By: Jaiwant Singh Jhala, Research Analyst, GSDN
The 2025 United States National Security Strategy (NSS), released under President Donald Trump’s administration, marks a pivotal shift toward a sovereignty centered approach, prioritizing American interests while demanding greater self-reliance from European allies. It marks a sharp departure from the language and priorities of recent administrations. President Trump believed the past US strategies to be too vague or unrealistic so he introduced the NSS to focus only on core national interests. After the cold war, United States’ leaders tried to dominate the whole world, which drained resources and exploited the middle class. The NSS acts as President Trump’s ‘correction approach’. It focuses on economic growth, industrial policy, defence, and supply-chain security as national security imperatives, not just as trade or domestic policy topics but as core instruments of statecraft. The NSS emphasizes on safety and sovereignty of the state by building the world’s strongest military which can protect the borders and take actions as per US interests. US believes in peace through strength. It also stressed upon the prevention of espionage, drugs, propaganda and uncontrolled immigration. The United States is home to the majority of immigrants and President Trump is set to take control on who enters and exits the American borders. It prioritizes on safeguarding free speech, religion and democracy. The NSS links domestic industrial revival and protection of critical technologies to geopolitical advantage, signaling that the United States will use tariffs, export controls, and targeted investment policies as instruments of national strategy.
Its Implications
The 2025 NSS amends US grand strategy in ways that matter for Europe on multiple levels. The document in its ‘America First’ frame, says, that America will prioritize direct national interests first and expect partners to shoulder more of their own defense and regional stability as it advances a narrower conception of US global responsibility. It pushes Europe for self-reliance. The doctrine’s insistence that allies must take on greater responsibility for their security logically pushes European governments to boost defense spending and capability development. For many states that is politically acceptable or necessary. For example, the German government has already adopted measures to increase military expenditure following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The US wants Europe to take primary responsibility for its own defense rather than relying heavily on American support. This reprioritization does not mean US withdrawal but a rebalanced partnership. NATO allies are expected to spend more on defence. President Trump’s ‘Hague Commitment’ has set a target of 5% of the GDP for all NATO states.
The document contains unusually sharp critiques of European governments and institutions, questioning European migration, governance, and what it describes as erosion in civic culture. It also signals limits to US backing for NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) enlargement. The strategy suggests NATO should not keep expanding indefinitely. This could mean fewer new members in the future and a focus on strengthening existing alliances instead of enlarging them. European capitals responded with surprise and to some extent, anger. European political leaders reacted publicly and quickly. Several EU (European Union) leaders and officials condemned the tone of the NSS and its apparent willingness to criticize European democracies. Germany’s chancellor called for Europe to become less dependent on the US for security.
One of the sharpest concrete implication concerns Ukraine. The US is interested to negotiate a quick end to the Ukraine war to stabilize Europe and prevent escalation of the conflict. It emphasizes on restoring ‘strategic stability’ with Russia, which could mean encouraging Europe to accept compromises for peace. This posture of America increases the pressure on Europe to become the primary security broker for Ukraine’s future, role European nations are not uniformly prepared to accept. This is a shift from open-ended support for Ukraine toward a settlement that prioritizes stability. International relations (IR) experts and analysts worry that the NSS’s messaging about NATO expansion and its emphasis on regional responsibility could be read in Russia as a window for aggressive diplomacy or coercion. European publics and policymakers in countries bordering Russia and in those with high stakes in Ukraine’s future fear that US’s signaling might embolden Russia’s bargaining position or reduce the appetite in the US for strong deterrence measures in Europe. Media and think-tank commentary suggests that the NSS’s combination of praise for nationalist movements in some allied states and its critique of European governance risks inflaming division within Europe itself. The document criticizes Europe’s low birthrates, migration policies, censorship, and loss of national identity. It implies the US will support European movements that promote national sovereignty, cultural revival, and resistance to EU-style transnational governance. This could help in emboldening the nationalist or populist parties across Europe. The NSS will affect domestic politics in European democracies. The document’s critique of certain European policy choices and its apparent sympathy in tone towards nationalist movements may embolden far-right parties that already favor closer ties with the US administration responsible for the NSS. Pro-Atlantic parties will face pressure to demonstrate both independence and competence in national security. This dynamic could increase polarization, complicate coalition-building, and make sustained transatlantic coordination more difficult.
The NSS emphasizes on economic security. Reshoring, secure supply chains, and protection of critical technologies will prove to be both, advantageous and disadvantageous for Europe. European leaders share an interest in protecting semiconductor production, critical minerals, biotech and other strategic industries and coordinated industrial policy between the US and EU could yield mutual resilience but a competitive mercantilist streak in US policy could increase trade friction, pressure European firms to choose between markets and accelerate de-globalization trends. The NSS makes it likelier that United States will adopt unilateral measures such as tariffs, investment screens, export controls, etc. to protect domestic industry and forcing Europe to respond with its own defences or accept regulatory divergence. America wants Europe to combat Chinese overcapacity, tech theft, and cyber espionage. Europe is urged to open markets to US goods and treat American businesses fairly. This means that Europe will be pushed to align more closely with US trade and technology policies.
The NSS essentially accelerates Europe’s trend of moving towards strategic autonomy. This has positive sides for Europe. A Europe capable of credible defense, stronger industrial bases, and independent diplomacy would be less vulnerable to external coercion and better able to act as a global security actor in its own right. A more capable Europe would also be a stronger partner to the United States on shared challenges like China’s assertiveness, climate security, and technological governance but strategic autonomy is not a binary switch. Building military capabilities, industrial capacity and political strength will take time and resources. European states remain interdependent with the US for nuclear deterrence, power projection, certain intelligence capabilities and advanced defense technologies. The optimal path is therefore not autarky but ‘strategic sovereignty’. This means strengthening European capacities while preserving the institutionalized transatlantic cooperation that delivers unique value. The NSS’s challenge is to push Europeans toward this middle ground.
Despite criticism, the United States sees Europe as vital for global stability and prosperity. Transatlantic trade, science, and culture remain central pillars. The US wants a ‘strong Europe’ that can partner in preventing adversaries like Russia or China from dominating the continent. Europe must redefine its role with discipline, ensuring priorities like Russian deterrence are defended amid US recalibration. Unity requires accepting US-led diplomacy, internal cohesion, and economic hardening to remain indispensable. Failure risks strategic irrelevance, but renewal could strengthen the West against shared threats. The 2025 US National Security Strategy is a political and strategic provocation as much as it is doctrine. The NSS shapes years of US policy, pushing Europe towards sovereignty. Transatlantic ties endure but evolve, with Europe’s agency pivotal in a competitive era.
