The Monroe Doctrine in the New Era: America's Comprehensive Pivot - Detailed Analysis of the U.S. National Security Strategy (Part Two)

The core shift in the new U.S. National Security Strategy lies in **advocating and persistently implementing the Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine**. This uniquely Trump-style American Monroe Doctrine not only clarifies the boundaries of U.S. core interests in the Western Hemisphere but also marks a fundamental adjustment in U.S. foreign strategy—from global expansion to a contraction focused on the Americas. This has established a strategic framework where domestic stability and external security reinforce each other, while simultaneously assigning differentiated strategic positions to various regions worldwide.

I. Core Diplomatic Interest Anchor: "The Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine"

Four Dimensions of Core Interests in the Western Hemisphere

The strategic document clearly defines that the core interests of the United States in the Western Hemisphere revolve around four key dimensions, directly serving homeland security and regional dominance.

First, ensure regional stability and governance. By promoting effective governance within the region, prevent large-scale migration waves toward the United States caused by governance failures, thereby safeguarding domestic social stability at the source. Second, combat transnational crime. Require governments within the region to actively cooperate with the United States in jointly eliminating terrorists, drug trafficking organizations, and other transnational criminal groups, cutting off the chain of transnational threats to U.S. security. Third, resist external infiltration. Firmly prevent hostile forces from invading the Western Hemisphere, while strictly guarding against key regional assets being controlled by foreign powers, thereby reinforcing the barrier of influence in the Western Hemisphere. Fourth, secure supply chains and strategic access. Fully support the development of critical supply chains within the region, ensure the United States' continued access to important strategic locations, and solidify the material and geographical foundation of regional dominance.

Strategic Shift: From "Going Global" to "Returning to the Americas"

This strategic shift stands in stark contrast to the historical foreign policy trajectory of the United States. During the eras of Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt, the U.S. embarked on an expansionist path from the Americas to the world, gradually establishing its global influence. In contrast, the new version of the Monroe Doctrine in the Trump era clearly points toward **retreating from the world back to the Americas**. This fundamental strategic contraction places the Western Hemisphere at the absolute forefront of U.S. foreign interests, becoming one of the most prominent markers of the new national security strategy.

II. Strategic Logic: The Two Sides of the Same Coin—"Internal Stability" and "External Security"

The new U.S. National Security Strategy presents two seemingly contradictory yet deeply intertwined parallel paths, both serving the nation's overall security objectives and forming a **two sides of the same coin** strategic logic.

To resist foreign aggression, we must first achieve internal stability: Consolidate the foundation of domestic strength.

Although the strategic document focuses on foreign policy, it begins with extensive discussions on domestic preparations, highlighting the foundational role of internal stability. The core idea is to prioritize resolving domestic issues, fostering synergy among the American people, culture, and military, and providing solid support for the implementation of foreign strategies by consolidating its own strength. This inward-oriented approach serves as the inherent logical premise for America's strategic retrenchment.

Internal stability requires external security: purifying the security environment in the Western Hemisphere.

To ensure domestic stability, the Trump administration explicitly stated the need to take strong actions in the Western Hemisphere: on one hand, cracking down severely on illegal forces such as terrorists, drug cartels, and cartels; on the other hand, resolutely preventing the infiltration and influence of other external forces in the region. In the U.S. strategic perception, domestic stability is closely linked to the security of the Western Hemisphere. Only by strengthening the security barrier in the Western Hemisphere can external protection be provided for homeland security, forming an inseparable and organic whole.

III. Strategic Continuity and Recent Practices: From Verbal Signals to Concrete Actions

Early Signals: Early Release of Strategic Direction

This strategic shift by the United States did not emerge suddenly; clear signals were released as early as February 2025. At that time, vice-presidential candidate JD Vance, Hegarty, and Trump himself had all publicly indicated similar foreign strategic inclinations. Early this year, Trump even directly expressed impatience with EU and NATO affairs, assigning JD Vance to publicly criticize the EU leadership. Additionally, a series of controversial statements further confirmed this strategic orientation: claiming relevant rights over the Panama Canal, demanding the withdrawal of Chinese-controlled capital from related sectors; asserting sovereignty claims over Greenland; stating that Canada should become the 51st state of the United States; and compelling Mexico to cooperate with the U.S. on security issues. Together, these statements outline a strategic framework in which the United States focuses on the Americas while diminishing its global obligations.

Key Focus of Practice: Exerting Pressure in the Western Hemisphere with Venezuela as a Breakthrough Point

Although comprehensive security actions have not yet been taken against all the aforementioned disputed entities, the United States has identified Venezuela as a key strategic target in the Western Hemisphere. Through military deterrence, economic pressure, and other means, it has implemented targeted coercive measures, and the possibility of further actions in the near future cannot be ruled out. This move directly confirms the United States' determination to advance a new version of the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere. Its core strategic logic lies in applying sustained pressure to force the opposing side into submission or chaos, reflecting a coercive mindset akin to the notion that "crying also counts as time."

