The revised national security strategy of Trump emphasizes competition with China and Russia.

All US presidents approve the National Security Strategy. The logic is clear: the document should explain to citizens what exactly the state is doing and why. In the latest version of Donald Trump’s administration, it is stated directly — the strategy is needed so that society understands the course and priorities.

But publicity has a downside. The strategy essentially reveals the cards to opponents. A simple question arises: would a strong chess player share the plans of their game with an opponent in advance? Especially since the national strategy is not a “grand strategy” for decades. In a few years, a new president may completely change the emphasis.

In the 2022 version presented by former President Joe Biden, climate change was named the key threat. The document stated that it is the most significant and potentially existential problem for all states.

Based on this approach, the president’s special envoy for climate, John Kerry, tried to persuade China’s leader Xi Jinping to join the US and Europe in the global fight against carbon dioxide emissions.

The attempt did not work. In 2024, China recorded a decade-high in the construction of new coal power plants, effectively demonstrating a divergence between declarations and real policy.

The updated National Security Strategy of Donald Trump puts forward different priorities. One of the “highest strategic” directions became the restoration of US energy dominance — in oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy.

Among the additional goals are the rejection of so-called DEI practices, which are described in the document as discriminatory, as well as the return of control over critical supply chains. The economy and security are once again viewed as a single whole.

A separate focus is placed on Latin America — a region that, according to supporters of the new strategy, was overlooked in previous years. In 2013, John Kerry, while serving as Secretary of State, stated that “the era of the Monroe Doctrine is over.” At the time, this was presented as a gesture of respect to the countries of the region.

However, the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 was originally not about respect, but about warning European empires: intervention in Latin America would be considered a hostile act by the US.

The new strategy essentially proposes a “Trump version” of this doctrine: the US intends to prevent external forces from building military potential or gaining control over strategic assets in the Western Hemisphere.

Who these forces are is not always directly named in the document, but the context is clear. It refers to China, Russia, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, including their proxy structures such as “Hezbollah.” A historical example is the 1994 terrorist attack at the Jewish center in Buenos Aires, where 85 people died and about 300 were injured.

For comparison: the 2017 strategy during Trump’s first presidential term directly named Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, and Pyongyang as key threats to US interests. Since then, coordination between these regimes has only intensified.

February 2022 became symbolic. A few days before the start of the full-scale war against Ukraine, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping announced a “partnership without limits.”

China provides Russia with critically important components — from microchips to elements for rocket fuel. Iran supplies drones, and in Yelabuga, more than 600 miles east of Moscow, there is a plant associated with their production, where thousands of North Korean workers are involved.

Kim Jong Un, in turn, sent ammunition and thousands of soldiers to Putin. In research centers, including structures for the protection of democracy, this has long been called the “axis of aggressors.”

Each of these countries threatens its neighbors, seeks regional dominance, and views American influence as an obstacle. Their goal is a new world order where the rules are set not by the US and its allies.

Against this background, the new strategy looks contradictory. China is presented more as a manageable competitor. Regarding Russia, there are formulations about the hope for a “quick cessation of hostilities in Ukraine” and the restoration of strategic stability.

Critics ask: isn’t it obvious that Putin is oriented towards conquests, not compromise? Attempts to repeat the logic of the “reset” during Obama’s time seem questionable.

The Kremlin’s goal is the subjugation of Ukraine, turning it either into a vassal following the Belarus model or into a fully controlled territory. In a broader perspective — the restoration of the imperial project, which in the past was called both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union.

This is a direct threat to Europe. In the strategy, it is named a strategically and culturally significant region. At the same time, the risks of deindustrialization and demographic pressure are emphasized, which can lead to the “civilizational erasure” of individual countries.

The document directly states: a strong Europe is necessary for the US to contain opponents. For NATO countries, this means that America’s importance for their security does not decrease but grows.

In the Middle East, the strategy implies reducing direct American involvement by expanding the Abraham Accords between Israel and pro-American Arab states, united in the fight against radicalism.

At the same time, experts, including retired Admiral Mark Montgomery, point out a serious gap: the strategy practically does not address the constant cyber threats from China and Russia aimed at the US’s transportation, energy, communication, and financial infrastructure.

Groups like the Beijing-linked “Valley of Thunder” network have been systematically penetrating critical systems since 2018, creating a foundation for future sabotage and disorganization.

Containing these threats requires strengthening both defensive and offensive cyber capabilities. Without this, any strategy remains incomplete.

The bottom line is simple: the greatest danger to US national security is not only external enemies but also those risks that are preferred to be ignored. That is why the discussion of such documents is important for the Israeli audience — the context of global security directly affects the region. This is what NAnews — News of Israel | Nikk.Agency writes about, recording how strategic decisions in Washington reflect on the world around us.