not fully satisfy America, as Europe strives not to be dependent on it. Therefore, the USA will continue to provide assistance to Europe in the security sphere, although not to the extent that is considered necessary. This is mainly because America needs to contain China.
Russia is an adversary of the USA as a country that aspires to be a global power center and seeks to achieve its goals by harming America’s interests. At the same time, it is the main source of strategic nuclear missile threats to the USA. It does not pose any other military threats to America.
As for other countries, the United States’ allies are mainly Japan, South Korea, and Australia in the Asia-Pacific region and Israel in the Middle East. However, today, direct military threats to US allies in the Asia-Pacific region are relatively minor, so American support for them may decline. Israel, on the other hand, needs America’s assistance in the future because it is in conflict with Iran and Islamic extremists.
As for Ukraine, it is important to the USA only as a deterrent to Moscow from attacking Europe. Therefore, Europe must bear the brunt of supporting Ukraine in its military confrontation with Russia. However, the USA will continue to assist Ukraine in critical matters.
Along with Russia and, to a certain extent, China, Iran and North Korea pose military threats to the USA and its allies. Their policies are anti-American, and they possess or are developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems capable of reaching American territory. The USA also has a number of other adversaries with totalitarian anti-American regimes that support Russian and Chinese interests, international terrorism, and manufacture drugs for supply to America.
The Content and Focus of the US National Defense Strategy Fully Comply with the Aforementioned Provisions and Are Entirely Logical from the Perspective of This Approach.
Thus, at the strategic level, it is assumed that the USA’s ability to deter Russia and China will be ensured by its nuclear missile capabilities. Therefore, the USA will continue to implement programs to improve its nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. In principle, there is nothing new here. The only thing that is changing is the USA’s attitude to maintaining the strategic balance of power in the world. Thus, the USA has refused to conclude a new treaty with Russia similar to START III, which expires on February 5, 2026. The US leadership believes that it does not meet the latest conditions and is therefore unnecessary. Instead, D. Trump proposes to prepare and conclude a new comprehensive treaty on nuclear arms reduction and control with the participation of the USA, Russia, China, the UK, France, and possibly other nuclear countries. It should take into account their strategic and tactical nuclear capabilities, as well as the development of promising delivery systems.
It is extremely difficult for these countries to reach agreement on this issue due to fundamental differences between them. Therefore, the termination of the START III Treaty threatens to restart the nuclear arms race between Russia and the USA, which other countries may join. However, according to most experts, Washington and Moscow will not dare to significantly increase their nuclear capabilities, as they are aware of the negative consequences of such actions.
NDS 2026 aims to “restore America’s military dominance in the Western Hemisphere, which will be used to defend it and gain access to key territories in the region”. Such intentions are traditional for the USA and are implemented in practice, including by military means. At this, the main thing for the USA is to ensure that all countries in the region treat it with understanding, that it has access to its natural resources and markets, that extremism (mainly of various left-wing organizations) is suppressed, and that the spread of drugs is prohibited.
In particular, this manifested itself in the so-called “banana wars” of the 20th century, which took the form of a series of interventions in Panama, Cuba, Nicaragua, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic with the aim of defending American commercial interests. In 1912-1933, the USA occupied Nicaragua in order to take control of the country’s government and prevent the construction of an alternative to the Panama Canal.
In 1983, the USA invaded Grenada and overthrew its military government, which had come to power as a result of a coup d’état supported by the USSR. In 1989-1990, the USA conducted a military operation in Panama and removed from power its dictator, Manuel Noriega, who was involved in drug trafficking. In addition, in the 1980s, America actively supported rebels in Nicaragua who opposed the Sandinista government.
A logical continuation of such activities was the USA’s military operation aimed at arresting Venezuelan President Maduro. As Washington explains, this was to stop the supply of drugs to the USA, which was organized by the Venezuelan dictator. But the USA did not even hide the fact that its real goal was to regain access to Venezuela’s oil reserves, which are considered the largest in the world. In addition, the influence of China and Russia in the Caribbean region was reduced.
