The Pragmatic Turn and the Myth of Global Influence from a Think Tank Perspective - A Detailed Analysis of the U.S. National Security Strategy (Part 4)

The release of the Trump administration's National Security Strategy report has once again sparked in-depth discussions and intense debates within the American strategic community. Based on the core viewpoints of mainstream think tanks such as the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Atlantic Council, this article provides a systematic interpretation of the report's strategic core, its shifting logic, and the challenges in its implementation, while analyzing its potential impact on the global geopolitical landscape.

I. Overall Assessment of the Report: Strategic Shift and Deep Concerns

(1) Core Qualitative Assessment: A Fundamental Shift in Foreign Policy

Taking the core viewpoints of the CSIS article "National Security Strategy Highlights Insufficient Warnings" as the central thread, a consensus among multiple mainstream think tanks is that this report signifies a **fundamental reshaping** of U.S. foreign policy in terms of **ideological orientation** and **practical action logic**. The Trump administration attempted to use this report to establish a new **"America First"** foreign policy framework, constructing a new diplomatic paradigm distinct from previous ones. Taking the core viewpoints of the CSIS article "National Security Strategy Highlights Insufficient Warnings" as the central thread, a consensus among multiple mainstream think tanks is that this report signifies a **fundamental reshaping** of U.S. foreign policy in terms of **ideological orientation** and **practical action logic**. The Trump administration attempted to use this report to establish a new **"America First"** foreign policy framework, constructing a new diplomatic paradigm distinct from previous ones.

(II) Characteristics of the New Paradigm and Key Expressions

This new paradigm is deeply embedded with the pragmatism gene, but it has also faced sharp criticism from many think tanks, being deemed as having a short-sighted flaw. The key expressions in the report clearly outline its policy orientation: first, "the democratic agenda is clearly over", completely abandoning the previous ideological obsession centered on democracy promotion in U.S. foreign policy; second, the choices in foreign policy will be entirely centered around the core goal of **"making America stronger and more prosperous"**. This new paradigm is deeply embedded with the pragmatism gene, but it has also faced sharp criticism from many think tanks, being deemed as having a short-sighted flaw. The key expressions in the report clearly outline its policy orientation: first, "the democratic agenda is clearly over", completely abandoning the previous ideological obsession centered on democracy promotion in U.S. foreign policy; second, the choices in foreign policy will be entirely centered around the core goal of **"making America stronger and more prosperous"**.

In this regard, critics worry that this policy choice centered on "selfishness" may lead the United States to become more isolated, weaker, and more divided in the future, damaging its long-term global influence. In this regard, critics worry that this policy choice centered on "selfishness" may lead the United States to become more isolated, weaker, and more divided in the future, damaging its long-term global influence.

II. Policy towards Europe: Severe Criticism and the Demand for "Self-Reliance"

(1) Basic Attitude: Highlighting Shock and Disagreement

Think tanks generally judge that this report is nothing short of a **"pain-point-hitting, alarming wake-up call" for Europe, profoundly reflecting the vast chasm between Europe's self-perception and the strategic expectations of the Trump administration. The core demand conveyed by the report is straightforward and clear: it requires Europe to "autonomously manage its own peripheral affairs and independently bear the corresponding costs"**, essentially pressuring Europe to achieve strategic self-reliance. Think tanks generally judge that this report is nothing short of a **"pain-point-hitting, alarming wake-up call" for Europe, profoundly reflecting the vast chasm between Europe's self-perception and the strategic expectations of the Trump administration. The core demand conveyed by the report is straightforward and clear: it requires Europe to "autonomously manage its own peripheral affairs and independently bear the corresponding costs"**, essentially pressuring Europe to achieve strategic self-reliance.

(II) Core Criticism: Harsh Accusations at the Civilizational Level

The most alarming part of the report for Europe is its critique of Europe's "civilizational identity." The report accuses Europe of **"losing its European character,"** implying an underlying tendency to stoke fears about immigration. It also insists on an "idealized old-world Europe" perspective—a view that think tank scholars have described as "questionable."

