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

One of the core pivots in the United States' new National Security Strategy lies in the **"Trump Corollary advocating for and sustaining the Monroe Doctrine."** This American Monroe Doctrine with Trump's distinctive characteristics 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 towards the Americas. It forms a strategic framework where "securing the interior" and "securing the exterior" complement each other, while simultaneously establishing differentiated strategic postures for different regions globally.

I. The Anchor Point of Core Diplomatic Interests: "The Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine"

1.1 The Four Dimensions of Core Interests in the Western Hemisphere

The strategic document clearly defines that U.S. core interests in the Western Hemisphere revolve around four dimensions, directly serving homeland security and the maintenance of regional dominance:

First, ensuring regional stability and governance. By promoting effective governance within the region, it aims to prevent large-scale migration waves towards the United States caused by governance failures, thereby safeguarding domestic social stability at the source. Second, combating transnational crime. It demands governments within the region actively cooperate with the U.S. to jointly eradicate terrorists, drug cartels, and other transnational criminal organizations, severing the chain of transnational threats to U.S. security. Third, resisting external influence and penetration. It resolutely prevents hostile forces from invading the Western Hemisphere while strictly guarding against foreign control of key regional assets, building a "wall of influence isolation" for the hemisphere. Fourth, securing supply chains and strategic access. It fully supports the construction of key regional supply chains, ensuring sustained U.S. access to important strategic locations, thereby solidifying the material and geographical foundation for regional dominance.

1.2 Strategic Pivot: From "Going Global" to "Returning to the Americas"

This strategic pivot stands in stark contrast to America's historical foreign policy trajectory. During the eras of Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt, the U.S. pursued an expansionist path "from the Americas to the world," gradually establishing global influence. In contrast, the Trump-era "new version of the Monroe Doctrine" explicitly points towards **"returning 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 - "Securing the Interior" and "Securing the Exterior"

The new U.S. National Security Strategy presents two seemingly contradictory yet deeply intertwined parallel tracks. Both serve the overall national security objective, constituting a **"two sides of the same coin"** strategic logic.

2.1 Strengthening the Interior Before Addressing External Threats: Consolidating the Domestic Foundation

Although the strategic document focuses on foreign policy, it begins with extensive discussion of domestic preparatory work, highlighting the foundational status of "securing the interior." The core idea is to prioritize solving domestic problems, fostering synergistic cooperation among the American people, culture, and military. By consolidating its own strength, it provides solid support for the implementation of foreign strategy. This inward-focused orientation forms the internal logical premise for America's strategic contraction.

2.2 Securing the Exterior to Ensure Domestic Stability: Purifying the Security Environment of the Western Hemisphere

To guarantee domestic stability, the Trump administration explicitly stated the need to "strike hard" in the Western Hemisphere: on one hand, severely cracking down on illegal forces such as terrorists, drug cartels, and cartels; on the other hand, resolutely excluding the penetration and influence of other external forces in the region. In U.S. strategic perception, domestic stability is tightly bound to Western Hemisphere security. Only by building a robust "security barrier" in the Western Hemisphere can external safeguards for homeland security be provided, forming an inseparable organic whole.

III. Strategic Continuity and Recent Practice: From Rhetorical Signals to Concrete Actions

3.1 Early Signals: The Premature Release of Strategic Direction

This strategic pivot did not emerge suddenly; clear signals were released as early as February 2025. At that time, vice-presidential candidate J.D. Vance, Hagerty, and Trump himself all revealed similar foreign strategic inclinations in public. Earlier this year, Trump directly expressed impatience with EU and NATO affairs, tasking J.D. Vance with publicly criticizing EU leadership. Furthermore, a series of controversial remarks confirmed this strategic orientation: claiming rights over the Panama Canal, demanding Chinese-controlled capital withdraw from related sectors; asserting sovereignty claims over Greenland; stating Canada should become the 51st U.S. state; compelling Mexico to cooperate on security issues, etc. These remarks collectively outline America's strategic contour of "focusing on the Americas, weakening global obligations."

