Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

US national security strategies are usually evolutionary documents. The Trump administration’s 2025 version marks instead a radical rupture. It may be more a declaratory statement of intention than a policy document. But it is one in which China and Russia may find much to like — while for Europe, it is a stark warning. It dispels any illusion that the ideological, adversarial vision first set out by vice-president JD Vance in Munich in February was somehow an improvised intervention aimed at a domestic audience. That vision is now being framed as American doctrine.

The document signals that the US is walking away from the common values that underpinned its policy for eight decades. It portrays America’s previous commitment to defence of democracy and human rights, to globalism and to free trade — which many would see as the wellspring of US wealth and power — as encumbrances that have weakened it. The attachment to alliances that have undergirded a “rules-based” order that was fundamentally US-led is seen instead as having “undermined . . . the character of our nation”.

The new strategy envisages a world carved into spheres of interest by the big powers, with the US dominant in the western hemisphere. This is a worldview promoted by Vladimir Putin’s Russia for almost two decades. While the strategy says the US must prevent global or in some cases regional domination by others, it rejects “wasting blood and treasure” on too many such efforts.

China will appreciate the implicitly non-confrontational message. Many strongmen leaders in Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere will celebrate the retreat from liberal interventionism, though many of their citizens will rue the loss of support for pro-democracy efforts.

Most concerning for leaders across the Atlantic is that the strategy portrays a Europe still committed to values and institutions not as an ally but as a rival or even a threat. The EU is accused of undermining political liberty and sovereignty. US officials bemoan a supposed contradiction between an EU that promotes policies “adverse” to US interests, such as the climate transition and tech regulation, and a Nato alliance — with many members in common — that still expects America to ride to its defence.

There is a touch of absurdity to a document that vaunts the merits of national sovereignty while advocating — through support for populist nationalist parties in Europe — direct interference in other nations’ sovereign affairs. Yet the strategy sets the course for a rupture that many in Europe have feared but have been reluctant to admit.

Ukraine is the most pressing potential cause for such a rupture. The US, suggests the paper, will sooner or later force Ukraine into a deal in the name of “strategic stabilisation” with Russia — which it never openly criticises as the aggressor. It suggests that Europeans will be forced to choose between standing by Kyiv or keeping the US in Nato.

While European leaders understandably want to avoid openly defying Trump, they should not be deluded into thinking he can be convinced of their position. Their task, firstly, is to redouble efforts to support Ukraine and reduce their own dependency on US security, thus sending a message of clear resolve to Russia. European leaders also need to set a target for assuming responsibility for conventional defence of Europe by the end of the decade at the latest, with minimal US involvement.

Secondly, EU member states and institutions need to overcome their economic vulnerability and improve the continent’s competitiveness. To have a credible plan for financing rearmament, they need to implement the reforms that would generate additional growth. The national security strategy may not be a new revelation, but it is a further jolt that only confirms the urgency of European action.