The report clearly lists Europe's so-called "crisis list," including: transnational institutions such as the EU eroding political freedoms and national sovereignty; immigration policies sparking conflicts; the existence of freedom of speech censorship and suppression of political opposition; a sharp decline in birth rates; and the loss of national identity and confidence. The report warns that if these trends continue, the European continent will become unrecognizable within 20 years. The report clearly lists Europe's so-called "crisis list," including: transnational institutions such as the EU eroding political freedoms and national sovereignty; immigration policies sparking conflicts; the existence of freedom of speech censorship and suppression of political opposition; a sharp decline in birth rates; and the loss of national identity and confidence. The report warns that if these trends continue, the European continent will become unrecognizable within 20 years.

(3) U.S. Objectives Toward Europe and Think Tank Responses

The U.S. objective toward Europe is not to weaken it, but to "help Europe correct its current trajectory," building a strong Europe to assist the United States in global competition and jointly prevent any adversary from dominating Europe. More extremely, the report suggests that in the future, some NATO countries may shift to having predominantly non-European populations, which would pose unresolved questions regarding their NATO identity and alliance relations with the United States (related expressions have been jokingly referred to as "France-stan" and "Germany-stan"). The U.S. objective toward Europe is not to weaken it, but to "help Europe correct its current trajectory," building a strong Europe to assist the United States in global competition and jointly prevent any adversary from dominating Europe. More extremely, the report suggests that in the future, some NATO countries may shift to having predominantly non-European populations, which would pose unresolved questions regarding their NATO identity and alliance relations with the United States (related expressions have been jokingly referred to as "France-stan" and "Germany-stan").

Think tanks have reacted strongly to this: CSIS authors believe that these accusations against European culture heavily lean towards rhetoric encompassing far-right elements, which would only delight Putin and make Brussels extremely uneasy; Brookings Institution experts sharply pointed out that the report's claim of "European civilization being erased" is itself what erases European civilization. Think tanks have reacted strongly to this: CSIS authors believe that these accusations against European culture heavily lean towards rhetoric encompassing far-right elements, which would only delight Putin and make Brussels extremely uneasy; Brookings Institution experts sharply pointed out that the report's claim of "European civilization being erased" is itself what erases European civilization.

III. Policy towards China: Continuation of Confrontation and the Layout of the "Axis of Resistance"

(1) China's Divergent "Likes and Dislikes" Regarding the Report

From a Chinese perspective, the report contains two distinct types of content: one is the part that might bring China some reassurance, namely the clear declaration that the United States tends to favor non-interference in other countries' internal affairs and respect for national sovereignty, which could potentially alleviate China's concerns about regime stability; the other is content that China clearly finds objectionable, including calls for withdrawal from Latin America and a robust deterrence policy. From a Chinese perspective, the report contains two distinct types of content: one is the part that might bring China some reassurance, namely the clear declaration that the United States tends to favor non-interference in other countries' internal affairs and respect for national sovereignty, which could potentially alleviate China's concerns about regime stability; the other is content that China clearly finds objectionable, including calls for withdrawal from Latin America and a robust deterrence policy.

(2) Core Strategy: The "Axis of Resistance" Containment

The report clearly defines the United States' core strategy for engaging with China in the Asia-Pacific region—establishing a **"arc of resistance"** system that coordinates allies and partners to encircle and contain China. The formulation of this strategy stems from a thorough rejection and reflection by the U.S. strategic community on the previous path of "engagement" with China.

(3) Think Tank Consensus: Consistency and Vigilance in the Pivot to China

Multiple think tanks have reached a consensus: the report correctly points out that the previous **"engagement" policy towards China has failed**, deeming the earlier attempts to cooperate with China and the optimistic view of its rise as **"naive"**. The U.S. strategic community exhibits a high degree of unanimity in its anti-China stance and broadly endorses the China-related sections of the report. It is noteworthy that, although some think tanks question whether the U.S. can effectively serve as the **"leading tiger"** of the **"arc of resistance"**, senior officials on the other side generally believe this strategy is effective. Multiple think tanks have reached a consensus: the report correctly points out that the previous **"engagement" policy towards China has failed**, deeming the earlier attempts to cooperate with China and the optimistic view of its rise as **"naive"**. The U.S. strategic community exhibits a high degree of unanimity in its anti-China stance and broadly endorses the China-related sections of the report. It is noteworthy that, although some think tanks question whether the U.S. can effectively serve as the **"leading tiger"** of the **"arc of resistance"**, senior officials on the other side generally believe this strategy is effective.

