Personalities, Opinions, Facts, and Infighting Will Shape National Security as They Always Have, But This Time, There is a Radical Departure from Established American Foreign Policy.
STRATEGY CENTRAL
For & By Practitioners
By Monte Erfourth – February 11, 2025
Introduction
The second Trump administration has brought about a significant change in U.S. foreign policy and national security priorities. Unlike previous administrations that favored multilateralism and institutional diplomacy, Trump's national security team operates based on a framework of economic nationalism, strategic deterrence, and transactional alliances. This article examines the fundamental principles of Trump's foreign policy theory and explores how it differs from traditional U.S. approaches. It will also introduce and assess the roles and priorities of key national security officials, including National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Although brief, an analysis of the internal tensions within Trump’s team are outlined. Ideological differences could affect the administration’s ability to implement a cohesive strategy. If his first Administration is any indication, Trump will likely pit his national security leads against each other to see who holds the strongest argument aligning with his views. How well foreign policy functions in this scenario remains difficult to determine.
Trump’s Foreign Policy Theory and Its Departure from Traditional U.S. Strategy
Donald Trump’s foreign policy significantly departs from the post-World War II framework, emphasizing alliances, free trade, and collective security. Instead, his approach prioritizes economic nationalism, military deterrence, and unilateralism over multilateral institutions, fundamentally altering how the United States competes globally.
Core Tenets of Trump’s Foreign Policy
America First Nationalism
Views global institutions such as NATO, the United Nations, and the WTO as constraints on U.S. sovereignty.
Prefers bilateral deals over multilateral agreements, arguing that international organizations dilute U.S. influence.
Unilateral Economic Leverage
Employs tariffs, sanctions, and economic pressure to secure better trade terms.
Marks a departure from post-Cold War economic liberalism, which promoted global trade interdependence.
Deterrence Over Intervention
Avoids nation-building efforts (e.g., Bush’s Iraq intervention, Obama’s democracy promotion).
Favors targeted military strikes over long-term counterinsurgency operations.
Transactional Alliances
Skeptical of traditional alliances unless they yield direct benefits.
Pressures NATO members to increase defense spending and engages in personal diplomacy with leaders such as Putin and Kim Jong Un.
How Trump’s Approach Differs from Traditional U.S. Foreign Policy
For decades, U.S. foreign policy has been shaped by liberal internationalism, which relies on:
Alliances like NATO and the UN to maintain global stability.
Free trade and economic interdependence to prevent conflict.
A commitment to democracy promotion and human rights.
Trump challenges these principles, arguing that:
Alliances should be strictly transactional.
Economic nationalism is preferable to free trade.
Democracy promotion should not dictate U.S. foreign policy.
Hard power is valued, and soft power is not.
This shift toward unilateralism, economic nationalism, and the rejection of soft power sharply contrasts with the U.S. strategy of incorporating allies into a rules-based international order that emerged after 1945. Trump’s viewpoint aligns ideologically with China’s foreign policy and echoes 19th-century mercantilism and imperialism. Some of his key national security leaders advocate maintaining much of the traditional American approach, but they will face challenges in persuading Trump to stick with it.
Internal Tensions: Trump vs. His National Security Officials
Despite broad vocal alignment with Trump’s vision, his national security team exhibits ideological differences that could shape policy outcomes. Key figures include:
National Security Advisor Mike Waltz – A More Pro-Alliance Approach
Supports Trump’s focus on China but considers alliances like AUKUS and the Quad essential.
More willing than Trump to work with NATO and European allies in select situations.
Has purged the National Security Council (NSC) of career staff to ensure ideological alignment.
Remains committed to traditional alliances and partner networks but will likely bend to Trump’s viewpoint.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio – A Hardline China Hawk
Aligns with Trump on confronting China but prefers a coalition-based strategy.
Strong advocate for democracy promotion in Latin America, diverging from Trump’s transactional diplomacy.
Supports designating Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organizations.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard – Anti-Interventionist, Pro-Reform
A vocal intelligence community critic, she aims to “depoliticize” intelligence and increase transparency.
Opposes regime-change wars but supports targeted counterterrorism operations.
Aims to restructure the intelligence community to eliminate inefficiencies, yet may overlook efforts to enhance its effectiveness.
Supports robust border defense.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth – A Militaristic “America First” Doctrine
Emphasizes revitalizing the U.S. military’s warrior ethos.
Prioritizes great power competition with China over counterinsurgency.
Seeks to reduce Pentagon bureaucracy and shift resources toward military readiness.
