Trump 47 Doctrine
Asked if the new National Defense Strategy will shift away from the China threat toward homeland defense, chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell declined to say. “Secretary Hegseth has tasked the development of a National Defense Strategy that is laser focused on advancing President Trump’s commonsense America First, Peace Through Strength agenda,” Mr. Parnell told Inside the Ring, the weekly column by National Security Correspondent Bill Gertz. “This process is still ongoing,” he said. “We do not comment on alleged leaked classified documents to the press.”
The new strategy was expected to reflect the neo-isolationist policies of hard-line MAGA advocates in the administration, including Vice President J.D. Vance. Donald Trump has often been labeled an isolationist in discussions of his foreign policy, particularly due to his "America First" slogan, skepticism toward multilateral alliances like NATO, withdrawal from international agreements (e.g., the Paris Climate Accord and Iran nuclear deal during his first term), and emphasis on reducing U.S. military commitments abroad. However, many analysts argue this label is inaccurate or oversimplified, portraying him instead as a unilateralist who engages with the world aggressively when it serves U.S. interests, rather than fully retreating from global affairs.
Trump's approach drew from historical isolationist traditions in U.S. history, like the Monroe Doctrine, but he has actively pursued trade deals, military actions (e.g., strikes in Syria and the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani), and alliances on his terms. "America First" has roots in early 20th-century isolationism and even earlier slogans linked to groups like the Ku Klux Klan, though Trump's usage focuses on prioritizing U.S. interests over foreign aid or interventions. In 2025 discussions, some saw his policies as risking global chaos by pulling back from international commitments, potentially echoing pre-WWII U.S. isolationism that allowed conflicts to escalate.
Donald Trump's 24 September 2025 speech at the UN General Assembly was a cover story for many international papers. The British media The Daily Mirror called the speech "deranged". It summarised what the US president talked about for 56 long minutes – climate, migrants, Gaza, escalators, marble floors and teleprompters. French left-wing paper Libération had a strong headline that said "Trump is pissing off the world". It called the speech "staggering", "violent" and "incoherent". Spanish daily El País believed Trump's aim is to "blow up the rules of the international game". Die Zeit agreed. The German magazine said that Trump's accusations were "becoming crazier every minute".
Some think of Trump as the equivalent of a late-Roman emperor: He will rule an empire whose best days are behind it, that suffers from an unusually high degree of corruption and moral and intellectual decay, and that will not face the facts of its diminishing power and prestige. And neither will Trump. Instead, he wants to put himself at the head of a great struggle for recapturing its imagined, or imaginary, lost glory.
“Trump’s Win Ends a Post-War II Era of US Leadership,” wrote The New York Times’ national security correspondent David E. Sanger as soon as Trump secured his victory in the 2024 presidential election. Sanger’s view is that a second Trump administration will give way to a crumbling US leadership, which, while staying true to its democratic values, managed to maintain a liberal order by establishing military alliances around the world. The US foreign policy may change from "value diplomacy" to unite allies with shared values to fight against China and Russia to "unilateral diplomacy" that prioritizes national interests.
Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Professor of History at New York University, argued that Trump's domestic policies must be understood within a broader geopolitical framework where the U.S. is joining China and Russia in undermining democratic internationalism. Ben-Ghiat contends that Trump is redirecting the U.S. military away from its role as a "democratic guardian abroad" toward domestic policing and regional concerns. This benefits autocrats like Putin and Xi by creating power vacuums they can exploit. She points to Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's September 30 presentation at Quantico as evidence of plans to focus the military on border control, drug enforcement, and hemisphere issues rather than global democratic defense. Trump is partnering with China and Russia to undermine international law and "democratic internationalism." This includes:
- Attacking the International Criminal Court
- Inviting ICC-indicted war criminals (Putin and Netanyahu) to U.S. soil
- Echoing Russian and Chinese narratives about "multipolarity"
- Legitimizing the autocratic concept that sovereignty means freedom from accountability for human rights violations
Washington continued to be complicit in Israel’s destruction of Gaza, its bombing of Lebanon, and its occupation of parts of Syria. Trump has also ordered a flotilla of warships off Venezuela’s shores after placing a $50 million bounty on its president. At the same time, Trump has been bold in engaging Russia and pushing to end the Ukraine conflict, ignoring deep hostility toward Moscow within the US political establishment and even among his own advisers.