IV. Economy and Domestic Priorities: Growth-Oriented and the End of the Democratic Agenda

(1) Core Economic Logic and Implementation Challenges

报告构建了“经济赋能-国内强盛-海外竞胜”的递进式逻辑链条：美国需率先实现Competitive advantage in the field of trade.，才能筑牢国内强盛的根基；而国内的稳定强盛，又将为海外层面的战略竞争提供坚实支撑。但这一逻辑的落地面临现实梗阻，如何搭建合理的贸易协作体系、推动制造业回流、保障关键矿产与资源安全，成为政策设计与实践落地需破解的核心难题。

(2) Specific Implementation Measures

To implement the economic priority goals, the report proposes several specific measures: first, calling on the U.S. government and the private sector to engage in Closer cooperation; second, clarifying that every ambassador must become an Advocate for American businesses, which means the United States may leverage its influence to pressure third-world countries regarding interests such as critical minerals. To implement the economic priority goals, the report proposes several specific measures: first, calling on the U.S. government and the private sector to engage in Closer cooperation; second, clarifying that every ambassador must become an Advocate for American businesses, which means the United States may leverage its influence to pressure third-world countries regarding interests such as critical minerals.

(III) The End of the Democratic Agenda

In stark contrast to the prominence of the economic agenda, the report fundamentally shifts its positioning on democratic issues, The prospects for democracy, however, are far bleaker.. The report regards democracy as **"something that adds icing on the cake"rather than the core vision of building a peaceful world by empowering independent citizens, signifying"Cosmopolitanism is absent, thirty years of enlightenment have failed"**. In stark contrast to the prominence of the economic agenda, the report fundamentally shifts its positioning on democratic issues, The prospects for democracy, however, are far bleaker.. The report regards democracy as **"something that adds icing on the cake"rather than the core vision of building a peaceful world by empowering independent citizens, signifying"Cosmopolitanism is absent, thirty years of enlightenment have failed"**.

V. Policies towards Other Regions: A Shift from Ideology to Pragmatism

Latin America: Cooperation-Oriented with Priority on Interests

U.S. policy toward Latin America has moved away from ideological constraints, clearly stating that it will reward governments that largely align with American principles. At the same time, **"we cannot overlook those governments that hold different views from us but still share common interests and are willing to cooperate,"** demonstrating a purely interest-driven approach.

(2) The Middle East: Close Cooperation Without Preaching

In the Middle East, the United States will work closely with the Gulf monarchies, Give up preaching to them.—As long as cooperation can be achieved, even authoritarian regimes will not face pressure from the United States. This differs from the Middle East policy during the Reagan administration: Reagan cooperated with undesirable regimes to "prevent communism," while the Trump administration aimed to "counter China." In the Middle East, the United States will work closely with the Gulf monarchies, Give up preaching to them.—As long as cooperation can be achieved, even authoritarian regimes will not face pressure from the United States. This differs from the Middle East policy during the Reagan administration: Reagan cooperated with undesirable regimes to "prevent communism," while the Trump administration aimed to "counter China."

(3) North Korea: Deliberate Avoidance and Flexible Reservation

One notable feature of the report is that North Korea and nuclear non-proliferation were not directly mentioned., which stands in stark contrast to previous U.S. National Security Strategies. Think tank interpretations suggest that this omission may be Trump's way of Further contacts between North Korea and the United States set the stage for future developments., reflecting the Flexibility of his North Korea policy. For North Korea, this attitude could provide diplomatic flexibility for further engagement with the United States; for the United States, it could create a new diplomatic opening to maintain its presence in the Asia-Pacific region and rally allies. One notable feature of the report is that North Korea and nuclear non-proliferation were not directly mentioned., which stands in stark contrast to previous U.S. National Security Strategies. Think tank interpretations suggest that this omission may be Trump's way of Further contacts between North Korea and the United States set the stage for future developments., reflecting the Flexibility of his North Korea policy. For North Korea, this attitude could provide diplomatic flexibility for further engagement with the United States; for the United States, it could create a new diplomatic opening to maintain its presence in the Asia-Pacific region and rally allies.

