The world according to Trump

Trump's NSS radically upends American foreign policy by replacing traditional American foreign policy priorities with those of the MAGA movement. Thus, the expansion of democracy is replaced with American economic interests, liberal alliances with conservative values, human rights with "traditional families raising healthy children," globalization with the American worker, climate change with migration, international institutions with sovereignty, and China and Russia are transformed from threats into potential partners.

These days, the Trump administration published its most important foreign policy document: the National Security Strategy (NSS), and the verdict of the Western liberal establishment was almost immediate. The Financial Times concluded that “The White House is breaking the Western alliance”, the New York Times said that “Hostility towards Europe is now official White House policy”, the Wall Street Journal reported that “The US is reversing history by presenting Europe - and not Russia - as the enemy”. Meanwhile, The Economist described the NSS as “a completely radical document”. Thus, the publication of the NSS only confirmed the polarizing trend in today’s American political scene. Once again, Trump was on one extreme, the liberal establishment on the other. And although polarization in the American political scene has become the norm, the novelty of today is that this clash has now also “infected” American foreign policy. So today, even a document of key American national importance, such as the National Security Strategy, has become a terrain of daily political battles. 

And this is a novelty. Since the first NSS publication nearly half a century ago, the NSS has been seen and respected as a document of key American interest. As such, it has been carefully handled by every presidential administration, always aiming to present a unifying American vision - E Pluribus Unum. Like so many other American political traditions, this year Trump broke with this tradition. Trump's published NSS is a major departure from traditional American foreign policy. 
There are many ways to analyze Trump’s NSS. But perhaps the most pedantic is to divide his analysis into two parts: that of the tone or spirit of the document, and that of the substance or priorities of the NSS. Naturally, one must start from the beginning, since it establishes the lens through which Trump sees the world. 

The first thing that strikes you when reading Trump’s National Security Strategy is that it is not a strategy. It is written like a pamphlet for social media or an election campaign. Traditionally, the NSS has been written as a strategy that reflects the concise, long-term thinking of the US security and diplomatic apparatus on key aspects of American foreign policy. Trump’s NSS in language and structure seems like an extension of Trump’s election campaign, and it often gives the impression that the main goal of the document is to translate Trump’s election slogans and tweets into formal US government policy. The first half of the document is filled with old Trumpian themes, such as “America First,” anti-woke, anti-NATO, anti-EU, anti-liberal elites, and anti-immigration. In other words, it looks like an NSS prepared for social networks, media and campaigning, and not an NSS that articulates a unified and coherent vision of foreign policy that harmonizes all instruments of the state apparatus - diplomatic, military and economic - towards achieving national strategic objectives. 

Second, like everything else, Trump has completely personalized the NSS. Reading the document, one is left with the impression that this is Trump’s personal document and not that of the US state bodies. Traditionally, the NSS is an official document, which reflects the interests and goals of the US government. This time, the NSS is written entirely around the figure of Trump. The word that is mentioned most often in the document is “TRUMP”, a full 27 times. In other words, the epicenter of the strategy is Trump’s reputation, not the interests of the US. This is unprecedented in the history of the NSS as a US government document. As such, the strategy is written for, and in, Trump’s image. As a result, it is politically more partisan, ideologically militarized, and thematically impoverished. 
Third, Trump’s NSS radically overturns American foreign policy by replacing traditional American foreign policy priorities with the priorities of the MAGA movement. Thus, the expansion of democracy is replaced with American economic interests, liberal alliances with conservative values, human rights with “traditional families raising healthy children,” globalization with the American worker, climate change with migration, international institutions with sovereignty, while China and Russia are transformed from threats into potential partners. This is a major departure not only from Biden’s NSS, but from Trump’s NSS 1 itself. At least in Trump’s NSS 1 there was talk of “dangerous regimes,” dictators, autocrats, and competition with great powers. Today, these concepts have disappeared. In Trump’s NSS 1, allies were mentioned 75 times; today, they are mentioned 32 times, and often in a negative context. 

The question ultimately remains how seriously we should take Trump's NSS 2? Is the NSS a credible representation of Trump's will or simply a bureaucratic document that should be ignored, especially given Trump's aversion to traditional state-run policymaking? In other words, is Trump's Twitter or the US NSS more important? 

Ironically, the NSS itself provides this answer. In the chapter “Principles,” it says this: “President Trump’s foreign policy is pragmatic without being ‘pragmatic,’ realistic without being ‘realistic,’ principled without being ‘idealistic,’ muscular without being ‘warmongering,’ restrained without being ‘cowardly.’ As such, it is not based on traditional political ideology.” 

So, in other words, Trump’s foreign policy is everything and nothing. It is whatever Trump says it is. Today it may be one thing, tomorrow it may be the exact opposite. Thus we conclude that no written document or American state process can discipline Trump’s personal, chaotic, transactional impulse. Consequently, perhaps the best advice is to ignore the NSS altogether for the first time. In fact, the Trump administration itself has done this. It published the NSS more as a procedural obligation than as a serious strategic initiative.

The document was simply published on the White House website without any press conference or follow-up by any reaction from Trump or any senior White House official. However, beyond these negative aspects of the NSS, there were certainly serious initiatives within it that deserve our attention. But more on these, in the next column.