[Foreign Policy] New Security Strategy of the USA - Pivot to Asia

Siehe auch:
[Außenpolitik] Neue Sicherheitsstrategie der USA - Schwenk nach Asien

In November 2025, the US published its new national security strategy. This strategy deserves special attention. It does not break with previous foreign and domestic policy nor with previous economic and financial policy. However the situation has changed as competition between the US and China is intensifying on various levels. The new US national security strategy reflects this with significantly more open and direct language.

Compared to the numerous executive orders issued at the beginning of the second Trump (R) administration it was clearly better prepared than the first one. Furthermore the second Trump (R) administration is already acting more aggressively after just one year than the first term. Thus the second Trump (R) administration has definitively lost the innocence of its first term. And the US is making its claim to power and dominance unequivocally clear.

Aims

The strategy paper clearly outlines several goals that are to be achieved:

• Dominance
• Dominance in Energy Production and Export
• External Influence & no Internal Influence
• Combating Drug Smuggling & Irregular Migration

We will work with allies and partners to maintain global and regional balances of power to prevent the emergence of dominant adversaries. [1, p.10]

With the end of second World War and the devastation in Europe and Asia the USA emerged as the largest and strongest military power in the world. And with the end of the Warsaw Pact NATO remained the only military alliance spanning multiple continents and the only one of its size. The USA reaffirms its claim to remain the largest and strongest military power in the world. The practice of conducting politics through military operations thus continues. [1, p.3-5]

We want to recruit, train, equip, and field the world’s most powerful, lethal, and technologically advanced military to protect our interests, deter wars, and—if necessary—win them quickly and decisively, with the lowest possible casualties to our forces. [1, p.3]

Knowing how important energy sources and their prices are the USA claims a dominant position in the energy sector. The USA is not a member of OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) and was traditionally an importer of energy resources. However this has changed and since 2017 the USA has been a net exporter of natural gas and since 2020 a net exporter of crude oil. Therefore in addition to controlling foreign energy exports net exports of energy resources will be a focus for the USA. [1, p.3-5]

We want the world’s most robust, productive, and innovative energy sector - one capable not just of fueling American economic growth but of being one of America’s leading export industries in its own right. [1, p.4]
...
We want to prevent an adversarial power from dominating the Middle East, its oil and gas supplies, and the chokepoints through which they pass ... [1, p.5]

As the world's largest and strongest military power and a member of NATO the USA wields unparalleled influence over other countries. To this end the USA maintains an extensive network of transatlantic lobbies (Council on Foreign Relations, Atlantik-Brücke, German Marshall Fund of the United States, Aspen Institute, American Council on Germany, etc.). The USA aims to maintain this influence and prevent any erosion of it.
As already described the strategy paper does not indicate any fundamental change to current policy but only a tightening of it. It can therefore be assumed that the US will not tolerate any withdrawal from its network of influence and its organizations. At the same time it can be assumed that the US network of influence guarantees the fulfillment of US demands regardless of what the US demands of its vassals.
The inevitable question then arises as to how the dissolution of USAID (United States Agency for International Development) fits into this concept. Analogous to USAID is the NED (National Endowment for Democracy) which is comparable. USAID was an institution close to the Democratic Party while the NED is an institution close to the Republican Party. It is therefore not surprising that the Trump (R) administration was willing to close an institution close to the Democratic Party while leaving the one close to the Republican Party untouched. [1, p.3-5]

We want to maintain the United States’ unrivaled "soft power" through which we exercise positive influence throughout the world that furthers our interests. [1, p.4]

Drug trafficking and irregular migration are significant concerns for the US population. And the US has declared its intention to combat drug and human trafficking. Yet At the same time the US also states its intention to expand its influence across the Americas and to push back foreign influence. Whether the fight against drug trafficking and irregular migration are genuine goals or merely pretexts remains to be seen. [1, p.15]

We want to protect this country, its people, its territory, its economy, and its way of life from military attack and hostile foreign influence, whether espionage, predatory trade practices, drug and human trafficking, destructive propaganda and influence operations, cultural subversion, or any other threat to our nation. [1, p.3]

