For decades, the U.S. National Security Strategy has served as a roadmap — a public articulation of how Washington sees the world and what it expects from it. But the latest version, released at the end of 2025, takes on an unusual clarity: it codifies a worldview shaped not by post–Cold War optimism, but by competition, conditional alliances, and a resolute focus on the Western Hemisphere.
This matters beyond ink on a page. In recent months, the United States has taken bold, controversial actions in Venezuela, issued forceful statements about Colombia and Cuba, and revived talk of Greenland, triggering alarms in capitals from Bogotá to Copenhagen. What was once strategic ambiguity now reads like a deliberate signal — one world leaders, investors, and citizens alike should understand clearly.
A Doctrine in Action
The NSS is not merely a bureaucratic document. It is a public message — of intent, priorities, and limits.
Its core thesis? The Western Hemisphere comes first.
Its logic? Alliances are transactional, not automatic.
Its instruments? Power — diplomatic, economic and, when deemed necessary, military.
These principles help explain why the United States has not only intervened in Venezuela but justified that intervention with language straight from the NSS. They illuminate why recent remarks by President Trump about Colombia, Cuba, and Greenland are not rhetorical flare-ups but consistent with a broader strategic posture.
The Western Hemisphere as Priority One
The strategy reasserts the Monroe Doctrine with an unmistakable twist: the United States will block rival influence in the Americas, especially where strategic assets and supply chains are at stake.
This framing — which administration officials have dubbed the “Trump Corollary” — was evident in Washington’s posture toward Venezuela. Caracas is rich in energy resources, logistics infrastructure and geopolitical leverage. The U.S. description of its recent action there invokes hemispheric security, not just counter-terror or counter-narcotics language. Whether one supports or opposes the Venezuela intervention, there is no doubt it reflects the NSS’s core doctrine: America’s backyard is a priority zone, and influence there will be defended by all instruments of power.
The same logic is now being applied rhetorically to Colombia and Cuba. Comments from the president questioning Colombia’s alignment on defense spending and economic policy — and renewed pressure on Cuba’s governance and economic ties — are extensions of a worldview in which regional alignment is not optional.
For governments across Latin America and the Caribbean, this signals a new reality: sovereignty now competes with strategic expectations. Capitals must navigate U.S. demands not just on security cooperation but on economic, energy and technological fronts.
Europe and the NATO Dilemma
Perhaps the most controversial part of the NSS is its unvarnished treatment of Europe. Where past strategies embraced NATO as a collective defense project, the current one reframes alliance relations as performance contracts.
In particular, the document elevates a new bar for alliance participation: a 5% GDP defense spending target. Allies in Brussels, Berlin and Warsaw have agreed to the so-called “Hague Commitment,” but Washington’s tone turns what was a guideline into an expectation — one that could influence defense cooperation, industrial policy and technology sharing.
European leaders have responded with concern, warning that this performance-based framing could hollow out the spirit of shared values that underpins NATO. Yet from Washington’s perspective, this is less rhetorical friction and more strategic calculus: partners must demonstrate commitment not through rhetoric but through quantifiable investment.
This reorientation helps explain recent U.S. remarks on Greenland — a Nordic territory with strategic value in the Arctic. While the idea of annexation has drawn ridicule abroad, the seriousness with which American policymakers discuss Greenland signals that they view it through the same prism as Venezuela: a strategically valuable space where influence must be secured. Such talk has prompted even Denmark’s prime minister to warn that a U.S. bid for Greenland would be “existential” for NATO — underscoring how the NSS is producing real anxiety among longtime allies.
Alliances as Conditional Alignments
Across regions, one theme recurs: alliances are no longer open-ended commitments, but conditional partnerships.
This is most evident in Washington’s approach to:
- Colombia, where recent presidential remarks cast doubt on automatic defense cooperation absent alignment on economic and strategic priorities;
- Cuba, where renewed pressure on governance and economic ties suggests a U.S. strategy that treats political alignment as part of security cooperation;
- Europe, where NATO commitments are being tied to performance metrics.
For world leaders, the calculation is now more complex. Partnership with the United States delivers access to markets, security guarantees and investment — but it also demands alignment on economic policy, defense spending, tech standards and supply-chain integrity.
The NSS also elevates economic security and technological leadership — from AI and biotech to critical materials — to the realm of national security. Governments should assume export controls, regulatory alignment and investment scrutiny are here to stay and will shape diplomatic negotiations as much as tanks and treaties.
What Leaders Should Do Now
For U.S. allies, the strategy demands clearer differentiation between values-based cooperation and interest-based alignment. Defense ties, technological standards and commercial access will increasingly be negotiated in tandem.
For Latin American and Caribbean governments, it is time to map where strategic assets intersect with geopolitical expectations and craft frameworks that balance sovereignty with transparency — before external pressure forces the choice.
For non-aligned states, strategic neutrality will feel less neutral. The NSS’s narrative divides the world into aligned and contested spaces, pushing governments to make clearer decisions about their political and economic partnerships.
The Real Story is Not What Washington Says — but What Others Do With It
The National Security Strategy, taken on its own, is a manifesto of priorities. But in a world transformed by recent actions in Venezuela and forceful rhetoric on Colombia, Cuba and Greenland, it has become a guidebook for political reality.
How world leaders interpret it, and how they adapt, will shape the geopolitical landscape for years to come.
Follow SDG News on LinkedIn
