OPINION: National Security Strategy: A Policy of America First

tomg75163
Jan 15
6 min read

***The following is an opinion piece written by UF College Republicans member Humphrey Schuyler and does not necessarily represent the views of the UF College Republicans.***

In response to the release of Trump’s National Security Strategy report, swarms of bureaucrats raised a shared howl of hate, loudly protesting Trump for “destroying” decades of foreign policy consensus with one stroke.

The “consensus” they spoke of, however, is the same which for the past twenty years has drained the national coffers, and spent the flowers of American youth from the parched deserts of Iraq to the wintry hills of Afghanistan, in a vain quest for Democratism. Interestingly, some of the denunciations came from Brussels and Beijing. Once again, the opinions of these ossified bureaucrats reliably fell into convenient congruence with foreign interest.

We must not be rattled by these rumor mongers. In this article, I will sort out the essence of the National Security Strategy, and dispel the many fictions surrounding it. I will do so with the characteristically American virtues of sincerity and justice, and with the utmost good humor.

What Does This National Security Strategy Entail?

To answer this question, one can simply look at the eloquent expression written on Page 8 of the National Security Strategy report. It mentioned that Trump’s foreign policy is “pragmatic without being ‘pragmatist,’ realistic without being ‘realist,’ principled without being ‘idealistic,’ muscular without being ‘hawkish,’ and restrained without being ‘dovish’” It seeks to preserve and extend American ideals through realistic means, while deterring aggression through adequate arms. It adheres to the conservative doctrine of peace through strength, while at the same time curbing its excesses that have become all too prevalent since the end of the Cold War.

But what does it look like in practice? It can be above all summarized into four key spheres of action: Ending mass migration, allied burden sharing, self-reliance, and upholding the Monroe Doctrine.

Ending Mass Migration

If the challenge of the 20th century was the vast increase of the destructive armaments, then the challenge of the 21st century is the unfettered stream of migration into the first world. Wherever it spreads, crime rises, public services buckle, and social bonds fray. In the realm of foreign policy, it produces a domestic pressure group that prioritizes their ethnic allegiance over the national interest of their adopted country. In America, it shows in foreign flags at anti-ICE protests, and in city councils run by minority blocs lecturing the country about Israel and Palestine.

We as conservatives must reject this trend. In times like these, we must remind ourselves of the words of Theodore Roosevelt, that “There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.” America First means always putting the interest of America first and foremost. It is incompatible with second allegiance to any other country. All good Americans should welcome the decision by the Trump administration to institute mass deportation, strengthen border security, and crack down on cross-border drugs and human trafficking. These efforts should continue to be executed with due diligence.

Allied Burden Sharing

When America entered the world stage in the aftermath of the Second World War, the global threats were overwhelming. We faced a Europe in ruin, and a looming communist tyranny that sought to exploit that ruin. Alliances such as NATO were formed in this context. Nearly 80 years later, however, circumstances have changed much. Russia, bogged down in Ukraine, is a husk of its former self; while China, despite its blustering rhetoric, is still cautious in its quest for national rejuvenation. At the same time, we face a staggering national debt of $38 trillion, and a population rightfully exhausted by unending wars. Facing circumstances like these, it is imperative for us to introduce an element of flexibility and pragmatism into our foreign policy while sharing global responsibility. To this end, Trump has greatly pressed for European and Japanese rearmament. Under his leadership, NATO members have pledged to spend at least 5% of their GDP on national defense. This is what “allied burden sharing” means.

In the Middle East, the report has ruthlessly exposed the failure of regional overextension and overcommitment. In the late 20th century, America was plagued by an oil crisis, while the Soviet Union was converting the region into its playground for global expansion. That is no longer true. “Today, at least two of those dynamics no longer hold. Energy supplies have diversified greatly, with the United States once again a net energy exporter. Superpower competition has given way to great power jockeying, in which the United States retains the most enviable position, reinforced by President Trump’s successful revitalization of our alliances in the Gulf, with other Arab partners, and with Israel.” (National Security Report 2025, Pg. 27-28) The Trump administration is accordingly scaling back American presence in the Middle East, and adjusting it to the circumstances of today, while “the region will increasingly become a source and destination of international investment, and in industries well beyond oil and gas—including nuclear energy, AI, and defense technologies.”

The report has officially rejected the dangerous doctrine of “nation building” so eagerly promoted by neoconservative politicians. The administration is “dropping America’s misguided experiment with hectoring these nations—especially the Gulf monarchies—into abandoning their traditions and historic forms of government. We should encourage and applaud reform when and where it emerges organically, without trying to impose it from without.” (NSS 2025, Pg. 28)

Self-Reliance

For decades, the policy of unfettered free trade has hollowed out America’s middle class and sapped its industrial might. From NAFTA, to WTO, to the once much-beloved TPP, our ruling class consistently engaged in self-sabotage by making our nation dependent on China. Today, China dominates most of the global trade, and controls half of the world’s critical minerals—an imbalance that has strengthened Beijing’s leverage while eroding America’s strategic autonomy.

The Trump administration seeks to rectify this error by replacing naïve globalization with hard-nosed economic statecraft: rebalancing trade, re-shoring production, securing critical supply chains, and using tariffs and investment incentives to rebuild American industry at scale. Economic security will no longer be treated as an abstraction, but as a core pillar of national power—ensuring we are never again dependent on a rival for the materials, energy, or manufacturing capacity required to defend itself and prosper.

Upholding Monroe Doctrine

Among the many American foreign policy principles, none is as old and established as the Monroe Doctrine. Starting with a declaration against European intervention in the Americas in the 19th century, it has expanded to include the entirety of the Americas as indispensable to our national security.

As the influence of America expanded, the importance of the Monroe Doctrine was gradually eclipsed. Europe gradually superseded Latin America and became the primary concern of our foreign policy. However, as the threats in both Europe and the Middle East are in fact declining, it is meet and right for America to adopt a posture that is more consistent with its historical experience.

This report is revolutionary in introducing “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. The meaning of it is simple, “the United States will reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere, and to protect our homeland and our access to key geographies throughout the region.” (NSS 2025, Pg. 15) In practice, it means diverting some of the resources currently devoted to Europe and the Middle East to the Americas. It means strengthening our coast guard and our navy to thwart illegal migration and drug and human trafficking, and using the combined strength of our military and intelligence capabilities to stop the slow takeover of the continent by hostile powers such as China.

Conclusion

This National Security Strategy is simple, straightforward, and consistently America First. Unlike what the critics made it out to be, it is far from a betrayal of long-standing American tradition. Rather, it is a policy that is principled, realistic and muscular. It combines the strength needed to deter and the diplomacy needed to uphold peace. It is in complete harmony with American history.

While the left and the establishment shake a trembling finger at these principles, the Trump administration is determined to bring our foreign policy to the 21st century. This National Security Strategy is a blueprint for it.