By September 2025 the Pentagon was drafting a new National Defense Strategy that pivots from countering China to safeguarding the homeland and Western Hemisphere, according to US-based media outlet Politico. A draft delivered to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth outlined a reorientation toward domestic and regional security missions, according to officials briefed on the plan. The draft departed dramatically from the Trump administration’s 2018 defence strategy, which framed China and Russia as “authoritarian adversaries”.
The new strategy may create a chasm between the Trump administration and both Republican and Democratic administrations that have long cast China as America’s greatest strategic rival. “This is going to be a major shift for the US and its allies on multiple continents,” said one of the people briefed on the draft document. “The old, trusted US promises are being questioned.”
Donald Trump’s presidency increased the activities of the FBI, ICE and other law enforcement agencies to combat illegal immigration and crime. National Guard forces have been deployed to US cities, while warships and fighter jets patrol the Caribbean against drug flows. The military has even targeted Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua drug cartel, allegedly killing 11 of its suspected members in international waters. Along the southern border, troops now detain civilians in a role once reserved for law enforcement.
The strategy is led by Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby, who co-authored the 2018 strategy but now champions an isolationist turn. Colby’s team is also preparing a global posture review, which could pull tens of thousands of US troops from Europe and the Middle East. The review will coincide with a theatre air and missile defence assessment, shaping where US forces and allied systems are positioned worldwide.
Donald Trump, as a political figure, explicitly expressed territorial ambitions akin to annexation or expansionist policies typically associated with historical imperialism. During his first presidency (2017–2021), some actions and rhetoric raised questions about U.S. influence abroad and territorial discussions.
- US Annexation of Canada President-elect Donald Trump said 18 December 2024 it would be a "great idea" for Canada to become the 51st US state. "Many Canadians want Canada to become the 51st State," he said on Tuesday on his social media platform, repeating a jab at his northern neighbour that he has mentioned a few times recently. "They would save massively on taxes and military protection. I think it is a great idea." Trump took a light jab at his Canadian counterpart on 10 December 2024, referring to Justin Trudeau as the "governor" of the "Great State of Canada". Donald Trump suggested that Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada, should become a "governor" of a U.S. state, a misunderstanding, satire, or a joke.
- Greenland - Trump said 22 December 2024 on social media that the U.S. owning Greenland “is an absolute necessity,” in a statement announcing Ken Howery as his nominee to serve as ambassador to Denmark. “For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity,” Trump said in the Truth Social post. In 2019, Trump expressed interest in purchasing Greenland from Denmark. While Denmark rejected the idea outright, Trump argued that acquiring Greenland could be strategically advantageous due to its location and resources. This echoed historical U.S. land purchases, such as Alaska, but the proposal was widely criticized and dismissed as unrealistic.
- Mexico
- Panama Canal Trump said 22 December 2024 that his new administration will try and regain control of the Panama Canal. His statements drew rebuke from Panama President Jose Raul Mulino. “We’re being ripped off at the Panama Canal like we’re being ripped off everywhere else,” he said at the Arizona event, adding that the US “foolishly gave it away”. Following AmericaFest, Trump posted a picture on his Truth Social platform of the US flag flying over a narrow water body with the caption: “Welcome to the United States Canal!”Donald Trump did not make any official policy proposals or public statements about returning the Panama Canal to U.S. control during his first presidency (2017–2021). The Panama Canal was handed over to Panama on December 31, 1999, as part of the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties.
Trump's statements about Canada, Panama, Mexico and Greenland (part of Denmark) are linked to a "comprehensive mission" to counter Russia and China, the Washington Post reported , citing an official in the Republican transition administration. "There is a clear connection in all of this. Trump knows what levers to pull and what guardrails exist, and he has the ability to use these levers," the source said.
