Get ready for a bold revelation: Trump's vision of the new world order is a game-changer, and it's got Europe in its sights.
For decades, the United States and Europe stood united, bound by a shared commitment to defend democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. This era, initiated by President Harry Truman in 1947, saw America lead the creation of global institutions like NATO, the World Bank, and the United Nations. Together, they formed what became known as the "rules-based international order."
But here's where it gets controversial: the new US National Security Strategy, published in December, signals a major shift. It suggests that the White House no longer sees this shared endeavor as viable. The strategy document even puts the phrase "rules-based international order" in quotation marks, a subtle yet powerful delegitimization.
Vice President JD Vance made waves at the Munich Security Conference in 2025, warning Europe that this change was coming. He argued that the real threat to Europe wasn't Russia, but internal forces censoring free speech and suppressing opposition, thus undermining democracy. He was particularly critical of what he called the "leftist liberal network." The French newspaper Le Monde described his speech as a declaration of "ideological war" against Europe.
Last month's NSS codifies these remarks, elevating them to the status of official doctrine. Karin von Hippel, a former senior official at the US State Department and Director of the Royal United Services Institute, says, "America is no longer the country that promoted the global values established post-World War II. It's shifting to a very different place."
So, if the world is indeed moving away from this order, what's next? And what does this mean for Europe and the rest of the globe?
"International institutions, especially the United Nations, have been marked by anti-American sentiment and haven't served any particular purpose," says Victoria Coates, a vice-president at The Heritage Foundation. She believes that change is inevitable in a changing world, especially given that China, a major player today, wasn't a concern when the rules-based order was established after World War II.
This rules-based order, built in the aftermath of World War II, was the brainchild of a generation that had witnessed the horrors of global conflict. Despite its flaws, it was a legacy of that experience. But the NSS argues that American strategy has gone astray since then, blaming "foreign policy elites." It suggests the US will roll back the influence of supranational bodies, emphasizing the sovereignty of nation-states.
The Kremlin praised the review, stating that much of it aligns with Moscow's thinking. Field Marshal Lord Richards believes Trump, Xi, Putin, and their authoritarian followers are pushing for a return to Great Power politics. However, Sir Lawrence Freedman, Emeritus Professor of War Studies, argues that the new Security Strategy isn't as radical a break with the past as it seems.
Washington's military operation in Caracas, Venezuela, which led to the capture of leader Nicolas Maduro and his wife, is an early example of this new, more assertive approach. Some international law experts question the legality of the Trump administration's actions, arguing they may have violated international statutes governing the use of force. The US maintains its actions were legally justified.
The NSS claims the right for the US to be the dominant power in the Western Hemisphere, aligning its Latin American and Caribbean neighbors with Washington's interests. This is a bold reassertion of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, promising US supremacy in the region. Colombia, Panama, and Cuba are also on the President's radar.
"Control of the Panama Canal is critical to the US," says Victoria Coates. "Making sure the US retains a prime position over the canal is essential, and I think Panama is getting that message."
Sir Lawrence Freedman argues that the US's ability to control its neighbors isn't unlimited. "They may have removed Maduro, but they're still dealing with the old regime. They're not running the country, despite what Trump says."
Under the new strategy, the US will no longer pressure authoritarian regimes to improve human rights. It declares that all nations are entitled to a "separate and equal station" by the "laws of nature and nature's God."
In the Middle East, the US says it will stop "hectoring" nations, especially Gulf monarchies, into abandoning their traditions and forms of government. "The key to successful relations is accepting the region as it is," the NSS adds.
However, this respect for traditions and forms of government doesn't seem to extend to Europe. While the review mentions an American sentimental attachment to Europe, it seeks to redefine what's worth defending in the Western world. It's a civilizational argument, prioritizing the sovereign nation-state over the shared values of the Truman Doctrine.
The review is critical of Europe's "current trajectory," questioning whether some European nations can be reliable allies in the future. It talks about "economic decline" and the "real prospect of civilizational erasure." It suggests that within decades, certain NATO members could become majority non-European, raising doubts about their viability as long-term security partners.
Karin von Hippel argues that the document is nativist and ideological, implying a threat to the dominance of the Christian white male in the West. Victoria Coates, on the other hand, believes the struggle is indeed civilizational, with sovereignty a critical issue. She questions the European Union project, especially post-Brexit, and wonders if subverting national interests to Brussels is a winning strategy.
The review's solution for Europe's "self-confidence" is to support patriotic European parties. It aims to "cultivate resistance" to Europe's current trajectory. This raises many questions about what "cultivating resistance" entails.
Some in Europe have already concluded that the USA may no longer be a reliable ally, especially with Russia posing a growing threat. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has said Europe needs to "achieve independence" from America with a reshaped NATO. But this is a long-term goal.
Sir Lawrence Freedman says, "Europe has a difficulty: it can't rely on the Americans, but it can't operate easily without them."
Lord Richards warns that the EU risks falling between the cracks, unable to be a Great Power or shelter under the influence of any of its constituent nations. He believes the UK/EU will likely remain in the USA's sphere, within a reshaped NATO.
This increased spending commitment on defense is long overdue, according to Lord Richards. The US has been pushing Europe to increase defense spending for years, and last year, Trump secured a commitment from European allies to increase spending to 5% of GDP. This may have inadvertently pushed Europe towards greater operational independence from Washington.
Ultimately, the report reveals an ideological divide not just between the US and Europe, but within both continents. Victor Mallet, a journalist and author, argues that both sides of the Atlantic share concerns about immigration and the economy. He describes it as a "popular revolt against the establishment."
Inequality is a key issue, with many ordinary Americans and Western Europeans struggling to make ends meet despite living in some of the world's richest nations.
In the NSS, the US commits to scrapping practices like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, which are derided by Trump's base. These culture wars, which shape America's public discourse, now also shape its foreign policy, impacting the security of the Western world. Notably, Russia isn't mentioned as a hostile power, despite its invasion of Ukraine, a Western ally. Some in Trump's base see Putin as a natural ally in defending white, Christian nationalist civilization.
This is a pivotal moment in global politics, and the implications are far-reaching. What do you think about Trump's vision for the new world order? Is Europe prepared for the challenges ahead?
