The National Security Strategy (NSS) issued by the current administration in 2025 is more than just a policy blueprint; it serves as the official documentation of the United States’ strategic retreat from the unipolar world it led following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. By explicitly prioritizing domestic security and embracing a strictly transactional view of alliances, the NSS signals a fundamental abandonment of the three core responsibilities that defined U.S. global hegemony.
The Abandonment of the Global Economic Architect
The unipolar moment was intrinsically linked to U.S.-led globalization, where the prevailing belief—often called the “Washington Consensus”—was that open markets and complex global supply chains promoted both prosperity and peace. The 2025 NSS rejects this economic philosophy.
The document’s mandate for Economic Nationalism and Supply Chain Securitization (Pillar 3) is a direct repudiation of globalization. It acknowledges that strategic economic competition, particularly with China, is now more important than open trade. The strategy explicitly calls for aggressive “friend-shoring” and “reshoring” of critical manufacturing—from pharmaceuticals to advanced semiconductors—to reduce dependence on adversarial nations. This shift confirms that the U.S. is prioritizing economic protection and self-reliance over its long-standing role as the architect and guarantor of the unified global economic system. The focus is no longer on expanding global economic integration but on insulating the U.S. economy from external vulnerabilities.
From Unconditional Guarantor to Transactional Partner
For decades, the U.S. acted as the unconditional security guarantor for its allies, primarily in NATO and East Asia, subsidizing their defense as a necessary cost for maintaining global stability. The NSS replaces this foundational commitment with a pragmatic, almost business-like approach.
Under the mandate for Transactional Alliances (Pillar 4), the U.S. insists that allies must assume a significantly greater share of their own defense costs. This is not merely an advisory request but a conditionality for continued U.S. military commitment. The implication for the Ukrainian conflict is clear: the U.S. views the Russian threat as a regional European problem that Europe must primarily pay for, freeing up U.S. resources for the Asia-Pacific and the Western Hemisphere. The U.S. will no longer subsidize European defense, signaling a definitive retrenchment of U.S. military power and confirming that NATO’s security is now a shared European responsibility, not solely an American one.
National Security Strategy Moves Inward
The NSS most clearly demonstrates its inward focus through its re-categorization of threats. During the unipolar moment, the U.S. deployed its military and intelligence assets globally to address distant conflicts and humanitarian crises. The new strategy shifts this focus entirely.
By declaring domestic and hemispheric issues—specifically Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) and the border crisis—as Tier 1 national security threats (Pillar 2), the NSS officially shifts the main resource deployment away from traditional distant theaters and toward the physical borders of the U.S. This dramatic elevation of TCOs and migration issues to the same level as state-based Great Power Competition is a profound act of strategic redirection. It acknowledges that the U.S. can no longer afford to police the world while ignoring fundamental vulnerabilities at home. This retreat from foreign interventionism means resources previously earmarked for maintaining the global order are now being consumed by domestic security challenges.
The New Multipolar Reality
The 2025 NSS is ultimately a strategy for managing U.S. power in a multipolar world, replacing the former goal of sole global dominance to be the most powerful nation among equals. By designating China as the “pacing threat,” the NSS acknowledges that the U.S. faces a genuine economic and technological rival, thereby validating China’s view that the unipolar era is over.
This strategy of “pruning”—cutting expensive and unrewarding global commitments—is designed to conserve national strength for the high-stakes, direct competitions that matter most: economic rivalry with China and the securing of a stable, U.S.-dominated North American sphere of influence. The political narrative of success in distant conflicts, such as the need to “save face” in Ukraine, is subordinate to the political and strategic imperative of concentrating power closer to home.
References for Analysis
The analysis above is grounded in the explicit language and policy priorities of the 2025 National Security Strategy. Specific sourcing for the claims should reference:
- The White House (Official Release): The primary source document, which is divided into explicit sections (Pillars) and contains the official language on “Economic Nationalism,” “Transactional Alliances,” and “Prioritizing Homeland and Border Security.”
- Congressional Testimony and Think Tank Analysis: Secondary sources from major defense research organizations or government hearing transcripts that interpret the NSS’s strategic tilt as a definitive shift toward retrenchment and the end of the post-Cold War commitment model.
- Department of Defense (DoD) & Department of State (DOS) Fact Sheets: Supporting materials detailing the implementation of the transactional alliance policy (Pillar 4) and the specifics of supply chain securitization (Pillar 3).