Trump is likely to harden approach to Ukraine and China, and infuse more unpredictability in the Middle East. He should largely be taken at his word. The rules-based world order and the preservation of US domestic law as well as international laws has already been broken and undermined. Trump creates an opportunity for those who want to take a wrecking ball to the multilateral order. On the campaign trail this time around, Trump signaled a return to his “America First” foreign policy, indicating a turn towards greater isolationism and less international collaboration. But that did not preclude Trump from making grandiose claims of being able to end Russia’s war against Ukraine within 24 hours of taking office, bringing peace to the Middle East, and exerting dominance over China, the US’s largest geopolitical rivals.
The Republican Party’s apparent divisions were on full display during its convention in Milwaukee, with hawks like Mike Pompeo and avowed anti-interventionists like Tucker Carlson each holding court. Carlson raised eyebrows during his previous tenure at Fox News by alleging covert US influence in Ukraine’s 2014 regime change, breaking a powerful taboo by openly discussing the methods of CIA-backed “color revolutions.” Donald Trump spoke with distinctive brashness on subjects assumed to be beyond political debate in Washington, such as the United States’ fraught relationship with Russia and the country’s role as self-appointed “policemen of the world.” On the other side of the aisle Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders enjoyed a similar populist appeal, alleging “massive fraud” in US military spending and questioning former President Barack Obama’s effort to overthrow Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. Trump threatened to impose a 60% tariff on Chinese goods and a "general tariff" of 10% to 20% on imports from all countries. Some people are worried that if Trump launches a "tariff war", the world economy will repeat the chaos of the 1930s. He blamed NATO and South Korea for defense spending and predicted that he would put pressure on Mexico. He also recently warned that if border crossers are not cut off, high tariffs will be imposed on Mexico.
China, with which Trump launched a trade war during his first term in office, is a wild card. Trump pledged to introduce more steep tariffs on products made in China if Beijing were to "go into Taiwan." He previously said he would not have to use U.S. military force to prevent a possible Chinese blockade of Taiwan due to his relationship with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Throughout his campaign, President-elect Donald Trump often touted his first administration’s record on Middle East issues from 2017-2021, including a hardline approach toward Iran and withdrawal from the nuclear deal. During his third election campaign, Trump did not provide a clear framework for his administration’s foreign policies during his second term, which begins on January 20. Trump reiterated that the increasing violence in the region “would never have happened if he were in the White House ,” and claimed that his previous toughness on Iran and the restrictions on it prevented it from funding Hamas and Hezbollah.
Jeffrey Goldberg reported that in their book, The Divider: Trump in the White House, Peter Baker and Susan Glasser reported that Trump asked John Kelly, his chief of staff at the time, "Why can't you be like the German generals?" Trump, at various points, had grown frustrated with military officials he deemed disloyal and disobedient. Throughout the course of his presidency, Trump referred to flag officers as "my generals.") According to Baker and Glasser, Kelly explained to Trump that German generals "tried to kill Hitler three times and almost pulled it off." This correction did not move Trump to reconsider his view: "No, no, no, they were totally loyal to him," the president responded. .. I asked Kelly about their exchange. He told me that when Trump raised the subject of "German generals," Kelly responded by asking, "Do you mean Bismarck's generals?" He went on: "I mean, I knew he didn't know who Bismarck was, or about the Franco-Prussian War. I said, 'Do you mean the kaiser's generals? Surely you can't mean Hitler's generals? And he said, 'Yeah, yeah, Hitler's generals.' I explained to him that Rommel had to commit suicide after taking part in a plot against Hitler." Kelly told me Trump was not acquainted with Rommel."