3.2 Practical Focus: Western Hemisphere Pressure with Venezuela as the Breakthrough Point

Although comprehensive security actions have not yet been taken against all the aforementioned controversial targets, the U.S. has designated Venezuela as a key target for Western Hemisphere strategic practice, applying targeted pressure through military deterrence, economic suppression, and other means, with the possibility of further action in the near future not ruled out. This move directly confirms the U.S. determination to advance the new Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere. Its core strategic logic lies in applying sustained pressure to force the other party into submission or chaos, reflecting the pressure-based thinking encapsulated in the phrase **"crying, crying also counts as time."**

IV. Global Differentiated Positioning: Strategic Priority Ranking of Regions

The new National Security Strategy shows significant variation in its descriptions of different global regions, clearly presenting the priority ranking of U.S. foreign interests. The Western Hemisphere holds the most prominent priority, with other regions serving this core mainline.

4.1 Asia-Pacific/Indo-Pacific Region: Targeted Containment Orientation

The U.S. strategic objective in this region is set as "maintaining freedom and openness, safeguarding freedom of navigation in key maritime sea lanes, and ensuring secure and reliable supply chains." The subtext of this formulation is quite clear, "it's obvious who is being referred to", with the core aim being to contain the expansion of Chinese influence. Notably, the strategic document does not particularly emphasize the importance of countries in regions like India or Southeast Asia, further highlighting its core orientation of targeted containment.

4.2 Europe: "Soft Constraint" Orientation Weakening Responsibility

The U.S. strategic objective for Europe is positioned as "supporting allies, maintaining European freedom and security, while revitalizing Europe's civilizational confidence and Western identity." However, this formulation exhibits clear characteristics of being "hollowed out": it is brief, does not commit to substantive "hard contributions" for European security, and does not use strong rhetoric like "block and reverse foreign actions" as used against China. This orientation suggests the Trump administration adopts a near-"acquiescent" attitude towards the Putin government while being extremely dissatisfied with current EU governance. The core intent is to push the EU towards "self-reliance" in solving security issues. The phrase "revitalizing Western identity" is further interpreted as a message to European right-wing forces, encouraging them to confront existing democratic governments in Western Europe.

4.3 Middle East: Interest Maintenance Orientation of "Disengaging Without Letting Go"

The U.S. strategic goal in the Middle East is "preventing hostile forces from dominating the region, controlling oil and gas supplies and transportation chokepoints, while avoiding getting bogged down in costly endless wars." Its core essence is "disengaging without letting go": seeking to gradually extricate itself from the quagmire of Middle Eastern wars while maintaining core influence over the region. The key lever to achieve this goal is **"helping Israel and Saudi Arabia normalize relations,"** pushing more regional countries to recognize Israel and constructing a Middle Eastern order aligned with U.S. interests.

4.4 Technological Hegemony: The Core Priority Superseding Other Interests

The strategic document lists "ensuring U.S. technology and standards lead global development" as a **"vital"** core national interest, with priority higher than other types of interests. Among these, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and quantum computing are key breakthrough areas. This positioning highlights the U.S. core approach of converting technological advantage into strategic advantage, attempting to provide foundational support for its overall foreign strategy by controlling global technological discourse.

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

Judging by the length of description in the strategic document, the section on the Western Hemisphere is **"far longer than those on the Indo-Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East."** This detail directly confirms the "transcendent" priority status of the Western Hemisphere in the new strategy. This positioning not only determines the current direction of U.S. strategic resource allocation but also hints at possible future strategic evolution trends.

Some analyses speculate that if China's power continues to grow in the future, the U.S. National Security Strategy documents for 2040 or 2050 might undergo a fundamental shift in their description of Asia, potentially adjusting to "we must support Asian allies in maintaining Asia's freedom and security, while reshaping the civilizational confidence and Eastern identity of America's Asian allies." This formulation is highly similar to the current U.S. positioning towards Europe, implying a potential posture of "accepting the status quo" or "strategic abandonment." It is noteworthy that within the entire strategic interest framework, the U.S. makes no mention whatsoever of the Taiwan issue, not even any hint. This omission itself reflects its strategic focus on the Western Hemisphere and the downplaying of other regional non-core issues.

VI. Assessment of Core U.S. Advantages for Achieving Strategic Objectives

The strategic document explicitly lists nine world-leading assets and advantages that the U.S. believes it possesses, serving as foundational support for achieving strategic goals:

1. A flexible political system with the ability to adjust development direction promptly;
2. The largest and most innovative economic system, capable of generating immense wealth and creating market access leverage;
3. A globally leading financial system, with the core being the U.S. dollar's status as the global reserve currency;
4. The most advanced technology industry, providing core support for economic development and military advantage;
5. The most powerful and combat-capable military;
6. An extensive global network of alliances;
7. A uniquely advantageous geographical location, bordered by two oceans to the east and west, with no strong enemies to the north or south, and separated from other major powers by oceans;
8. Unparalleled soft power and cultural influence;
9. The courage, willpower, patriotism, and considerable resilience of the American people.