The next step for the USA may be a change of power in Cuba. This possibility is now reinforced by the US National Defense Strategy.
The USA’s intentions to develop constructive cooperation with China while simultaneously containing it are logically defined by the NDS 2026 provisions on building USA-China relations based on the principles of “strength, not confrontation”. The essence of this concept is to treat China with respect and resolve existing problems through compromise, which is to be accompanied by measures to deter China from a possible attack on the USA and its allies and partners.
This primarily refers to the Asia-Pacific region, which is at the intersection of US and Chinese interests. According to US military experts, the main reasons for a possible armed conflict or war between the USA and China in the Asia-Pacific region (the Indo-Pacific region in American terminology) could be an attempt by China to seize Taiwan or an attack by North Korea (DPRK) on South Korea (ROK) with Chinese support.
For political reasons, the strategy does not contain the traditional provision for the defense of Taiwan found in such documents. But it is obvious that this is implied. The island is important to the USA both in terms of international prestige and the ability to control the Taiwan Strait, as well as in economic terms. It is home to major American companies that produce most of the world’s complex microchips, such as processors and digital memory units.
It is also quite possible that military confrontation on the Korean peninsula will resume. North Korea and South Korea are officially at war. At this, North Korea is pursuing an aggressive foreign policy, with systematic provocations on the border with South Korea. And China continues to support North Korea. According to its commitments, in case of a new war, the USA is obliged to support South Korea, which would also lead to a military confrontation between America and China.
However, in the current system of relations between the USA and China, such scenarios are considered unlikely, as neither side is interested in war with the other. Besides, in the context of modern warfare, a Chinese landing in Taiwan and direct US military support for South Korea would be extremely difficult tasks due to the impossibility of complete control over maritime communications.
For the same reason, it will be practically impossible for China to invade the American islands in the Pacific Ocean, Japan, and Australia, let alone the continental United States. Therefore, if a war between the USA and China in the Asia-Pacific region does break out, it will take the form of missile and drone strikes and naval battles supported by aviation.
All these circumstances explain the USA’s intentions to reduce military support for its allies in the Asia-Pacific region, as there is no direct threat to their security. And they can cope with the existing challenges on their own.
The situation surrounding the US plans to strengthen its military presence in the Asia-Pacific region is also quite revealing. These plans have been in place since the 2010s and are now called “the most ambitious since World War II”. However, the actual measures are relatively insignificant. There has only been a limited build-up of US Navy and Air Force forces in the region, as well as the redeployment of Marine Corps units from Japan to Guam and some other islands.
There is no point in moving American troops there from Europe. Therefore, their reduction in the European theater of operations is most likely aimed at freeing up funds that can be directed toward other defense programs in the Asia-Pacific region, in particular, strengthening American missile defense and air defense systems there.
They are fully consistent with previous decisions and plans set out in NDS 2026 regarding US military policy in the European theater of operations. They are well known and envisage greater responsibility for Europe for its own security as part of the creation of a new Euro-Atlantic and European security architecture. The principles for its creation were agreed upon at the NATO and EU summits in June 2025. They are quite understandable and also take into account the real situation.
Thus, Russia does not pose an open threat to the USA in terms of conventional armed forces. The countries do not share a border, so the Russian Federation cannot launch a ground invasion of the United States. Furthermore, Russia cannot launch missile and drone strikes against the USA, except through the use of strategic offensive weapons.
At the same time, Moscow poses a direct military threat to Europe, although this mainly concerns its eastern borders, namely the countries of North-Eastern, Central-Eastern, and South-Eastern Europe and the Baltic states, which directly border Russia. Therefore, it could attack them, which would escalate into a full-scale war with NATO. As noted in the strategy, “Russia retains the military and industrial capabilities to do so, despite demographic and economic challenges”.
This possible scenario is taken into account in the Alliance’s operational plans for the European theater of operations. They provide for repelling Russian aggression by conducting a strategic defensive operation in areas bordering Russia. Russian troops will not be allowed to penetrate deep into European territory.