On 04 November 2024, 1049 National Security Leaders, comprised of 862 Senior National Security Leaders, including 10 Cabinet Secretaries, 11 Service Secretaries, 253 retired Admirals and Generals with 15 four-stars, 49 Senior Enlisted, 164 Ambassadors as well as 187 Associate Members, endorsed Kamala Harris for President: "The contrast with Mr. Trump is clear: where Vice President Harris is prepared and strategic, he is impulsive and ill-informed. He has heaped praise on adversarial dictators like China’s Xi Jinping, North Korea’s Kim Jung Un, and Russia’s Vladimir Putin, as well as the terrorist leaders of Hezbollah. Conversely, he has publicly and privately excoriated the leaders of our most steadfast allies, including the United Kingdom, Israel, Australia, Canada, and Germany. He abandoned our Kurdish allies while ceding influence in the Middle East to Russia, Iran, and China.
"Further, Mr. Trump denigrates our great country and does not believe in the American ideal that our leaders should reflect the will of the people. While Vice President Harris follows the democratic norms we expect of any political leader—including promising to abide by the outcome of the pending election and respecting the rule of law—Mr. Trump is the first president in American history to actively undermine the peaceful transfer of power, the bedrock of American democracy.
"Mr. Trump threatens our democratic system; he has said so himself. He has called for the “termination” of parts of the Constitution. He said he wants to be a “dictator,” and his clarification that he would only be a dictator for a day is not reassuring. He has undermined faith in our elections by repeating lies, without evidence, of “millions” of fraudulent votes.
"He has shown no remorse for trying to overturn the 2020 election on January 6th, promises to pardon the convicted perpetrators, and has made clear he will not respect the results of the 2024 election should he lose again. That alone proves Mr. Trump is unfit to be Commander-in-Chief.
"We believe, as President Ronald Reagan said, that “America is a shining city on a hill.” Yet in this election, one of President Reagan’s more ominous warnings is equally relevant. “Freedom,” he said, “is never more than one generation away from extinction.”
Donald Trump prevailed over Kamala Harris in the 05 November 2024 US presidential election, which will most likely mean a redirection of Washington’s policies on a whole array of pressing issues. The fact that Americans voted for Donald Trump was seen as a clear sign that they want change from the last four years" of the Biden-Harris administration. The American people had a chance to compare what life was like under the previous Trump administration, although they were concerned about his personality quirks. Vice President J.D. Vance will certainly implement those policies as well and will probably be given a lot of tasks once they take office for the implementation of a lot of these policies.
Bringing in Elon Musk will see to how to change government in a way that whittles it down to save money. Musk has already said he sees the potential for saving $2 trillion a year from the $8.7 trillion total budget. The USA has about a $6.75 trillion budget deficit every year, which costs about $1 trillion in interest payments. Mandatory spending represents nearly two-thirds of annual federal spending. The state of the US economy has become the top issue of the election race, with experts warning about inflation, housing prices, and risks associated with America’s $35.7 trillion federal debt.
On Ukraine, it's clear that Donald Trump does not want to continue funding the Zelensky government. Ukrainians fear that any push for a quick peace agreement would play into Russia's hands, leaving about one-fifth of their country under Moscow's control while also letting Putin use a cessation of hostilities as a chance to build up its forces for a future attack. He does not want to continue a proxy war. This was opposed to the Biden administration - that poured billions of dollars into the war. The US has injected a total of over $61 billion in security aid Kiev since the Ukraine conflict escalated in February 2022. But the Pentagon’s own dwindling arms stockpiles have resulted in far smaller US aid packages in recent months. Russia has repeatedly warned against Western military aid to Ukraine, which Moscow says will only prolong the standoff. Trump could reduce arms deliveries to Ukraine or "instruct the American military and intelligence services to stop intelligence sharing with Ukraine.
“I will have that settled prior to taking the White House as president-elect,” Trump said at an event in June 2024, ignoring the Logan Act. Trump – who has reportedly maintained close ties with Putin – has also criticized Zelenskyy’s requests for additional US assistance to Ukraine, saying “it never ends”. There is the possibility that Trump could reach a deal with Putin that excludes Zelenskyy’s input – and could potentially concede quite a lot in terms of Ukraine and its territory.
