Washington, Jan 30
The Trump Administration’s new US National Defense Strategy marks “one of the most significant departures” in US defence priorities since World War II, experts said, describing a turn toward homeland and Western Hemisphere missions and tougher expectations for allies.
“As written, the National Defense Strategy represents one of the most significant departures in the transatlantic defense relationship and really, in US defence priorities and postures that we've seen since the Second World War,” said Carrie A. Lee, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund during an event organized by the think-tank.
She called it “a massive shift from an outward focused United States that really sees itself as a global leader to one that is far more concerned with, low intensity and asymmetric conflict in the Western Hemisphere.”
She also pointed to “the blurring of the lines between policing operations and military operations in the Western Hemisphere,” and said the document “places a strong emphasis on burden sharing with allies.”
Kristine Berzina, a defence and security expert, said the strategy follows “a winter of unexpected surprises in the transatlantic defense relationship,” citing “activities in Greenland,” moves “in Venezuela, Latin America,” and “discussions over Iran,” alongside a national security strategy released earlier.
Sophie Arts, a security and defense specialist focused on the Arctic, said the strategy treats the Western Hemisphere as “kind of a US sphere of influence,” describing neighboring countries as “its backyard,” a region Washington wants to keep “free of foreign influence, especially from China.”
She said the document stresses protection of “maritime and air approaches, um, including in the Arctic,” and ensuring “full maritime and military access to important sea lanes and key terrain.” Greenland, she said, appears prominently, with the strategy referring to it “essentially in the same breath as -- as it refers to the Panama Canal and the -- what it calls the Gulf of America.”
Arts said the strategy elevates “homeland defense over -- over forward posture” and shifts focus to “developing denial capabilities from the homeland over deterrence.” She said the administration wants to pursue that “via its ambitious, ambitious layered missile defense architecture… which is, of course, Golden Dome.”
She noted Canada and Greenland already contribute to “missile warning and general situational awareness,” but said missile defense would be “a change.” “Currently, neither Canada nor Greenland participate in missile defense,” she said, adding that Washington hopes they will join the Golden Dome effort.
Arts said Greenland has been “very adamant and backed by Denmark and its NATO allies… saying that it does not want to be part of the United States and that it rejects the pressure and threats from the Trump Administration.” She added there is “no indication that there are any immediate threats from Russia or China towards Greenland.”
On Capitol Hill, Kate Stotesbery, a government relations director who works closely with lawmakers, said Congress approaches defense policy from “a completely, um, distinct worldview” compared with the strategy. She said lawmakers seek to resource the administration, but also “task the administration to not cede American leadership and to maintain US leadership in a multi-polar world.”
She said there is overlap. “They're to do lists, do overlap quite a lot,” she said. But she added, “the heart, the vision, the intent… really do chart different courses.”
Lee said it is unclear whether the Pentagon can or will implement the strategy “as written.” She said it “requires massive changes to US defence posture, to US training, manning, equipping,” after years focused on “large scale combat operations” in Europe and the Pacific.
She also flagged a gap between strategy language and spending. She said the document “is not a $ 1.5 trillion strategy… The National Defense Strategy is maybe a $ 500 billion strategy, as written.” She added, “Show me your budget and I'll show you your strategy.”
On domestic deployments, Lee drew “a pretty bright line between DHS” and the military, but said the administration has been “very clear that they intend to use the military” for roles including “combating domestic protests” and “supporting immigration operations.” She called that “highly significant.”
She cited a cost estimate, saying recent domestic deployments “totaled about $500 million,” and argued that those operations divert “time and training and resources” from other missions.
