TRUMP DECLARES NEW ENEMY: It's NOT Who You Think!

A fundamental reshaping of American defense priorities is underway, signaling a dramatic departure from decades of established policy. The focus is shifting away from the long-held concerns of Islamic terrorism and the complexities of the Middle East, and toward a new era of asserting dominance closer to home – in the Western Hemisphere.

This new National Security Strategy identifies mass migration not as a humanitarian crisis, but as the preeminent threat to national security. Border security and operations targeting powerful cartels are now considered core defense missions, elevating them to a level unseen since the post-9/11 era.

The document boldly declares that the days of the Middle East dictating American foreign policy are “thankfully over.” While acknowledging the region’s continued importance, it frames it as a place of potential partnership and investment, rather than a constant source of crisis. This represents a significant recalibration of strategic thinking.

A modern interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, dubbed the “Trump Corollary,” is central to this shift. It aims to actively prevent foreign powers from gaining influence within the Americas, signaling a clear intention to reassert control over the region and its surrounding waters.

Experts question whether this hemispheric focus is prudent, given the continued presence of significant global threats. Concerns are raised about overlooking dangers in Africa, the Middle East, Eurasia, and Asia, where adversaries like Russia and China are actively challenging U.S. interests.

The strategy argues that the most immediate risks to the U.S. homeland now stem from instability in Latin America – from unprecedented migration flows and escalating cartel violence to the growing influence of China and Russia. The Western Hemisphere is increasingly viewed as a critical “front line” for national security.

Despite a relative lull in Middle Eastern conflicts, some analysts warn against complacency, drawing a parallel to a cautionary line from a classic film: “You try to get out, and then it sucks you back in.” The region’s history suggests a persistent capacity to draw the United States back into its orbit, regardless of strategic pivots.

Recent events, including investigations into potential terrorist activity linked to individuals entering the country after the withdrawal from Afghanistan, are being framed not as evidence of a resurgent terrorist threat, but as failures in border security and vetting procedures. This reinforces the strategy’s emphasis on controlling migration.

The document broadens the definition of national security to encompass a wide range of threats, including espionage, predatory trade practices, drug and human trafficking, and even “cultural subversion.” Protecting the nation now means defending against “invasion,” not just from unchecked migration, but from the dangers it may carry.

While acknowledging the need to remain vigilant against Islamist extremism in parts of Africa, the strategy prioritizes “targeted deployments” to secure the border and dismantle cartels, authorizing the use of lethal force when necessary. This is already manifesting in increased maritime strikes against alleged drug traffickers.

Critics warn that diminishing the focus on global terrorism could be a dangerous miscalculation. Terrorist groups, though displaced, haven’t disappeared. They’ve simply shifted their operations to new locations, including Central Asia and the vast Sahel region of Africa, where they operate with relative freedom.

The reality, as one analyst points out, is that the United States may seek to disengage from certain conflicts, but those conflicts may not disengage from the United States. History demonstrates a pattern of being drawn back into crises, regardless of strategic intentions.

The strategy also addresses the growing influence of China, particularly its expanding footprint in Latin America. It signals a clear message: nations that align with the U.S. will be rewarded, while those that choose China may face consequences. This is a direct challenge to China’s growing economic and political power in the region.

Whether this ambitious strategy will translate into concrete policy changes remains to be seen. Past administrations have often struggled to align their stated goals with real-world deployments and resource allocation. The document itself offers limited insight into specific force posture adjustments.

Despite the emphasis on the Western Hemisphere, the strategy also dedicates significant attention to China and the Indo-Pacific region, recognizing the importance of strengthening military deterrence in the South China Sea and securing domestic supply chains. A multi-faceted approach to global security is still acknowledged.