Trump has said little about how he would seek to engineer an end to Russia's war against Ukraine. In an interview with Fox News in July 2023, he indicated he would try to push Russian President Vladimir Putin to negotiate by threatening to open the aid spigots for Ukraine. Conversely, he said he would pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy by threatening to withhold aid. "I would tell Zelenskiy: 'No more. You got to make a deal.' I would tell Putin: 'If you don't make a deal, we're going to give [Zelenskiy] a lot. We're going to [give Ukraine] more than they ever got if we have to,'" Trump said. "I will have the deal done in one day. One day."
Trump has said Putin's conditions for peace talks are "not acceptable," argued that he was tougher on Russia than previous presidents, and claims that Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if had he been in the White House. In 2017, he gave the green light for the United States to provide lethal aid to Ukraine, something his predecessor, Democrat Barack Obama, had refused to do because of concerns about provoking Moscow. In April 2024, Trump said he would be open to something like the lend-lease program the United States launched to help allies during World War II as an alternative to aid grants.
Trump may develop a new perspective on NATO, begrudgingly. Trump might keep the structure, but put more requirements on the members and be much more definitive with them in terms of responsibilities. Russia sees NATO being more of an offensive alliance as opposed to a defensive alliance, and Trump would want to curb that. Because it's been this offensiveness by NATO that has gotten us into this mess with Ukraine," Maloof pointed out. Trump will begin to cut back on NATO, which may fracture under a Trump administration and become much more regional in nature. There will be far less US encouragement for NATO to survive and thrive than it had under the Biden-Harris administration.
Trump has made it clear again and again that he doesn't believe in the value of the alliance per se. His approach to NATO is rather transactional. Currently, two-thirds of NATO members spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense, and defense spending and production are on an onward trajectory across the alliance.
Trump may be much more stringent toward NATO members and insist that they increase their allotments to it or pull out. Trump will want to make NATO "less aggressive" in terms of being offensive in nature, as demonstrated in Ukraine, because it's absolutely wrecked the economy of Europe. So the Europeans have come to realize that, and they're paying the consequences. And they do blame the United States for leading them in this direction in the first place. Moscow had repeatedly warned NATO against its eastward expansion, which the Kremlin says could further inflame tensions in Europe. Russian President Vladimir Putin slammed NATO for making empty promises about its commitment not to expand eastward since 1991.
On the campaign trail, Trump indicated he would remain in the alliance as long as European countries "play fair" and stop taking "advantage" of US defense spending. It seems unlikely that Trump will pull the US out of NATO altogether, but there are many ways to hurt the alliance. Trump could for instance remove the US from the military command – that is what France did in 1966.
On Israel, Donald Trump may take a U-turn as compared to his previous term. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu once described Trump as the “best friend that Israel has ever had in the White House”. While in office, Trump moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in a move that was widely denounced by Palestinians and international law experts. He also recognised Israel’s claim to the occupied Golan Heights in Syria.
Trump has already been somewhat critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in terms of continuing the war in Gaza and Lebanon endlessly. Trump said to Netanyahu, get this done, finish it, stop the fighting, and come to terms. In his first administration, he was very supportive of what Netanyahu wanted. He gave the Israelis everything they wanted. A report for Brown University’s Costs of War project claimed that the US had spent a record of at least $17.9 billion on military aid to Israel since the Jewish state unleashed a war against the Palestinian militant group, Hamas, in Gaza more than a year ago.
His administration brokered the Abraham Accords, a series of agreements that formalized diplomatic and economic relations between Israel and a handful of Arab countries. Trump largely believes that “throwing money at the problem” is the answer to solving conflict in the Middle East. But contrary to Trump’s claims that he would bring calm to the region if re-elected, critics say his “arms for peace” framework has been a failure – as evidenced by Israel’s devastating military campaigns in Gaza and Lebanon, which have pushed the Middle East to the brink of all-out war.
