The Trump administration quietly released a major policy document in the early hours of Friday morning, with no press conference, no formal announcement, and little immediate public attention. Posted simply as an update on the White House website, the newly published U.S. National Security Strategy is now being closely examined by diplomats, military planners, and foreign governments around the world.

Spanning 33 pages, the document lays out President Donald Trump’s vision for ensuring that the United States remains “the world’s strongest, richest, most powerful, and most successful country” in the decades ahead. But beyond that familiar language, the strategy represents a sharp ideological break from long-standing American foreign policy traditions. It explicitly criticizes what Trump calls past “globalist” policies, arguing that they overstretched U.S. resources and weakened national sovereignty.

One of the most striking elements is the introduction of what the document calls a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. Originally articulated in the 19th century, the Monroe Doctrine declared the Western Hemisphere off-limits to foreign interference. Trump’s version seeks to revive and expand that concept, reframing U.S. dominance in the Americas while signaling a more confrontational posture toward external influence.

Another core priority is bluntly titled “The Era of Mass Migration Is Over.” The strategy claims that large-scale migration has strained domestic resources, increased violence, and undermined national security in Western nations. This framing reflects Trump’s broader isolationist worldview and departs sharply from previous administrations that viewed migration as both a humanitarian responsibility and an economic asset.

The document also delivers an unusually harsh critique of Europe. It describes the continent as facing economic decline and even “civilizational erasure,” accusing the European Union and other transnational bodies of undermining political liberty, promoting unchecked migration, and censoring free speech. At its current pace, the strategy warns, Europe could become “unrecognizable” within 20 years. As a result, U.S. policy going forward should include, in the document’s words, “cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory.”

For many national security experts, the most consequential departure lies in Trump’s approach to alliances. For nearly 75 years, U.S. strategy has treated alliances as force multipliers—central pillars of deterrence and global stability. President Joe Biden’s strategy explicitly described alliances as America’s “greatest strategic advantage,” emphasizing NATO, Indo-Pacific partnerships, and integrated deterrence as safeguards against authoritarian aggression.

Trump rejects that framework entirely. He views alliances primarily through a transactional lens, treating allies as customers who fail to pay their share. Missing from this calculation is the reality that allied nations fought alongside U.S. forces after 9/11, shedding blood for two decades in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The strategy also ignores the strategic value of overseas bases, which enhance U.S. military readiness and global economic stability. In Trump’s worldview, alliances are bad deals, not shared commitments.

Equally significant is the document’s explicit rejection of democracy promotion abroad. Previous administrations framed global competition as democracy versus authoritarianism, tying U.S. security to the defense of human rights and democratic norms. Trump’s strategy dismisses this approach, arguing that the United States should not export its values. Critics note that democratic principles are not uniquely American but are embedded in international human rights frameworks embraced across continents.

The strategy’s approach to immigration follows the same pattern. Where Biden emphasized migration as a driver of innovation, economic growth, and military talent, Trump frames it as a threat and a burden. The document’s insistence that mass migration must end aligns with a broader belief that America can thrive by cutting itself off from the world. Yet history suggests the opposite: U.S. strength has long depended on its ability to attract global talent.