IV. Global Differentiation Positioning: Strategic Priority Ranking Across Regions

The new version of the National Security Strategy shows significant differences in its descriptions of various regions around the world, clearly reflecting the prioritization of U.S. foreign interests. The Western Hemisphere holds the most prominent priority, while other regions serve this core focus.

Asia-Pacific/Indo-Pacific Region: Targeted Containment-Oriented

The strategic objectives of the United States in the region are set to maintain freedom and openness, safeguard the freedom of navigation in critical maritime routes, and ensure the security and reliability of supply chains. The underlying message of this statement is quite clear—it is obvious who is being targeted—with its core focus being to curb the expansion of China's influence. It is noteworthy that the strategic document does not particularly emphasize the importance of countries in regions such as India and Southeast Asia, further highlighting its core orientation of targeted containment.

Europe: A "Soft Constraint" Orientation Weakening Responsibility

The United States' strategic objective towards Europe is defined as supporting allies, safeguarding European freedom and security, while revitalizing Europe's civilizational confidence and Western identity. However, this statement exhibits clear ambiguity: it is brief in length and does not commit to providing substantial hard contributions for European security; it avoids using strong rhetoric such as "preventing and reversing foreign behavior" targeted at China. This orientation suggests that the Trump administration adopts an almost acquiescent attitude toward the Putin government, while expressing extreme dissatisfaction with the current governance of the European Union. The core intention is to push the EU to become self-reliant in addressing security issues. Furthermore, the emphasis on revitalizing Western identity is interpreted as a message to right-wing forces in Europe, encouraging them to challenge the existing democratic governments in Western Europe.

Middle East Region: An Interest-Maintenance Orientation of "Stepping Back Without Letting Go"

The strategic objective of the United States in the Middle East is to prevent hostile forces from dominating the region, control the supply of oil and natural gas as well as key transportation chokepoints, while avoiding entanglement in costly and endless wars. Its core essence is to disengage without letting go: it seeks to gradually extricate itself from the quagmire of Middle Eastern conflicts while maintaining its core influence over the region. The key leverage to achieve this goal is **helping Israel and Saudi Arabia normalize their relations**, promoting the recognition of Israel by more regional countries, and constructing a Middle Eastern regional order that aligns with U.S. interests.

Technological Hegemony: The Core Priority That Overrides Other Interests

The strategic document identifies ensuring that U.S. technology and standards lead global development as a **critical** core national interest, prioritizing it above all other types of interests. Key breakthrough areas include artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and quantum computing. This positioning highlights the core U.S. strategy of transforming technological superiority into strategic advantage, aiming to provide foundational support for its overall foreign strategy by controlling global technological discourse.

V. The Transcendent Status of the Western Hemisphere and Its Future Strategic Implications

Judging from the length of the strategic document's descriptions, the coverage of the Western Hemisphere **far exceeds that of the Indo-Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East**. This detail directly confirms the exceptional priority given to the Western Hemisphere in the new version of the strategy. Such positioning not only determines the current direction of U.S. strategic resource allocation but also foreshadows potential trends in future strategic evolution.

Analysts speculate that if China's strength continues to grow in the future, the U.S. National Security Strategy documents for 2040 or 2050 may undergo a fundamental shift in their portrayal of Asia. They could potentially be revised to state: "We must support our Asian allies in safeguarding freedom and security in Asia, while simultaneously rebuilding the civilizational confidence and Eastern identity of America's Asian allies." This framing bears a striking resemblance to the current U.S. positioning toward Europe, implicitly suggesting a potential acceptance of the status quo or a strategic retreat. Notably, within the entire framework of strategic interests, the Taiwan issue is completely omitted from the U.S. perspective—not even hinted at. This omission itself reflects a strategic focus on the Western Hemisphere and a downplaying of non-core issues in other regions.

VI. Assessment of the Core Advantages of the United States in Achieving Strategic Objectives

The strategic document clearly enumerates nine world-leading assets and advantages that the United States believes it possesses, serving as foundational support for achieving strategic objectives:

1. A flexible political system capable of timely adjustments in its development direction.
2. The largest and most innovative economic system, capable of generating immense wealth and creating leverage for market access.
3. The world's leading financial system is centered around the global reserve currency status of the U.S. dollar.
4. The state-of-the-art technology industry provides core support for economic development and military advantage.
5. The most powerful and combat-capable military force.
6. Extensive global alliance network;
7. Its uniquely advantageous geographical location, with oceans to the east and west, no formidable adversaries to the north or south, and separation from other major powers by vast seas.
8. Unparalleled soft power and cultural influence.
9. The courage, willpower, patriotism, and strong resilience of the American people.