6.1 Objective Scrutiny of Core Advantages

From a practical perspective, some U.S. advantages do have a realistic basis: the "flexibility" of its political system is reflected in its ability to adjust direction during emergencies; its financial hegemony, centered on the dollar's global reserve currency status, is indeed a crucial strategic lever; the geographical advantage of two oceans and no strong neighbors is an objective reality; U.S. military personnel, when reinforcements are assured and supply lines are open, do possess a **"tradition of fighting to the death without retreating,"** with strong individual tactical proficiency.

However, some advantages also have obvious shortcomings: while the global alliance network still exists, signs of wavering have emerged; regarding U.S. infantry combat effectiveness, some views hold that during WWII, U.S. infantry performance could only be rated "second to last," with British infantry being "last." Citing 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 limitations in their combat effectiveness.

VII. Domestic Reshaping: "Investing in the Future" Measures Supporting the Strategic Pivot

The new strategy emphasizes the need to reshape national capabilities through a robust domestic agenda, providing internal support for achieving strategic objectives. Core measures include:

First, reversing domestic policy direction, abandoning so-called "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" (DEI) and other anti-competitive policies that allegedly harm institutional effectiveness. Second, making the unleashing of energy productivity a strategic priority, solidifying the foundation for economic and energy security. Third, promoting economic reindustrialization, rebuilding the middle class, and gaining control over its own supply chains and core production capabilities. Fourth, persisting with the trade war against China, viewing it as a crucial means of safeguarding economic security. Fifth, implementing tax cuts and deregulation policies, returning economic freedom to businesses. Sixth, increasing investment in emerging technologies and basic science, ensuring prosperity and the inheritance of military advantage for future generations.

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

8.1 Development Difficulties in High-End Military Projects

Currently, the U.S. military-industrial complex faces numerous difficulties with high-end projects, with multiple key programs experiencing frequent issues or slow progress: the F-35 fighter jet suffers from constant malfunctions; the NGAD (Next Generation Air Dominance, jokingly called F-47) program is wavering; B-21 bomber development is progressing slowly; projects like the Zumwalt-class destroyer have been canceled; Ford-class aircraft carriers have issues with key equipment like 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 U.S. high-end military development model.

8.2 Emerging Forces: Anduril Industries and the Rise of "Anime Military-Industrial"

While traditional military projects face difficulties, emerging military-industrial forces represented by Anduril Industries have risen abruptly, becoming a new highlight in the U.S. defense sector. Founded by Palmer Luckey, the company focuses on the research, development, and production of low-cost, expendable drone systems. Founder Palmer Luckey is known for his love of Japanese anime (two-dimensional culture), often posting composite images with anime characters on social media and even dressing casually when visiting Japanese drone companies. This style forms a sharp contrast with the rigorous image of traditional defense contractors.

Although this "tech-nerd-led military-industrial" model carries some controversy, it cannot be ignored that emerging enterprises like Anduril Industries **"are genuinely building factories, genuinely laying foundations,"** advancing technological conversion through pragmatic capacity building. They may have a disruptive impact on future warfare forms through advantages of low cost and scalability.

8.3 Musk's "Drone Warfare" Prophecy and Industry Trends

Tesla founder Elon Musk has long advocated the concept of "drone warfare," and his core views highly align with Palmer Luckey's development philosophy: First, cheap drone swarms will destroy expensive manned aircraft (like the F-35), considering high-end manned fighters a waste of national resources and a betrayal of taxpayers. Second, future wars will be dominated by drones; tanks and manned aircraft will gradually become obsolete, with warfare evolving into "drone vs. drone" confrontations. Third, the U.S. needs to focus on developing large numbers of long-range drones and hypersonic missiles. Fourth, if an adversary possesses greater unit production advantages, mere kill ratios will lose decisive significance; production capacity and attrition warfare capability will become core competitive strengths.

The resonance between Musk and Palmer Luckey on strategic philosophy reflects new development trends in the U.S. military-industrial sector. Some have humorously remarked, **"Musk struggled to climb the military-industrial mountain, only to find Palmer waiting for him at the top."** While tinged with humor, this statement reveals a core trend: the power to define future warfare forms may be shifting from traditional defense giants to tech leaders with disruptive thinking.