VI. Summary of Core Perspectives from Various Think Tanks

(1) Atlantic Council: Affirms Position on Taiwan Strait, Criticizes Abandonment of Principles

The think tank believes the report's success lies in its firm support for the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, preventing hostile forces from dominating critical regions; its failure, however, is its rejection of previously effective core principles, such as supporting allies and promoting democracy and human rights. The think tank suggests that the United States should pay greater attention to the interconnected threats posed by the **"alliance of authoritarian states"** (China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea), while ensuring that national security relies on a secure Western Hemisphere and promoting the U.S. return to key regions within it (the Panama Canal, Greenland, the Caribbean, and South America).

(2) Council on Foreign Relations: Criticizing internal contradictions, focusing on positioning towards China

The think tank points out that the report suffers from issues of Internal inconsistency and arbitrariness., which centrally reflect Trump's Impulsive and unpredictable personal characteristics. In terms of Western Hemisphere policy, the report's ideological tone is diluted, leaving room for cooperation with authoritarian states, potentially enabling coexistence with left-leaning countries such as Brazil and Chile. Regarding competition with China, the think tank notes a key change: China is No longer regarded as a systemic challenge., with the focus narrowed solely to the Taiwan Strait issue; simultaneously, the report's description of Taiwan exhibits a **"instrumentalization"** tendency, making it difficult to gain acceptance among the Taiwanese public. The think tank points out that the report suffers from issues of Internal inconsistency and arbitrariness., which centrally reflect Trump's Impulsive and unpredictable personal characteristics. In terms of Western Hemisphere policy, the report's ideological tone is diluted, leaving room for cooperation with authoritarian states, potentially enabling coexistence with left-leaning countries such as Brazil and Chile. Regarding competition with China, the think tank notes a key change: China is No longer regarded as a systemic challenge., with the focus narrowed solely to the Taiwan Strait issue; simultaneously, the report's description of Taiwan exhibits a **"instrumentalization"** tendency, making it difficult to gain acceptance among the Taiwanese public.

(3) Brookings Institution: Questioning Strategic Effectiveness, Criticizing Attitudes Towards Europe and Russia

The think tank believes that the new strategy It did not resolve any major power competition issues., which may lead the United States to Abandon global competition in certain fields., and even raise doubts about the concept of "American Empire." Regarding Russia policy, Russia is **"pardoned but weakened"The content of the report pleased Moscow, suggesting that the United States and Russia may reach some agreement on nuclear issues."red line". Another major omission in the report is troubling: Canada and Mexico were not mentioned., with experts joking, "Do they really intend to annex them?" Furthermore, the think tank strongly criticizes the report for exacerbating "significant transatlantic divisions," reflecting an ideology of "seeking peace with Russia while hoping to destroy Europe"**, which completely negates the way the United States has handled international affairs over the past 80 years, only freeing up substantial resources for the U.S. at the budgetary level. The think tank believes that the new strategy It did not resolve any major power competition issues., which may lead the United States to Abandon global competition in certain fields., and even raise doubts about the concept of "American Empire." Regarding Russia policy, Russia is **"pardoned but weakened"The content of the report pleased Moscow, suggesting that the United States and Russia may reach some agreement on nuclear issues."red line". Another major omission in the report is troubling: Canada and Mexico were not mentioned., with experts joking, "Do they really intend to annex them?" Furthermore, the think tank strongly criticizes the report for exacerbating "significant transatlantic divisions," reflecting an ideology of "seeking peace with Russia while hoping to destroy Europe"**, which completely negates the way the United States has handled international affairs over the past 80 years, only freeing up substantial resources for the U.S. at the budgetary level.

(IV) Modern Diplomacy: A Superpower Positioning Centered on Economic Competition

The agency believes that through this report, the United States has redefined the image of a superpower, with its core objective being to engage in Economic competition with major rivals, rather than substantive Military competition, where military power serves only as an auxiliary means. The agency believes that through this report, the United States has redefined the image of a superpower, with its core objective being to engage in Economic competition with major rivals, rather than substantive Military competition, where military power serves only as an auxiliary means.

