Strategic Retrenchment or Hegemonic Reshaping? Deciphering the "Allied Responsibility Mandate" in the Pentagon's New National Defense Strategy.
24/01/2026
On the evening of January 23, 2026, a Friday, as residents along the U.S. East Coast were preparing for an approaching snowstorm, the Pentagon quietly released a 34-page strategic document to the world via an almost silent email. Titled the "2026 National Defense Strategy," this document, unveiled without a grand press conference or briefings from senior officials, stirred waves among global allies and adversaries alike with its stark language and clear shift in direction. The opening sentence set the tone: For too long, the U.S. government has neglected—even refused—to prioritize Americans and their specific interests. This is not merely a military blueprint but a politically charged declaration, marking a fundamental adjustment of America's global security commitments during the second term of the Trump administration.
From "Return to Asia-Pacific" to "Focus on the Backyard": A Dramatic Shift in Strategic Priorities
Compared to the previous version of the National Defense Strategy released during the Biden administration in 2022, the most significant shift in the new document lies in the relocation of its geographic focus. The Biden version defined China as a pacing challenge and placed the Indo-Pacific region at the core. In contrast, the 2026 version elevates homeland and Western Hemisphere defense as an absolute priority, even ranking it ahead of the Indo-Pacific region. The document candidly describes the Western Hemisphere as an area neglected by previous policies and vows to restore U.S. military dominance on the American continent.
This westward strategy is not mere talk. The document specifically points to two critical geopolitical nodes: the Panama Canal and Greenland. Just days before the document's release, President Trump announced that he had reached a future deal framework with NATO leader Mark Rutte on Arctic security, which would grant the United States full access to Greenland. Greenland is an autonomous territory of the NATO ally Denmark, and this matter has already caused a stir in Copenhagen. Danish officials, speaking anonymously, revealed that formal negotiations have not yet begun, but the U.S. intentions are already clear. Regarding the Panama Canal, Trump's stance is similarly ambiguous. When asked whether the United States is considering regaining control of the canal, he responded: "I don't want to tell you that... sort of, I have to say, sort of. It's an option on the table."
This renewed focus on the backyard is referred to in the document itself as Trump's Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine, established in the 19th century, declared the Americas to be the United States' sphere of influence. In late 2025, when the U.S. launched a nighttime operation in Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, to capture President Nicolás Maduro, Trump described it as a modernized version of the Monroe Doctrine. The new National Defense Strategy provides theoretical backing for such actions, asserting that the U.S. will actively and fearlessly defend its interests throughout the Western Hemisphere, and warning all drug terrorists to take heed. Since September 2025, the United States has conducted approximately 30 strikes against suspected trafficking vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific regions, resulting in over 110 deaths, although the U.S. government has never provided conclusive evidence that the vessels were involved in drug trafficking.
"Limited Support" and "Primary Responsibility": A Historic Restructuring of Alliance Relations
If the emphasis on the Western Hemisphere represents one aspect of strategic contraction, then the redefinition of the ally's role constitutes another, and a more impactful one. The core message of the document can be summarized as: The United States will provide critical but more limited support, while allies must take on the primary responsibility for their own defense. This principle is systematically applied across all of America's traditional alliance systems.
In East Asia, the document clearly states: South Korea is fully capable of taking on the primary responsibility for deterring North Korea with critical yet more limited support from the United States. Currently, approximately 28,500 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea. Although the document does not explicitly mention troop withdrawal, the phrasing regarding the realignment of U.S. military posture has already caused unease in Seoul. South Korea has increased its defense budget by 7.5% this year, but in the face of a nuclear-armed North Korea, any limitations on U.S. support imply a sharp rise in risks and uncertainties. The document also assesses that North Korea can use nuclear weapons to strike targets in South Korea and Japan, posing a current and clear nuclear threat to the U.S. mainland, further highlighting the inherent contradictions in shifting the burden of deterrence to allies.
In Europe, the tone is equally straightforward. The document acknowledges that Russia will remain a persistent yet manageable threat to NATO's eastern member states for the foreseeable future, but then quickly shifts to assert that NATO allies are now strong enough to fully assume primary responsibility for Europe's conventional defense. The United States has confirmed plans to reduce its NATO troop presence near the Ukrainian border, raising concerns among European nations that the Trump administration may significantly cut troop numbers, creating a security vacuum amid Russia's growing assertiveness. The document emphasizes that the U.S. will closely monitor whether allies adhere to the commitment made at last year's NATO summit in The Hague—to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP. This effectively ties U.S. security commitments more tightly to allies' financial contributions.
The essence of this shift is moving from a collective defense model to a responsibility-sharing model, or even a responsibility-transfer model. The Pentagon's logic is that as allies' economic and military strength grows, they should bear primary responsibility for threats at their doorstep, while the United States frees up its hands to focus on core interests at home and in the Western Hemisphere. However, this logic overlooks the psychological and political dimensions of the alliance system. A sense of security is not a simple arithmetic problem; the symbolic significance and guarantee provided by the U.S. military presence are often more important than the actual number of troops. When the United States clearly signals more limited support, the cornerstone of trust among allies inevitably develops cracks.