Trump is going to look more towards Saudi Arabia, as the kingdom is now insisting on a two-state solution in exchange for normalizing relations with Israel and reactivating the Abraham Accords. This is going to mean a redirection in foreign policy. It's going to mean less emphasis on what Israel wants and perhaps more on what the Gulf Arab countries might want.
Trump maintained a hard line against Iran both in and out of the White House. During Trump’s tenure as president, the US unilaterally withdrew from a 2015 agreement that saw Iran scale back its nuclear program in exchange for a lifting of international sanctions against its economy. In the aftermath, his administration heaped crippling sanctions against Tehran and authorised the assassination of top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani, an attack that fueled tensions across the region.
With regard to the US’ Asia policy, Trump may try to reactivate his relationship with Kim Jong Un to try to get the North Korean leader to back down on any further testing. One way you do that is to stop all further US-South Korean military exercises, which North Korea views as a provocation. China would probably welcome that as well," Maloof noted.
This comes amid the ongoing militarization of the Asia-Pacific by the US, which clinched a deal with the UK and Australia in 2021 to establish the AUKUS military bloc. Moscow says that such a militarization has an obvious focus on containing China and Russian interests in the region.
Trump’s approach to China is largely based on trade, noting that the ex-president places the US’s economic relationship with China above other issues, such as human rights. In 2018, for instance, Washington instigated a trade war with Beijing after the Trump administration slapped tariffs on more than $250bn worth of Chinese imports. That spurred a retaliatory measure from the Chinese government.
Nevertheless, Trump has expressed an affinity for China’s strongman leader, President Xi Jinping. In an interview with Fox News in August 2024, Trump said he respected President Xi and “had a great relationship with him”, but that his “massive tariffs” secured billions of dollars from Beijing. “They took advantage of us. And why shouldn’t they, if we were stupid enough to let them do it?” Trump said. “Nobody got any money from China. I got billions – hundreds of billions of dollars – from China.”
The Project 2025 Presidential Transition Project noted: "Beijing presents a challenge to American interests across the domains of national power, but the military threat that it poses is especially acute and significant. China is undertaking a historic military buildup that includes increasing capability for power projection not only in its own region, but also far beyond as well as a dramatic expansion of its nuclear forces that could result in a nuclear force that matches or exceeds America’s own nuclear arsenal."
Project 2025 propoed "Increase the Army budget to remain the world’s preeminent land power. Accelerate the development and procurement of the six current Army modernization priorities (long-range precision fires, the NextGeneration Combat Vehicle, Future Vertical Lift, the Army network, air and missile defense, and soldier lethality) to replace worn out and outdated combat systems and ensure ground combat dominance. Increase funding to improve Army training and operational readiness. Increase the Army force structure by 50,000 to handle two major regional contingencies simultaneously."
For the US Navy, it proposed to "Build a fleet of more than 355 ships." it also proposed "Increase the Air Force budget by 5 percent annually (after adjusting for inflation) to reverse the decline in size, age, and readiness and facilitate the transition to a more modern, lethal, and survivable force."
The report stated "The U.S. Air Force today lacks a force structure with the lethality, survivability, and capacity to fight a major conflict with a great power like China, deter nuclear threats, and meet its other operational requirements under the National Defense Strategy.... underfunding has forced the Air Force to cut its forces and forgo modernizing aging weapons systems that were never designed to operate in current threat environments and are structurally and mechanically exhausted. The result is an Air Force that is the oldest, smallest, and least ready in its history."Project 2025 proposed to "Adopt a two-war force defense strategy with scenarios for each service that will allow the Air Force to attain the resources it requires by developing a force-sizing construct that reflects what is required to accomplish strategic objectives. Eliminate pass-through funding, which has grown to more than $40 billion per year and has caused the Air Force to be chronically underfunded for decades. ... , pass-through funding causes numbers cited in current DOD budget documents to be higher than the dollar amounts actually received by the Air Force.... Increase the Air Force budget by 5 percent annually (after adjusting for inflation) to reverse the decline in size, age, and readiness and facilitate the transition to a more modern, lethal, and survivable force."
