Mohammad Abu-Rumman

The US National Security Strategy for 2026, recently announced by the White House, reflects the conservative and right-wing orientation and the profound influence of these currents on President Donald Trump’s administration and its political-ideological team. At the same time, the document presents an unconventional vision that departs markedly from the traditional conservative language of previous national security strategies. Herein lies the paradox: a document rooted in conservative ideology, yet revolutionary in its sharp critique of past U.S. policies and in articulating new directions that amount to a near rupture with earlier American national security doctrines.

Most striking is the document’s explicit reaffirmation of the “America First” doctrine and its revival of the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which prioritizes the Western Hemisphere, the Americas, as the core sphere of US vital interests and an extension of American national security. This renewed emphasis underscores the primacy of issues such as combating mass migration, declaring unequivocally that the era of mass immigration to the United States is over, alongside drug trafficking, the perceived threat to American cultural identity, border security, and the protection of the American working middle class. These domestic concerns clearly sit at the heart of the Trump administration’s ideological discourse and do not merely represent top priorities; rather, they fundamentally reshape US perceptions of its relations with other regions, including Asia, Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

Notably, the document is entirely devoid of any reference to democracy, human rights, or the traditional notion of America’s global mission. Instead, it offers a redefinition of American soft power, diverging sharply from earlier interpretations advanced by US theorists themselves. Soft power is reframed as a function of narrowly defined national interests tied to what the document describes as “the greatness of our nation and its inherent dignity,” with a strong emphasis on the spiritual and cultural well-being of Americans and pride in the nation’s past and its heroes.

As for China, long portrayed in recent U.S. national security documents as the principal adversary and systemic threat, it remains firmly on Washington’s radar, but with a notable shift in framing. China is no longer primarily depicted as a totalitarian and repressive state, but rather as a serious and dangerous economic competitor threatening the strategic and national interests of American citizens. Once again, the “America First” doctrine permeates this revised approach to China: the core objective of US foreign policy is to protect the American middle class, regarded as the source of national efficiency and productivity and, within Trump’s ideological worldview, the solid social base that US interests are meant to safeguard. This perspective explicitly distances itself from what the document harshly criticizes as the excessive idealism of previous U.S. policies, policies grounded in globalisation, economic liberalism and free global trade, which are blamed for undermining this crucial social class.

The intellectual imprint of Samuel Huntington is unmistakable throughout the document, particularly his influential book Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity. Huntington’s focus on the core social base—identified with the Anglo-Saxon, white, Protestant identity, appears to resonate strongly with the “America First” movement. This group is portrayed as the backbone of the industrial and technological workforce, and as the segment of society US policies are duty-bound to protect. In this framework, American strategic interests are essentially the interests of this class, which is seen as embodying national identity, history and greatness prior to the waves of mass immigration that, according to this dominant right-wing narrative, have damaged American society and now threaten its cultural identity.

What, then, of the Middle East? In essence, there is little that is new, though the document’s blunt and candid tone is unmistakable. The region no longer holds the strategic importance it once did over previous decades, largely due to the United States’ transformation into a major energy producer and exporter. Nevertheless, vital American interests persist, particularly regarding supply chains, the security of maritime chokepoints, freedom of navigation, preventing any hostile power from dominating the region, ensuring regional stability, and safeguarding Israel’s security as a strategic U.S. ally that must always retain its technological superiority.

The document also reveals a distinctly Trumpian, somewhat condescending view of Europe, portrayed as an aging continent whose cultural identity is under threat from migration and perceived leniency toward migrants. While the transatlantic alliance is reaffirmed, it is clear that roles, responsibilities, and the financial burden-sharing within this alliance are being fundamentally redefined.

Overall, the document is of considerable importance, as it offers a clear lens through which to interpret future US orientations and their implications for global and regional policies, particularly in the Middle East. The region faces a notable degree of ambiguity and uncertainty regarding the coming phase and its conflicts, compounded by the document’s conspicuous absence of any substantive American commitment to what is often described as regional peace.