The release of the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) on December 4 marks a pivotal moment in international relations. According to a scathing new analysis by Timothy Hopper for Foreign Policy in Focus, the document is less a strategic roadmap than a “farewell statement” to the post-Cold War order. By explicitly questioning the value of the American-led institutional architecture—from free trade to permanent alliances—the United States is voluntarily abdicating the role of global hegemon it has held for eight decades.
This shift is not merely a change in administration policy; it is a structural dismantling of the mechanisms that sustained U.S. primacy. Hopper argues that the strategy is defined by a fundamental contradiction: Washington continues to desire the benefits of global influence but is no longer willing to bear the political, institutional, or financial costs required to maintain it.
The End of Institutional Strategy
The most striking feature of the 2025 NSS is its rejection of “grand strategy” in favor of personalism. The document casts the presidency not as the steward of an enduring system, but as a singular vehicle for deal-making and peace-brokering. This “personalization of power” erodes the credibility of U.S. commitments, as long-term allies realize that security guarantees now depend on the temperament of the occupant of the White House rather than binding treaties.
By condemning “transnationalism” and the rules-based order, the strategy discards the very tools that allowed the U.S. to exercise power legitimately and affordably. Hopper notes that these institutions never constrained American sovereignty; they amplified it.1 Abandoning them forces the U.S. to rely on raw coercion and short-term transactions—a hallmark of hegemonic decline.
Incoherent Great Power Competition
The strategy’s approach to great power rivals is marked by deep confusion.
- China: The document attempts to thread an impossible needle, reducing the Chinese challenge to economic risks and calling for “mutually beneficial relations,” while simultaneously pursuing technological containment. Hopper argues these paths are irreconcilable: China is either a systemic rival or an economic partner; attempting to treat it as both is a “postponement of decision.”2
- Russia: The NSS calls for “strategic stability” with Moscow and advocates limiting NATO expansion, yet fails to explain why such concessions are warranted for a power that initiated an unprovoked war. This ambiguity leaves European allies with the distinct impression of an American retreat.
Hollow Alliances and Burden-Shifting
Perhaps the most damaging element of the 2025 NSS is its treatment of alliances. The document demands that NATO members increase defense spending to 5% of GDP—a figure Hopper describes as “political extortion” rather than genuine burden-sharing.3 By framing security as a conditional reward for financial compliance and ideological alignment, the strategy hollows out the trust essential for collective defense.
Furthermore, the document adopts a hostile ideological posture toward traditional allies, branding Europe as a symbol of “civilizational decline” and censorship.4 This suggests that future cooperation will be contingent on European governments aligning with American conservative social values, injecting unpredictability into the transatlantic partnership.
Conclusion: A World Without a Architect
The 2025 National Security Strategy signals the U.S. retreat into a regional posture, characterized by a revived “Monroe Doctrine” in the Western Hemisphere and disengagement from the Middle East and Ukraine.5 For regional powers, this creates a vacuum that necessitates “strategic autonomy.”
Hopper concludes that the liberal international order is unraveling not because of external challenges from rivals like China, but due to the “disillusionment of its own architect.”6 The central danger of the coming era is not the rise of a new hegemon, but the chaos of a transition to multipolarity managed by an America that has lost interest in the world it built.
Original analysis inspired by Timothy Hopper from Foreign Policy in Focus.