The report stated "The U.S. Space Force (USSF) was established to assure continuous global and theater combat support from space, to deter attacks against U.S. space assets, and to prevail in space should deterrence fail. The USSF posture was conceived as a balance of offensive and defensive deterrent capabilities designed for maximum effectiveness.... 1. Reestablish offensive capabilities to guarantee a favorable balance of forces, efficiently manage the full deterrence spectrum, and seriously complicate enemy calculations of a successful first strike against U.S. space assets. 2. Restore architectural balance in U.S. space forces, both offensive and defensive, to restore deterrence dominance effciently and quickly. 3. Rapidly expand space control capability, to include cis-lunar space (the region beginning at geosynchronous altitude and encompassing the moon), to provide early warning of an enemy attack. 4. Seek arms control and “rules of the road” understandings only when they are unambiguously in the interests of the U.S. and its allies, and prohibit their unilateral implementation."
"Reduce overclassification. The USSF must move beyond the Cold War era culture of secrecy and overclassification that surrounded military space to facilitate greater coordination and synchronization of efforts across the government and commercial sectors. Declassify appropriate information about terrestrial and on-orbit space capabilities that threaten the U.S. space constellation, as well as those being pursued by our competitors, to secure the principled right to counter them offensively."
"Missile defense is a critical component of the U.S. national security architecture. It can help to deter attack by instilling doubt that an attack will work as intended, take adversary “cheap shots” off the table, and limit the perceived value of missiles as tools of coercion. It also allows space for diplomacy during a crisis and can protect U.S. and allied forces, critical assets, and populations if deterrence fails. Adversaries are relying increasingly on missiles to achieve their aims....
"1. Abandon the existing policy of not defending the homeland against Russian and Chinese ballistic missiles and focus on how to improve defense as the Russian and Chinese missile threats increase at an unprecedented rate. 2. Invest in future advanced missile defense technologies like directed energy or space-based missile defense that could defend against more numerous missile threats."
Trump claims that Biden has been “weak” in the face of “Hamas radicals,” and has declared that he will do more to suppress anti-colonial resistance if he becomes president. During his election campaign, he called for the deportation of foreigners who support Palestinian resistance, and since his election, he has appointed pro-Israel hawks to key intelligence and security positions in his government, signaling his determination to fulfill his promises to crack down on anti-Zionist activists. For example, Trump appointed Kristi Noem as secretary of homeland security. The governor of South Dakota who had previously introduced a bill to counter criticism of Israel on the grounds of “ensuring the security of God’s chosen people”. Some commentators presume that the US establishment sees Trump and his popularity as a convenient vehicle for new overseas campaigns as part of his efforts to "make America great again". Patriots often think of greatness in terms of military dominance, they said. "They [the US establishment] need a charismatic, populist firebrand to boost recruitment and spearhead the rush to war. Harris can’t do that. Harris had trouble attracting even a hundred supporters to her rallies," wrote US political commentator Mike Whitney, suggesting Iran could be the next target. The fact that Trump has appointed Elise Stefanik, a firebrand for Israel, as US ambassador to the UN lends credibility to Whitney's suspicion. It would be easy to seduce Americans into a new military adventure if they are led by a popular leader, warned former Ronald Reagan official Dr. Paul Craig Roberts on his website. "MAGA Americans are tired of losing wars," wrote Dr. Roberts. "They want to win. The military/security complex will have Trump supporters in the streets waving the flag. They will wave the flag and expect Trump to win. It is all part of making America great again. It is a war recipe for disaster." Transparency website OpenSecrets and financial tech startup Quiver Quantitative have shown that US defense contractors funded the Trump campaign generously. Similarly, during his first term, Trump supported what at the time was seen as the largest military budget in US history in 2018. In 2020, the US press called him one of the military-industrial complex's "biggest boosters". Likewise, the Big Three financial powers – Wall Street giants BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street – weren't disturbed by Trump's possible victory. Their post-election prognoses were largely positive, foreseeing a rise in the US market, growth for tech and crypto and the dollar strengthening under Trump.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