Strategy

The US still aspires to be the sole superpower. However the US faces a growing challenge in this endeavor as its own capabilities are shrinking compared with its ambitions. The greater the ambition to control another country at its expense the more likely military conflicts become. Thus it will not work without pursuing its policies, including through military means. However the economic and consequently the military power of the US is diminishing compared to the rest of the world. [1, p.9-10]

For a country whose interests are as numerous and diverse as ours, rigid adherence to non-interventionism is not possible. [1, p.9]

The US has veto power in the UN Security Council and can therefore override Security Council resolutions. While it is no longer entirely clear whether the US armed forces still possess the highest combat effectiveness, based on their experience in deployments the US armed forces certainly have the highest operational value which is why the US remains the world's largest military power. But the US ambition to be the sole superpower is hampered and limited by international law. For the US and the transatlantic lobbies (Council on Foreign Relations, Atlantik-Brücke, German Marshall Fund of the United States, Aspen Institute, American Council on Germany etc.) it is therefore logical to deny a universally applicable international law and instead advocate a vage rules-based order that serves their own interests.

The days of the United States propping up the entire world order like Atlas are over.
...
President Trump has set a new global standard with the Hague Commitment, which pledges NATO countries to spend 5 percent of GDP on defense and which our NATO allies have endorsed and must now meet. [1, p.20]

The US is the strongest force within NATO and wields unparalleled influence through its transatlantic lobbies (Council on Foreign Relations, Atlantik-Brücke, German Marshall Fund of the United States, Aspen Institute, American Council on Germany etc.). And with this influence the US is getting closer to achieving its goal. A US withdrawal from its self-created network of influence is therefore unlikely.
The incorporation of other countries also creates a community of shared destiny. Withdrawal from this community would not necessarily free a country from its long-standing animosities but it would simultaneously eliminate any obligation to provide assistance in both ways. Therefore dissolving this network of influence from within is also unlikely.
The leadership in this alliance becomes apparent in how the rest allowed its defense spending to be dictated to it in 2014 (2%) and in 2025 (5%). [1, p.9-10] [2] [3]

As a net exporter of energy resources the US can influence the energy exports of other countries. At the same time the energy exports of other countries influence the US. For example the US oil and gas reserves are among those that require comparatively high prices to be profitably extracted. The US therefore has an incentive to reduce the energy exports of other countries in order to export large quantities of energy resources itself profitably. [1, p.14]

Expanding our net energy exports will also deepen relationships with allies while curtailing the influence of adversaries, protect our ability to defend our shores, and—when and where necessary—enables us to project power. [1, p.22]

[4] [5]

[6] [7]

The recent actions in South America can also be understood against this backdrop . In 2025 Trump (R) accused Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro (Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela/PSUV) of being responsible for drug trafficking into the United States. And on the night of January 3th to 4th, 2026 US forces abducted Maduro (PSUV) from the Venezuelan capital Caracas. Immediately afterward Trump (R) announced his intention to govern Venezuela at least temporarily and laid claim to Venezuela's oil reserves.
That the US was not concerned with drug trafficking from the outset was foreseeable. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Venezuela is not a cocaine-producing country. The US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) states that Colombia and Peru are the main countries of origin for cocaine destined for the US while Venezuela isn't even mentioned. And in November 2025 Trump announced he would pardon former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez (National Party of Honduras/PNH), and in December 2025 Hernandez (PNH) was released. Hernandez (PNH) was convicted of drug and weapons trafficking in 2024 and sentenced to 45 years in prison in the US. [8] [9] [10]

A. Western Hemisphere

The American double continent/Western Hemisphere is mentioned first as a geographical region. This alone gives an impression of the importance this region has for the USA. The strategy paper also refers to the Monroe Doctrine.
The Monroe Doctrine envisioned the independence of the states on the American double continent from the European states. It is therefore a claim to independence for the American double continent from the European states at the cost of separation from Europe. In this case the USA is naturally the largest power on the American double continent. The relevant goal is that the American double continent is free from external influence. Consequently further conflicts such as with Venezuela or over Greenland are to be expected. However the USA's own claim to influence in Europe stands in the way of its separation from Europe. [1, p.15-19 , p.25-27]