An objective examination of core strengths.

From a practical perspective, certain advantages of the United States indeed possess a realistic foundation: the flexibility of its political system is reflected in its ability to adjust direction during emergencies; its financial hegemony, centered on the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency, truly serves as a significant strategic leverage; the geographical advantage of being flanked by two oceans to the east and west, with no powerful adversaries to the north or south, is an objective reality; U.S. military personnel, with guaranteed reinforcements and unobstructed supply lines, indeed uphold **a tradition of fighting to the death without retreat**, demonstrating strong individual tactical proficiency.

However, some advantages also come with notable weaknesses: although the global alliance network still exists, there are signs of instability. Regarding the combat effectiveness of U.S. infantry, some argue that during World War II, U.S. infantry performance ranked only second to last, with British infantry being the worst. Taking the Battle of Singapore as an example, it is pointed out that British and Indian troops were prone to collapse when their flanks were threatened, reflecting the limitations of their combat capabilities.

VII. Domestic Reshaping: The "Investing in the Future" Initiative to Support Strategic Shifts

The new version of the strategy emphasizes the need to reshape national capabilities through a robust domestic agenda, providing intrinsic support for the achievement of strategic objectives. Key measures include:

1. Reverse domestic policy direction, abandon so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and other anti-competitive policies that undermine institutional efficiency; 2. Prioritize unleashing energy productivity as a strategic focus, strengthening the foundations of economic and energy security; 3. Promote economic reindustrialization, rebuild the middle class, and take control of supply chains and core production capabilities; 4. Maintain the trade war with China, viewing it as a crucial means to safeguard economic security; 5. Implement tax cuts and deregulation policies, restoring economic freedom to businesses; 6. Increase investment in emerging technologies and basic sciences to ensure prosperity and military superiority for future generations.

VIII. The Dilemma of the Military-Industrial Complex and the Rise of the "Drone Salvation Theory"

The development dilemma of high-end military projects.

Currently, the U.S. military-industrial complex is facing numerous challenges in high-end projects, with multiple key initiatives experiencing frequent issues or slow progress: - Fighter jets are plagued by ongoing malfunctions; - The Next-Generation Air Dominance program (often referred to as) is plagued by indecisive planning; - The development of bombers is progressing slowly; - Projects like the Zumwalt-class destroyer have been discontinued; - The Ford-class aircraft carriers are encountering problems with critical equipment such as elevators; - Stealth cruise missiles developed to counter China's Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) strategy have also failed to meet expectations. These difficulties highlight the limitations of the traditional high-end military-industrial development model in the United States.

Emerging Forces: The Rise of Anduril Industries and "Anime-Style Military Industry"

While traditional defense projects face difficulties, emerging players like Anduril Industries have risen to prominence, becoming a new highlight in the U.S. defense industry. Founded by Palmer Luckey, the company focuses on the research, development, and production of low-cost, expendable unmanned aerial systems. Palmer Luckey, known for his love of Japanese anime (otaku culture), often shares composite images with anime characters on social media and even dressed casually during a visit to a Japanese drone company. This style sharply contrasts with the rigorous image typically associated with traditional defense contractors.

Although this model of tech enthusiasts leading the military industry is somewhat controversial, it cannot be ignored that emerging enterprises like Andrewer Industries **are genuinely building factories and laying foundations**. Through practical capacity development, they are advancing technological transformation and may have a disruptive impact on the future form of warfare with the advantages of low cost and scalability.

Musk's "Drone Warfare" Prediction and Industry Trends

Tesla founder Elon Musk has long advocated the concept of drone warfare, with his core views highly aligned with Palmer Luckey's development philosophy: first, cheap drone swarms will destroy expensive manned aircraft (such as the F-35), arguing that high-end manned fighter jets are a waste of national resources and a betrayal of taxpayers; second, future wars will be dominated by drones, with tanks and manned aircraft gradually becoming obsolete, and warfare evolving into drone-versus-drone confrontations; third, the United States should focus on developing large numbers of long-range drones and hypersonic missiles; fourth, if adversaries possess greater unit production advantages, mere kill ratios will lose decisive significance, and production capacity along with attrition warfare capabilities will become the core competitiveness.

The resonance in strategic vision between Musk and Palmer Luckey reflects new trends in the development of the U.S. defense industry. Some have humorously remarked that Musk struggled to climb the mountain of the defense sector, only to find Palmer waiting for him at the summit. While this statement carries a humorous tone, it reveals a core trend: the power to define the future form of warfare may be shifting from traditional defense giants to tech leaders with disruptive thinking.