"Deterrence" rather than "Confrontation" toward China: A Subtle Adjustment in Great Power Competition Strategy
In contrast to the tough stance toward allies, the document's wording regarding China appears relatively moderate. While the Biden administration's strategy views China as the primary adversary, the 2026 version regards China as an established power in the Indo-Pacific region, with the goal merely being to prevent its dominance over the United States or its allies. The document states: The objective is not to dominate China; nor is it to strangle or humiliate them... This does not require regime change or other existential struggles. It even proposes expanding the scope of military exchanges with the People's Liberation Army of China.
Behind this shift in tone lies the Trump administration's effort to cool down the trade war triggered by its high tariffs. The document states that President Trump seeks a stable, peaceful, fair, and mutually respectful relationship with China. However, this moderation comes with a glaring omission: the entire text makes no mention of Taiwan. In contrast, the 2022 Biden-era strategy explicitly stated that the U.S. would support Taiwan's asymmetric self-defense. U.S. domestic law requires it to provide military support to Taiwan, and the silence in the new strategy undoubtedly sends complex signals to both Beijing and Taipei. Analysis suggests this is not an oversight but likely a deliberate ambiguity aimed at reducing direct provocation toward China while preserving all policy options.
The threat assessment for Russia has also been downgraded from a severe threat to a persistent but manageable one. This de-escalation aligns with the demand for Europe to take on primary defense responsibilities, implying that the United States believes Europe already possesses sufficient capabilities to handle a manageable Russia. However, against the backdrop of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the still significant disparity in strength between Russia and Ukraine, this assessment may sound overly optimistic, even somewhat detached from reality, to the frontline countries in Eastern Europe.
The Military Embodiment of "America First": The Inherent Logic of Strategy and Global Shockwaves
Throughout the entire document, its soul undoubtedly lies in the thorough implementation of the America First philosophy in the field of national defense. This is reflected in several interconnected levels:
First is the narrowing and concretization of interest definition. The document repeatedly emphasizes American interests, directly linking them to homeland security, border control (including the deportation of illegal immigrants), combating drug trafficking, and controlling key waterways. Global issues such as climate change, which the previous administration viewed as emerging threats, are entirely absent from the document. National security is more frequently defined as homeland security, rather than the broad security derived from global leadership.
Secondly, a non-interventionist tendency in approach. The document questions decades of strategic relationships, favoring non-direct involvement in overseas conflicts and instead maintaining regional balance by strengthening allies' autonomous capabilities. This is not traditional isolationism, but a form of selective interventionism or calculated hegemony. The United States is not withdrawing from the world but attempting to maintain its influence at lower costs and reduced risks, externalizing more frontline responsibilities and costs.
Finally, there is a unilateralist tone in posture. While calling for sincere cooperation with Canada and neighboring countries in Central and South America, the document does not hesitate to issue a stark warning: We will ensure they respect and jointly defend our interests... If they fail to do so, we are prepared to take targeted, decisive actions to effectively advance American interests. This blend of cooperation and threat defines a new tenor in U.S. relations with allies and partners: more transactional than alliance-based.
The timing of this strategy's release is also intriguing, coming right after Trump's fierce criticism of Europe at the World Economic Forum in Davos and his friction with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. Carney had warned of a potential fracture in the global order. The Pentagon's document appears to confirm that such a fracture is occurring within America's security commitments.
The new edition of the National Defense Strategy outlines a future vision for the U.S. global military posture: a superpower that is more retracted, more focused, and more transactional. It calls on allies to grow up and confront threats that are right at their doorstep on their own, while the U.S. turns to consolidate its fortress in the Americas. This shift may save resources and reduce the risk of direct involvement in conflicts in the short term, but its long-term costs could include the weakening of alliance systems, a shortage of global security public goods, and an increased risk of miscalculation by potential adversaries.
When Europe must independently face a manageable Russia, when South Korea needs to shoulder the primary deterrence responsibility, and when countries in the Western Hemisphere remain uneasy under U.S. leadership, the world order is quietly being reshaped. This Pentagon document is not an endpoint but a beginning—the chain reaction it triggers will start with emergency assessment meetings in foreign and defense departments of various nations, gradually spreading to every corner of global geopolitics. How substantial is the limited support provided by the United States? What level of risk does the primary responsibility borne by allies entail? These questions are not written in the 34-page document; the answers will be written one by one in the uncertain reality of the coming years.
Reference materials
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj9r8ezym3ro
https://www.newsday.com/news/nation/national-defense-strategy-hegseth-trump-china-greenland-i47456
https://www.wcvb.com/article/pentagon-defense-strategy-western-hemisphere-shift/70115739