After years of neglect, the United States will reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere, and to protect our homeland and our access to key geographies throughout the region. [1, p.15]
...
We will need a strong Europe to help us successfully compete, and to work in concert with us to prevent any adversary from dominating Europe. [1, p.34]

In the Americas the US aims to recruit allies and expand its network of allies through a strategy of "Enlist and Expand". Furthermore production is to be relocated closer to home through "nearshore manufacturing and the development of local private economies". In addition to its existing strategy of restructuring supply chains through tariffs the US is thus taking the next step in pursuing its foreign trade objectives. And in the case of Latin America (excluding Mexico) China overtook the US as its largest trading partner in 2018. [1, p.16 , p.17] [11]

The United States will prioritize commercial diplomacy, to strengthen our own economy and industries, using tariffs and reciprocal trade agreements as powerful tools. [1, p.16]
...
We want other nations to see us as their partner of first choice, and we will (through various means) discourage their collaboration with others.
...
Some foreign influence will be hard to reverse, given the political alignments between certain Latin American governments and certain foreign actors. [1, p.17]

Against this backdrop the alliance between the US and the President of Argentina, Javier Milei (La Libertad Avanza/LLA) can also be understood. In April the International Monetary Fund (IMF) approved a new loan of 20 billion US-Dollar for Argentina. And in October the US supported the Argentine currency and its exchange rate with 20 billion US-Dollar immediately before the parliamentary elections in Argentina. In doing so the US is binding a country with many natural resources (for example silver, copper and lithium) and those very resources closer to itself and further away from others (for example China). [12] [13] [15]

It is noteworthy that the strategy paper views the Western Hemisphere and its countries as a resource not as a collection of sovereign nations. For the US the Western Hemisphere is essentially just a means to an end and a geographical space over which the US wants to rule without actually governing.

B. Asia

As important as the Americas are to the USA Asia is equally important to the US's claim to be the sole superpower. This is not due to geography or natural resources but rather due to China being the US's biggest current competitor. The frequency with which Asia can be replaced with China in the strategy paper demonstrates the intense focus on China. Asia receives six pages in the strategy paper more attention than any other geographical region. [1, p.19-24]

The foreign policy and military focus is on China's coast specifically the armament of the first and second island chain. The first island chain (Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Malaysia, and Vietnam) is the one immediately off the Chinese coast and the second island chain (Japan, Philippines, and Indonesia) is the one further away. This makes sense insofar as it allows for the containment of Chinese foreign trade and the slowing of China's rise.
It is striking that the strategy paper focuses on maritime transport. The New Silk Road (Belt and Road Initiative/BRI) initiative from China is not mentioned by name and is only alluded to. Transport by land is more expensive and requires significantly more fixed infrastructure than transport by sea. However with the New Silk Road (Belt and Road Initiative/BRI) China developed extensive alternatives early on. And the strategic failure of not preventing the New Silk Road (Belt and Road Initiative/BRI) or offering an alternative is even acknowledged. [1, p.22 , p.23]

China’s state-led and state-backed companies excel in building physical and digital infrastructure, and China has recycled perhaps 1.3 trillion US-Dollar of its trade surpluses into loans to its trading partners. America and its allies have not yet formulated, much less executed, a joint plan for the so-called “Global South,” but together possess tremendous resources. [1, p.22]
...
There is, rightly, much focus on Taiwan, partly because of Taiwan’s dominance of semiconductor production, but mostly because Taiwan provides direct access to the Second Island Chain and splits Northeast and Southeast Asia into two distinct theaters. [1, p.23]

This development fits into the larger strategy of the United States. The "Pivot to Asia" announced by Barack Obama (D) in November 2011 has already announced that the United States will partially withdraw from Europe. Due to the finite resources and the limited military forces of the United States a partially withdrawal from of the United States military forces out of Europe is inevitable. To ensure the dominance of states in the area of influence of the United States in Europe upgrading these states would be inevitable. Such upgrade could continue to be used as support for future operations of the United States. The previous and planned upgrade is therefore a direct or indirect one against China. [15] [16] [17]

We will build a military capable of denying aggression anywhere in the First Island Chain. But the American military cannot, and should not have to, do this alone. Our allies must step up and spend—and more importantly do—much more for collective defense. [1, p.24]

It is remarkable that the "Pivot to Asia" announced by Barack Obama (D) in 2011 is still being applied today. This continuity also demonstrates the relevance and longevity of strategies. Therefore if this strategy continues to be pursued after 14 years it can be assumed that the new US national security strategy will also remain relevant beyond this presidency.