According to different estimates, NATO’[s strength already exceeds that of Russia 4-4.5 times. And after the implementation of large-scale rearmament programs in Europe by 2030, this ratio will increase. In view of this, it will be able to cope with Russia on its own without the help of the USA, should the need arise. In addition, Europe remains united in its opposition to Russia, and the actions of individual countries, such as Hungary, have no influence on it.
This is precisely the idea behind NDS 2026, which states that “Europe must take the initiative in countering threats that are less serious for the USA and more serious for Europe”. And Russia really is a “constant threat to NATO’s eastern members”, but it’s a “manageable” one, because the Alliance can successfully counter it.
At the same time, the USA does not plan to leave Europe alone with Russia. According to the strategy, “the USA will continue to play a key role in NATO, even if it adjusts the presence and forms of action of American troops in the European theater of operations”.
Currently, Ukraine is already effectively included in the Euro-Atlantic and European security system as its front line on the southeastern flank of the European theater of operations. Therefore, it plays a vital role in ensuring Europe’s security as a key factor in deterring Russia from attacking it. This imposes an objective obligation on Europe to support Ukraine, which is being fulfilled in practice.
However, the USA does not refuse to provide assistance to Ukraine, namely by supplying it with weapons at European expense. In addition, the USA’s military budget allocates $400 million for various programs to support Ukraine. Funds are also being allocated to address Ukraine’s urgent problems, in particular, to restore its energy system after Russian strikes.
In other words, the USA is simply taking these facts into account in its strategy. According to this strategy, “support for Ukraine is primarily Europe’s responsibility, with the USA providing critical but limited assistance”.
A separate aspect of the strategy is to strengthen the USA’s internal security by cracking down on migration, drug trafficking, and other similar forms of intrusion. To this end, it is planned to strengthen the borders, since “their security is national security”.
These problems do exist, and addressing them has been one of D. Trump’s top priorities since his first presidential term. Therefore, all these issues have been objectively included in NDS 2026.
All this once again demonstrates D. Trump’s determination to achieve his goals, which he also considers to be the goals of the United States, by all possible means, including the establishment of armed forces. Within this approach, he considers America to be a superpower that is allowed to do absolutely anything. He is not concerned about the destruction of the existing world order, international law, and collective security. Moreover, D. Trump is deliberately destroying them and rebuilding them to suit himself.
Thus, the new US National Defense Strategy is largely consistent with D. Trump’s “America First” doctrine and specifies the National Security Strategy in terms of military-political and military issues.
The strategy is based on “hard realism, not utopian idealism”. It is based on an assessment of the real military and political situation in the world and threats to the USA’s security. However, America’s political interests are also taken into account, as a result of which some aspects are, so to speak, smoothed over.
The USA reserves the right to have an exclusive zone of influence, known as the Western Hemisphere. It is prepared to defend its interests there by military means without regard for other countries.
The main military threat to the USA is considered to be Russia’s powerful nuclear missile arsenal, which it could use against America. At the same time, the USa does not consider Russia an equal opponent in conventional warfare.
China is recognized as a geopolitical rival and competitor, but is not defined as a military adversary of the USA. At the same time, military deterrence of China in the Asia-Pacific region is envisaged, but without resorting to confrontation.
Europe remains an ally of the USA within NATO, which retains its importance for America. The Alliance’s main task is declared to be countering possible aggression from Russia, which poses military threats to its European neighbors.
Given the reassessment of threats to the USA and its allies, the forms and scope of assistance provided to them are being reviesed. As a rule, they are being reduced, which allows America to reallocate resources to areas that are more important to it.
Ukraine is important to the USA as a factor in deterring Russia from attacking Europe and is one of the key components of the Euro-Atlantic and European security system. At the same time, the USA is shifting the task of supporting Ukraine to Europe, but is not abandoning it.
Yurii Mykhailenko, Yurii Ilchenko,
Institute for Global Politics
