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

Based on the core viewpoints of the CSIS article "National Security Strategy Highlights Insufficient Warnings," 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, creating a new diplomatic paradigm distinct from previous ones.

(II) Characteristics of the New Paradigm and Key Expressions

This new paradigm is deeply embedded with a pragmatism gene, yet it has also faced sharp criticism from many think tanks, being accused of having a short-sighted flaw. Key expressions in the report clearly outline its policy orientation: first, the democracy agenda has evidently concluded, completely abandoning the previous ideological obsession centered on democracy promotion in American diplomacy; second, the choices in foreign policy will entirely revolve around the core objective of **making America stronger and more prosperous**.

In response, critics worry that such policy choices centered on selfishness could lead the United States to become more isolated, weaker, and more divided in the future, undermining 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 widely assess that for Europe, this report serves as a **striking and alarming wake-up call that directly hits the pain points**, profoundly reflecting the vast gap 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 calls on Europe to **autonomously manage its own regional affairs and independently bear the corresponding costs**. In essence, it pressures 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 the characteristics of European civilization. The report accuses Europe of **losing its European identity**, implying a tendency to incite fear of immigration and adhering to an idealized, old-world view of Europe—a perspective that think tank scholars have deemed questionable.

The report clearly lists what Europe refers to as its crisis inventory, including: transnational institutions such as the EU eroding political freedoms and national sovereignty; immigration policies sparking conflicts; instances of free speech censorship and suppression of political opposition; a sharp decline in birth rates; and a 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 objective of the United States toward Europe is not to weaken it, but to help Europe correct its current trajectory, building a strong Europe to assist the U.S. in global competition and jointly prevent any adversary from dominating Europe. More extremely, the report suggests that in the future, some NATO countries may become predominantly non-European in population, which would pose unresolved questions about their NATO identity and alliance relations with the United States (related expressions have been jokingly referred to as France-stan and Germany-stan).

The think tank reacted strongly: CSIS authors believe that these accusations against European culture heavily lean toward rhetoric encompassing far-right ideologies, which would only delight Putin and make Brussels uneasy; Brookings Institution experts sharply pointed out that the report claims European civilization is being erased, yet it is the report itself that is erasing 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 delineates the United States' core strategy for engaging with China in the Asia-Pacific region—establishing an **Arc of Resistance** system built on alliances and coordinated partnerships to encircle and contain. The formulation of this strategy stems from a thorough rejection and reflection by the U.S. strategic community on previous paths 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 toward China has failed**, considering 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 generally endorses the section on China in the report. Notably, despite some think tanks questioning whether the U.S. can effectively lead the "arc of resistance," senior officials on the other side widely 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

The report constructs a progressive logical chain of economic empowerment-domestic prosperity-overseas competitiveness: The United States must first achieve competitive advantages in the trade sector to solidify the foundation for domestic prosperity; and domestic stability and strength will, in turn, provide solid support for strategic competition at the overseas level. However, the implementation of this logic faces practical obstacles. How to establish a reasonable trade collaboration system, promote the reshoring of manufacturing, and ensure the security of critical minerals and resources has become the core challenge that policy design and practical implementation need to resolve.

(2) Specific Implementation Measures

To implement the economic priority objectives, the report proposes several specific measures: first, it calls for closer cooperation between the U.S. government and the private sector; second, it clarifies that every ambassador must become a champion for American businesses, which means the United States may leverage its influence to pressure third-world countries for interests such as critical minerals. To implement the economic priority objectives, the report proposes several specific measures: first, it calls for closer cooperation between the U.S. government and the private sector; second, it clarifies that every ambassador must become a champion for American businesses, which means the United States may leverage its influence to pressure third-world countries for 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, with a much bleaker outlook for democracy. The report treats democracy as **a mere embellishment, rather than a core vision for building a peaceful world by empowering independent citizens, signaling the absence of cosmopolitanism and three decades of failed enlightenment**.