C. Europe

The US still needs Europe and especially cooperation with its European partners. To this end these countries should focus on current US objectives and abandon old and other pursuits. And that is exactly how it is described in the strategy paper. [1, p.27

Our broad policy for Europe should prioritize:

• Reestablishing conditions of stability within Europe and strategic stability with Russia
• ...
• Cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations
• ...
• Ending the perception, and preventing the reality, of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance
• ...

[1, p.27]

The announcement of Russia's return and the cancellation of further NATO expansion are noteworthy at first glance. This makes sense for the US as its focus is shifting and the resources of the US and its partners are limited. And for this purpose the US intends to cultivate allies similar to its approach in the Americas ("Enlist and Expand"). [1, p.27 1, p.16]

This lack of self-confidence is most evident in Europe’s relationship with Russia. European allies enjoy a significant hard power advantage over Russia by almost every measure, save nuclear weapons.
...
Managing European relations with Russia will require significant U.S. diplomatic engagement, both to reestablish conditions of strategic stability across the Eurasian landmass, and to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states. [1, p.25]

The US is even going so far as to contradict its previous policy and in part, its own strategy paper. While the US did dictate the level of defense spending to its NATO member states in 2014 (2%) and 2025 (5%) in the strategy paper the US states that its European partners have long since surpassed Russia. It thus becomes clear once again that the current arms buildup is not for its own defence but is directed against China in a "Pivot to Asia" strategy. [1, p.20 , p.25] [2] [3]

The Ukraine War has had the perverse effect of increasing Europe’s, especially Germany’s, external dependencies. Today, German chemical companies are building some of the world’s largest processing plants in China, using Russian gas that they cannot obtain at home. [1, p.26]

That the US wants to end the war in Ukraine and its consequences for Europe is therefore only logical. After all it's no secret that the sanctions against Russia are harming Europe and have increased energy prices for Europe. And these increased energy prices have inevitably been passed on to higher prices for goods and services.
However this puts the US at risk of conflicting with its own goal of dominance in the energy sector. Whether and if the US will allow other cheaper energy imports for Europe remains to be seen. [1, p.26 , p.4]

D. Middle East

The Middle East was divided between France and Great Britain in 1916 with the Sykes-Picot Agreement. And in 1945 Saudi King Abdul Aziz and US President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) sealed their special friendship by granting them oil for protection. Meanwhile the US has also extended its influence to the former vassals of France and Great Britain in the Middle East. Of course this is essentially about energy sources and the control over them.

For half a century at least, American foreign policy has prioritized the Middle East above all other regions. The reasons are obvious: the Middle East was for decades the world’s most important supplier of energy, was a prime theater of superpower competition, and was rife with conflict that threatened to spill into the wider world and even to our own shores. [1, p.27]

The US's shift in focus to China ("Pivot to Asia") and its current status as a net exporter of energy resources call into question its presence in the Middle East. Essentially the US's energy sector objective remains the reason for continuing its engagement in the Middle East. To this end the US aims to maintain its influence over geographic territory and freedom of sea. [1, p.24 , p.4 , p.28] [4] [5] [6] [7]

• America will always have core interests in ensuring that Gulf energy supplies do not fall into the hands of an outright enemy
• that the Strait of Hormuz remain open
• that the Red Sea remain navigable
• that the region not be an incubator or exporter of terror against American interests or the American homeland
• and that Israel remain secure

[1, p.28]

The security of Israel as a virtually unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Middle East therefore remains a US objective. The US can be certain of an indispensable presence in the Middle East. And Israel with this unique position can continue to count on US support. Whether Taiwan will ever be willing and able to establish a comparable relationship with the US is not clear from the strategy paper. , p.28]

If there were not an Israel, we’d have to invent one.

