On the same day that Donald Trump received his made-to-order “peace prize” from his newest pal, Fifa president “Johnny” Infantino, his administration published an equally gaudy national security strategy. The relatively short document oozes Trump and Trumpism. It starts out with the typically modest claim that the president has brought “our nation – and the world – back from the brink of catastrophe and disaster”.
Even if the strategy mostly formalises the ongoing actions and statements of Trump and his administration, it should be heeded as a warning for the world, and Europe in particular.
The document espouses an aggressive form of foreign-policy interference in which the US explicitly sets itself the goal of “promoting European greatness”. Its language could have been directly lifted from Viktor Orbán’s speeches during the so-called refugee crisis of 2015-16: “We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilisational self-confidence.” Even more ominously, the document claims that Europe’s “economic decline is eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilisational erasure”.
The whole section on Europe is steeped in decades of European far-right ideology and propaganda. The EU and migration policies are held responsible for “transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence”. According to the document, if “present trends continue, the continent will be unrecognisable in 20 years or less. As such, it is far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies”. Indeed, the Trump administration believes that “within a few decades at the latest, certain Nato members will become majority non-European”.
Expanding on this theme in an interview with Politico, Trump claimed this would make these countries “much weaker”.
These are arguments that have strong overtones of two theories regarded as foundational for contemporary far-right circles. The first is Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West, whose thesis on the cyclical decline of civilisations was used by the German far right to criticise the “perversion” and “weakness” of the democratic Weimar republic. The second is The Great Replacement, published in 2011, by the French novelist Renaud Camus, who translated long-existing “native” fears into a more explicit conspiracy theory, accusing European elites of using immigration to replace the rebellious “native” populations and import a more docile and dependent electorate. In the past decade, the “great replacement” conspiracy theory has become mainstream within US rightwing circles through people such as Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson.
It is the nativist fever dream encapsulated in both ideas that gives the Trump administration the right, if not the duty, to intervene in European affairs, the document implies: “American diplomacy should continue to stand up for genuine democracy, freedom of expression, and unapologetic celebrations of European nations’ individual character and history.” And it is clear where it sees its allies: “America encourages its political allies in Europe to promote this revival of spirit, and the growing influence of patriotic European parties indeed gives cause for great optimism.”
In other words, the US believes that it is key to its national security to “Make Europe great again”, and that the European far right is the only political force that can achieve this. Consequently, its “broad policy for Europe” prioritises “cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations” (read: the far right) and “building up the healthy nations of central, eastern, and southern Europe” – in particular “aligned countries that want to restore their former greatness” (read: Hungary, Italy).
While the document remains vague about how it will achieve this, it is clear that a priority of the Trump administration is to put pressure on Europe to adopt a radical policy around freedom of speech, closer to that which prevails in the US – again, particularly towards far-right speech – and not just on social media. Another is to normalise Russia; or, as the document calls it, to “reestablish strategic stability with Russia”. Although the country is not explicitly called a future ally, the Trump administration clearly does not treat Russia as an adversary either.
In a broader sense, the national security strategy takes its inspiration less from the glorified US of the 1950s, often assumed to be the ideal behind the “Make America great again” slogan, than the Monroe doctrine of 1823. Articulated by President James Monroe, this warned European powers not to interfere in the “western hemisphere” (ie the Americas), which he declared to be the US’s sphere of interest. The Trump administration’s policy document promises to “assert and enforce” a “Trump corollary” to the Monroe doctrine which involves the US “enlisting” countries around the world that want to help safeguard US national interests.
skip past newsletter promotion
Sign up to This is Europe
The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion
None of this is necessarily new – think of JD Vance’s speech at the 2025 Munich Security Conference in which the vice-president launched an ideological attack on Europe’s democratic model. But perhaps now that it is published in an official document, European leaders will finally understand that “daddy” is serious. And, if the document is too long or vague for them, let me summarise it in terms that are clear and concise: the current US government believes that its national security is best served by the destruction of liberal democracy in Europe. In other words, the US is not (just) an unwilling ally, it is a willing adversary. Time to act accordingly.