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

Latin America: Cooperation-Oriented with Priority on Interests

The U.S. policy toward Latin America has abandoned ideological constraints, clearly stating that it will reward governments largely aligned with U.S. principles. However, it **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, abandoning its lecturing approach—as long as cooperation is achieved, even authoritarian regimes will not face pressure from the U.S. This differs from the Middle East policy during the Reagan administration: Reagan cooperated with undesirable regimes to prevent communism, while the Trump administration did so to counter China.

(3) North Korea: Deliberate Avoidance and Flexible Reservation

One of the notable features of the report is that it does not directly mention North Korea or nuclear non-proliferation, 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 laying the groundwork for further U.S.-North Korea engagement, reflecting the flexibility of his policy toward North Korea. For North Korea, this attitude could provide diplomatic flexibility to further engage 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 success of the report lies in its firm support for the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, preventing hostile forces from dominating critical regions; its failure, however, is the 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 **authoritarian alliance** (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea), while ensuring that national security relies on a secure Western Hemisphere and promoting the U.S. return to key areas within that hemisphere (the Panama Canal, Greenland, the Caribbean, South America).

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

The think tank pointed out that the report suffers from issues of internal inconsistency and arbitrariness, which reflect Trump's impulsive and unpredictable personal traits. In terms of Western Hemisphere policy, the report downplays ideological considerations, leaving room for cooperation with authoritarian states and potentially enabling coexistence with left-leaning countries such as Brazil and Chile. Regarding competition with China, the think tank noted a key shift: China is no longer viewed as a systemic challenge, with the focus narrowed solely to the Taiwan Strait issue. At the same time, the report exhibits a **instrumentalized** tendency in its portrayal of Taiwan, which is unlikely to gain acceptance among the Taiwanese people.

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

The think tank believes that the new strategy fails to address any major power competition issues, which may lead the United States to abandon global competition in certain domains and even raise doubts about the concept of American hegemony. Regarding Russia policy, Russia is **pardoned but weakened**, and the report's content pleases Moscow, with the possibility of the U.S. and Russia reaching certain red lines on nuclear issues. Another major omission in the report is unsettling: Canada and Mexico are not mentioned, prompting some experts to jokingly ask if annexation is truly intended. Additionally, 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 U.S. approach to international affairs over the past 80 years, only providing budgetary relief by freeing up substantial resources for the United States.

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

The institution 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 institution 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 U.S. military's new medium landing craft is highly representative, highlighting the issues of cost overruns 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.

This case reveals the fundamental issue of the drawbacks of unlimited client demands: relevant departments arbitrarily impose requirements and modify designs, leading to projects becoming overly complex and ultimately on the verge of collapse. Similar problems also exist in projects such as Constellation-class ships and NGAD.

Notably, even those who oppose Trump's ideas partially agree with his pragmatic direction of reducing costs, producing simple equipment, and curbing military spending waste. However, the key to strategic transformation lies in whether it can change the workflow where the client mindlessly makes unreasonable demands. The extent to which this chronic issue is fundamentally addressed directly affects the effectiveness of strategic implementation.

Eight, Overall Conclusion and Assessment

Overall, the Trump administration's "National Security Strategy" report marks a significant shift in U.S. global strategy, featuring clear action-oriented directives whose influence will extend across multiple geopolitical regions worldwide: For China, it is by no means good news, necessitating heightened vigilance against the layout of the "axis of resistance" and various strategies aimed at hindering progress; for Europe, the situation is even more severe, as it must endure harsh criticism from allies while also facing the risk of marginalization; for Russia, this is undoubtedly a major advantage, as strategic pressure will be significantly alleviated; for the world at large, this shift may exacerbate turbulence in the international order, pushing the globe into a more unstable and chaotic phase of development.

The core contradiction exposed in the report is that the United States is **strategically determined but lacks capability. The success or failure of its strategic transformation depends not only on whether Trump can maintain and implement Haig-Seth's reform philosophy but also on whether it can fundamentally address the persistent issue of endlessly escalating processes within the U.S. military and bureaucratic systems. As the analysis points out, the key to solving this problem might be: first, identify those within the system who perpetuate endless escalation, reform them, push them, and keep experimenting until a solution is found.**