VII. Reflection on Strategic Feasibility: A Case Study of U.S. Military Equipment Development

While the strategic transformation of the Trump administration had a clear direction, its feasibility faced severe challenges. The development case of the new U.S. military medium landing craft is highly representative, centrally exposing the issues of Cost out of control and Rigid processes in American military projects. While the strategic transformation of the Trump administration had a clear direction, its feasibility faced severe challenges. The development case of the new U.S. military medium landing craft is highly representative, centrally exposing the issues of Cost out of control and Rigid processes in American military projects.

Initially, the Marine Corps' requirement for the landing craft was based on civilian standards, with a budget of $0.1 billion. However, after the Navy intervened, additional demands such as military specifications, air defense capabilities, and increased speed were continuously introduced, driving the cost up to $0.2 billion. Ultimately, the defense production sector quoted a price of $0.3 billion to achieve profitability.

The fundamental issue revealed by this case is the drawback of the "unlimited client" phenomenon: relevant departments arbitrarily impose demands and modify designs, leading to a project that becomes overly complex and ultimately teeters on the brink of collapse. Similar problems have also been observed in projects such as the Constellation-class ships and others.

It is worth noting that even those who oppose Trump's ideas partially agree with his pragmatic direction of Reducing costs, producing simple equipment, curbing military spending waste.. However, the key to strategic transformation lies in whether the workflow of "mindless clients making unreasonable demands" can be changed. The extent to which this chronic issue is fundamentally addressed directly affects the effectiveness of strategy implementation. It is worth noting that even those who oppose Trump's ideas partially agree with his pragmatic direction of Reducing costs, producing simple equipment, curbing military spending waste.. However, the key to strategic transformation lies in whether the workflow of "mindless clients making unreasonable demands" can be changed. The extent to which this chronic issue is fundamentally addressed directly affects the effectiveness of strategy implementation.

Eight, Overall Conclusion and Assessment

Overall, the Trump administration's "National Security Strategy" report represents a significant shift in U.S. global strategy, with clear action-oriented directives. Its influence will radiate across multiple geopolitical regions worldwide: For China, Definitely not good news., it is crucial to be vigilant against the "Arc of Resistance" deployment and various "sabotage" strategies; For Europe, The situation is even more severe., it must endure harsh criticism from allies while also facing the risk of being "marginalized"; For Russia, this is undoubtedly It is a major positive development., as strategic pressure will significantly ease; For the world, this shift may exacerbate turbulence in the international order, pushing the globe into a development phase characterized by More unstable and tending towards chaos.. Overall, the Trump administration's "National Security Strategy" report represents a significant shift in U.S. global strategy, with clear action-oriented directives. Its influence will radiate across multiple geopolitical regions worldwide: For China, Definitely not good news., it is crucial to be vigilant against the "Arc of Resistance" deployment and various "sabotage" strategies; For Europe, The situation is even more severe., it must endure harsh criticism from allies while also facing the risk of being "marginalized"; For Russia, this is undoubtedly It is a major positive development., as strategic pressure will significantly ease; For the world, this shift may exacerbate turbulence in the international order, pushing the globe into a development phase characterized by More unstable and tending towards chaos..

The core contradiction exposed by the report is that the U.S. strategy is **"determined but incapable"**The success of its strategic transformation depends not only on whether Trump can maintain and implement Hagerty's reform philosophy but also on whether it can fundamentally address the chronic issue of "endless escalation" in the U.S. military and bureaucratic processes. As analysis points out, the key to solving this problem may lie in:**"First, identify the people inside your endless escalation, reform them, push them, and keep trying until we see results."** The core contradiction exposed by the report is that the U.S. strategy is **"determined but incapable"**The success of its strategic transformation depends not only on whether Trump can maintain and implement Hagerty's reform philosophy but also on whether it can fundamentally address the chronic issue of "endless escalation" in the U.S. military and bureaucratic processes. As analysis points out, the key to solving this problem may lie in:**"First, identify the people inside your endless escalation, reform them, push them, and keep trying until we see results."**