After the start of the Great War (1914-1918), it took the United States almost three years, until April 6, 1917, to declare war on Germany. This was in response to the sinking of passenger ships by German submarines, which were carrying US citizens. In 1939, at the start of World War II, the Washington administration did not react until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 8, 1941, despite the previous insistence of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill that war be declared on Germany. In both cases, it was not easy for the US government and public opinion to become involved in conflicts that they had not started.

On December 5, the administration of President Donald Trump released the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, November 2025, which redefines its role on the global stage, effectively renouncing its role as guarantor of European security to focus on the Western Hemisphere, particularly the American continent.

The NSS is based on the fundamental premise of protecting the national interest of the United States and, to this end, maintains that it must remain what it is: the strongest, richest, and most powerful country on the planet, and that it must continue to be so. To achieve these objectives, they have redefined their priorities and their interaction with the world through foreign policy in a rather crude manner, privileging exclusively their national interest, not that of others. It severely criticizes the foreign policy pursued by previous administrations, which contributed, on the one hand, to weakening the US industrial base through “free trade” and, on the other, “allowed allies and partners to offload the cost of their defense onto the American people and, at times, drag us into conflicts and controversies that were central to their interests but peripheral or irrelevant to ours.”

In other words, the policy implemented since the beginning of President Trump's second term is consistent with this vision, which seeks first and foremost to reduce the US trade deficit, which amounted to 2024, 918,4 billion dollars. On the military front, the ESN is very harsh on its historical allies since the end of World War II: NATO member countries, and particularly those of the European Union. It adds that the security of the United States lies in its nuclear power, which will be increased with the new generation of missiles, along with the creation of a “golden dome” to protect the entire territory and its inhabitants from any attack. Although no figures are mentioned, it is estimated that a defense mechanism of this nature would cost 175 billion dollars.

The ESN is a geopolitical view of the emergence of new global players, returning to the old theory of “balance of power” between the powers—which has led to long periods of peace—as well as the “areas of influence” that existed until the end of the Cold War, making it crystal clear that there is another power with global interests: China. On the other hand, although not expressly mentioned, Russia is considered a formidable military power, with the largest territory and immense natural resources, which secures its place alongside the United States and China.

Attention should also be paid to India, a country that has grown at rates of between 6 and 7% over the last 10 years, which is the most populous on the planet, has a huge market, nuclear power, and has shown politically that it does not align itself unconditionally with any power. For this reason, the NSS states that it will cooperate with allied countries “to maintain the balance of power globally and regionally, in order to prevent the emergence of dominant adversaries.”

Regarding Europe, the message is clear: “Among our many allies and partners, we have dozens of rich and sophisticated nations that must take primary responsibility for their regions and contribute much more to our collective defense.” The question is how this document is interpreted by the main countries of the European Union when they are strongly supporting Ukraine in its war with Russia, from which Washington is increasingly distancing itself. How will the European Union take on this challenge? Will each country give up more sovereignty for more Europe, as some who are willing to incorporate the entire continent proclaim, or will new entries be restricted, as others point out? Is consensus decision-making sustainable on many issues, or should stronger countries be allowed to decide?

This dilemma will hit hard in the major European capitals, where Germany is the leading economy and the country that has provided the most resources to Ukraine. Perhaps, for Europe and the European Union in particular, this is a fantastic opportunity to define its future and play a powerful role in world politics. This will take time, so a roadmap will have to be defined, without the security threshold that the United States has guaranteed for decades.

For Latin America, the ESN reserved the so-called “Trump corollary,” which states: “We will deny non-hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to possess or control strategically vital assets, in our hemisphere.” As we mentioned in a previous article, the compass points unambiguously south, repeating President James Monroe's old doctrine, proclaimed in 1823, of “America for Americans,” which was a warning to Europeans not to intervene politically or commercially in the new republics.

Today, it is clear that the United States, as expressly stated in the NSS, will not allow countries outside the region to control assets considered strategic in terms of both infrastructure and raw materials, which is a clear message to Beijing. In other words, countries in the region that have moved overwhelmingly toward right-wing governments will face the dilemma of their unconditional political support for the United States and their commercial dependence on China.

These days, we are witnessing a classic example of the United States' application of “hard power” toward Venezuela, where President Nicolás Maduro's regime will likely come to an end in a few weeks. We will then see who Washington's compass will point to: Colombia, Nicaragua, or Cuba? Ultimately, the United States' greatest weapon remains its soft power, which is its way of life, the capitalist culture transmitted through social media, consumption, music, cinema, language, fashion, and the attraction that continues to draw young people in general, in the absence of other forms of successful societies.