Promotes “peace through strength” but rejects interventionist policy. Hegseth has not clarified how to reconcile these oppositional concepts.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Trump’s National Security Team
Trump’s national security appointments reflect his "America First" agenda, emphasizing economic nationalism, military strength, and transactional diplomacy. However, the team’s internal diversity of perspectives and Trump’s mercurial behavior may lead to strategic inconsistencies.
Strengths
Emphasis on military deterrence strengthens U.S. credibility with adversaries.
Focus on China as the primary threat aligns with bipartisan concerns.
Push for defense industrial expansion supports long-term military readiness.
Weaknesses
Strained alliances may weaken U.S. influence in multilateral coalitions.
Inconsistencies among advisors (e.g., Rubio’s interventionist stance vs. Gabbard’s and Hegseth’s non-interventionism) could create policy confusion.
Heavy reliance on economic coercion risks retaliatory actions from allies and adversaries alike.
China may take advantage of Trump’s rejection of democracy promotion and foreign assistance by providing aid to expand its influence and advantage.
Conclusion
As Trump’s second term unfolds, the success of his foreign policy will hinge on whether his national security team can implement his vision cohesively—or whether ideological rifts and capricious Presidential directives will result in contradictory policies that undermine the administration’s effectiveness. It is reasonable to speculate that Trump's impulsive decision-making, the inexperience and sycophancy of his new national security team, and his tendency to disregard facts in favor of personal opinion could pose significant obstacles to the formulation and execution of a coherent foreign policy.
A president’s approach to national security is most effective when informed by seasoned advisors empowered to challenge assumptions, present nuanced perspectives, and provide evidence-based recommendations. Trump’s governance style prioritizes instinct and personal loyalty over strategic planning and institutional expertise. It is possible that Trump's administration will not publish a National Security, Defense, or Intelligence Strategy further complicating large agency's ability to pursue policy aims. These documents have been far from perfect since the end of the Cold War. Still, they have provided enough guidance to DIME agencies to focus on Presidential priorities and coordinate efforts that could be characterized as marginally effective and, at times, very effective. How effective the National Security team can apply comprehensive national power without a strategy or fact-based policy remains to be seen.
This dynamic can pose several challenges. First, a national security team made up of inexperienced individuals prioritizing loyalty over expertise could reinforce Trump’s existing biases instead of providing the necessary counterbalance for effective policymaking. The lack of critical voices may create strategic blind spots, especially when engaging with adversaries like China, Russia, and Iran, who have long-term goals and exploit American inconsistencies. Furthermore, if Trump continues to overlook intelligence assessments and expert analyses in favor of his personal worldview, the United States risks adopting reactionary or contradictory policies that could undermine long-term strategic interests. Both allies and adversaries may find it difficult to interpret U.S. intentions, resulting in diplomatic miscalculations or a loss of credibility in international negotiations.
Moreover, national security requires institutional stability and predictability, which Trump's leadership style has disrupted. If the past is prologue, the frequent turnover among top officials, abrupt policy reversals, and public disputes within the administration could create an environment of uncertainty that would weaken U.S. deterrence capabilities and embolden adversaries. If we suppose Trump’s approach remains unstructured and dismissive of institutional expertise, there is a real possibility that the U.S. national security posture will become increasingly fragile, leaving the nation less prepared to respond effectively to emerging threats. Ultimately, while Trump’s instincts may inspire bold moves, the lack of a disciplined decision-making process could result in strategic missteps that undermine, rather than bolster, U.S. global standing and security.
Works Cited
Walt, Stephen M. “What IR Theory Predicts About Trump 2.0.” Foreign Policy, 3 Feb. 2025.
Clary, Christopher. “Do Waltz’s Big Ideas Clash with Trump’s Vision?” Good Authority, 14 Jan. 2025.
“160 National Security Staffers Are Sent Home as White House Aligns Team to Trump’s Agenda.” AP News, 22 Jan. 2025.
“Trump Tapping Several Who Served in First Administration for National Security Council Roles.” CBS News, 22 Dec. 2024.
“U.S. National Security Advisors Talk Top Foreign Policy Challenges.” United States Institute of Peace, 16 Jan. 2025.
“How Michael Waltz Might Guide White House Foreign Policy.” Good Authority, 14 Jan. 2025.
“Incoming Trump Team Is Asking White House National Security Council Civil Servants About Their Loyalty.” PBS News, 13 Jan. 2025.
“Incoming US NSA Mike Waltz Indicates Continuation of Several Elements of Biden’s China Policy.” Economic Times, 16 Jan. 2025.
“Organization of the National Security Council and Subcommittees.” The White House, 20 Jan. 2025.
Comments