Joe Biden (D) [18]

E. Africa

Africa is the second largest continent after Asia in terms of land area and population. Furthermore Africa possesses valuable natural resources including energy sources. However Africa's role for the USA is clearly minor. Not only is Africa mentioned last but it also only receives just half a page.
Here too the US strategy becomes clear. Instead of focusing on an underdeveloped region the focus is concentrated on the developing region especially the rival one. [1, p.29]

For far too long, American policy in Africa has focused on providing, and later on spreading, liberal ideology. The United States should instead look to partner with select countries to ameliorate conflict, foster mutually beneficial trade relationships, and transition from a foreign aid paradigm to an investment and growth paradigm capable of harnessing Africa’s abundant natural resources and latent economic potential. [1, p.29]

And it is also acknowledged that the current policy towards Africa is ineffective. For too long a liberal economic and financial policy has been pursued towards Africa while China with its managed market economy has developed much faster than all other economies. However given the size of Africa in the strategy paper and the current US focus of "Pivot to Asia" a change in US policy towards Africa is questionable. [1, p.29]

[Domestic Policy] New Security Strategy of the USA - One Way Influence 2026-02-12
[Economics] New Security Strategy of the USA - Balanced Trade to Victory 2026-02-14

Src:
[1] National Security Strategy of the United States of America - November 2025
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf
[2] Wales Summit Declaration 2014-09-05
https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/2014/09/05/wales-summit-declaration
[3] Defence expenditures and NATO’s 5% commitment 2025-12-18
https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/defence-expenditures-and-natos-5-commitment
[4] Natural gas exports from the United States in selected years from 1975 to 2024
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241704/us-natural-gas-imports-since-1955/
[5] Total natural gas imports into the United States from 1955 to 2024
https://www.statista.com/statistics/201347/us-natural-gas-imports-since-1955/
[6] Total petroleum exports from the United States in selected years from 1950 to 2024
https://www.statista.com/statistics/191320/total-us-petroleum-exports/
[7] Total petroleum imports to the United States from 2000 to 2024
https://www.statista.com/statistics/191251/total-petroleum-imports-into-the-us/
[8] Trump claims Venezuela’s Maduro is a drug-trafficking threat to the US. Does the data back him up? 2025-09-01
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/01/americas/trump-venezuela-maduro-drug-threat-analysis-intl-latam
[9] What was Honduras ex-president convicted of and why has Trump pardoned him? 2025-12-02
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9qewln7912o
[10] US plans to ‘run’ Venezuela and tap its oil reserves, Trump says, after operation to oust Maduro 2026-01-04
https://apnews.com/article/venezuela-us-explosions-caracas-ca712a67aaefc30b1831f5bf0b50665e
[11] China Bigger Trade Partner Than US in Most of Latin America 2022-06-08
https://www.asiafinancial.com/china-bigger-trade-partner-than-us-in-most-of-latin-america
[12] The IMF reaches a deal with troubled Argentina on a $20 billion bailout 2025-04-09
https://apnews.com/article/argentina-imf-debt-bailout-4eae101f7575dc735df74c9aa0fac2cf
[13] Argentina seals 20 billion US-Dollar IMF deal, tears down currency controls 2025-04-12
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/argentina-eases-fx-controls-major-policy-shift-ahead-imf-deal-2025-04-11/
[14] Trump boosts Argentina's Milei with 20 billion US-Dollar lifeline as US buys pesos 2025-10-10
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/us-purchased-argentine-pesos-after-top-finance-officials-meeting-bessent-says-2025-10-09/
[15] The U.S. Pivot to Asia and American Grand Strategy
https://www.cfr.org/project/us-pivot-asia-and-american-grand-strategy
[16] The American Pivot to Asia 2011-12-21
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-american-pivot-to-asia/
[17] „Pivot to Asia“ und der Bedeutungsverlust Europas aus geostrategischer Perspektive 2020-10-01
https://esut.de/2020/10/fachbeitraege/22400/pivot-to-asia-und-der-bedeutungsverlust-europas-aus-geostrategischer-perspektive/
[18] US President Joe Biden: “If there were not an Israel, we’d have to invent one.” 2022-10-28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HZs-v0PR44