Letters from an American - December 5, 2025
Late last night, the Trump administration released the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) of the United States of America
It's surprisingly straightforward: the United States of America will withdraw from all international engagements.
Oh, and... Russia is not an enemy.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Trump administration's NSS announces a dramatic reworking of the foreign policy the U.S. has embraced since World War II.
After a brief introduction touting what it claims are the administration's great successes, the document begins by announcing the U.S. will back away from the global engagements that underpin the rules-based international order that the World War II Allies put in place after that war to prevent another world war. The authors of the document claim that the system of institutions like the United Nations, alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and free trade between nations that established a series of rules for foreign engagement and a web of shared interests around the globe has been bad for the U.S. because it undermined "the character of our nation."
Their vision of "our country's inherent greatness and decency," requires "the restoration and reinvigoration of American spiritual and cultural health," "an America that cherishes its past glories and its heroes, and that looks forward to a new golden age," and "growing numbers of strong, traditional families that raise healthy children."
Observers referred to the document as National Security Council Report (NSC) 88 and noted that it could have been written in just 14 words. White supremacists use 88 to refer to Adolf Hitler and "fourteen words" to refer to a popular white supremacist slogan.
To achieve their white supremacist country, the document's authors insist they will not permit "transnational and international organizations [or] foreign powers or entities" to undermine U.S. sovereignty. To that end, they reject immigration as well as "the disastrous 'climate change' and 'Net Zero' ideologies that have so greatly harmed Europe, threatened the United States, and subsidize our adversaries."
The document reorients the U.S. away from traditional European allies toward Russia. The authors reject Europe's current course, suggesting that Europe is in danger of "civilizational erasure" and calling for the U.S. to "help Europe correct its current trajectory" by "restoring Europe's civilizational self-confidence and Western identity." Allowing continued migration will render Europe "unrecognizable" within twenty years, the authors say, and they back away from NATO by suggesting that as they become more multicultural, Europe's societies might have a different relationship to NATO than "those who signed the NATO charter."
In contrast to their complaints about the liberal democracies in Europe, the document's authors do not suggest that Russia is a country of concern to the U.S., a dramatic change from past NSS documents. Instead, they complain that "European officials…hold unrealistic expectations" for an end to Russia's war against Ukraine, and that European governments are suppressing far-right political parties. They bow to Russian demands by calling for "[e]nding the perception, and preventing the reality, of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance."
In place of the post-World War II rules-based international order, the Trump administration's NSS commits the U.S. to a world divided into spheres of interest by dominant countries. It calls for the U.S. to dominate the Western Hemisphere through what it calls "commercial diplomacy," using "tariffs and reciprocal trade agreements as powerful tools" and discouraging Latin American nations from working with other nations. "The United States must be preeminent in the Western Hemisphere as a condition of our security and prosperity," it says, "a condition that allows us to assert ourselves confidently where and when we need to in the region."
The document calls for "closer collaboration between the U.S. Government and the American private sector. All our embassies must be aware of major business opportunities in their country, especially major government contracts. Every U.S. Government official that interacts with these countries should understand that part of their job is to help American companies compete and succeed."
It went on to make clear that this policy is a plan to help U.S. businesses take over Latin America and, perhaps, Canada. "The U.S. Government will identify strategic acquisition and investment opportunities for American companies in the region and present these opportunities for assessment by every U.S. Government financing program," it said, "including but not limited to those within the Departments of State, War, and Energy; the Small Business Administration; the International Development Finance Corporation; the Export-Import Bank; and the Millennium Challenge Corporation." Should countries oppose such U.S. initiatives, it said, "[t]he United States must also resist and reverse measures such as targeted taxation, unfair regulation, and expropriation that disadvantage U.S. businesses."
The document calls this policy a "Trump Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine, linking this dramatic reworking to America's past to make it sound as if it is historical, when it is anything but.
President James Monroe outlined what became known as the Monroe Doctrine in three paragraphs in his annual message to Congress on December 2, 1823. The concept was an attempt for the new American nation to position itself in a changing world.
In the early nineteenth century, Spain's empire in America was crumbling, and beginning in 1810, Latin American countries began to seize their independence. In just two years from 1821 to 1822, ten nations broke from the Spanish empire. Spain had restricted trade with its American colonies, and the U.S. wanted to trade with these new nations. But Monroe and his advisors worried that the new nations would fall prey to other European colonial powers, severing new trade ties with the U.S. and orienting the new nations back toward Europe.
So in his 1823 annual message, Monroe warned that "the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers." American republics would not tolerate European monarchies and their system of colonization, he wrote. Americans would "consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety." It is "the true policy of the United States to leave the [new Latin American republics] to themselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course," Monroe wrote.
In fact, with very little naval power, there wasn't much the U.S. could do to enforce this edict until after the Civil War, when the U.S. turned its attention southward. In the late nineteenth century, U.S. corporations joined those from European countries to invest in Latin American countries. By the turn of the century, when it looked as if those countries might default on their debts, European creditors threatened armed intervention to collect.
After British, German, and Italian gunboats blockaded the ports of Venezuela in 1902, and President Theodore Roosevelt sent Marines to the Dominican Republic to manage that nation's debt, the president announced the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. On December 6, 1904, he noted with regret that "[t]here is as yet no judicial way of enforcing a right in international law. When one nation wrongs another or wrongs many others, there is no tribunal before which the wrongdoer can be brought." If countries allowed the wrong, he wrote, they "put a premium upon brutality and aggression."
"Until some method is devised by which there shall be a degree of international control over offending nations," he wrote, "powers…with most sense of international obligations and with keenest and most generous appreciation of the difference between right and wrong" must "serve the purposes of international police." Such a role meant protecting Latin American nations from foreign military intervention; it also meant imposing U.S. force on nations whose "inability or unwillingness to do justice at home and abroad had violated the rights of the United States or had invited foreign aggression to the detriment of the entire body of American nations."
Couched as a form of protection, the Roosevelt Corollary justified U.S. military intervention in Latin American countries, but it still recognized those nations' right to independence.
Now Trump has added his own "Trump Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine, promising not to protect Latin American countries from foreign intrusion but to "reward and encourage the region's governments, political parties, and movements broadly aligned with our principles and strategy." In a speech in January, Secretary of State Marco Rubio noted that the administration is "more than willing to use America's considerable leverage to protect our interests."
The administration says it will promote "tolerable stability in the region" by turning the U.S. military away from its European commitments and focusing instead on Latin America, where it will abandon the "failed law enforcement-only strategy of the last several decades" and instead use lethal force when necessary to secure the U.S. border and defeat drug cartels. Then, it says, the U.S. will extract resources from the region. "The Western Hemisphere is home to many strategic resources that America should partner with regional allies to develop," the plan says, "to make neighboring countries as well as our own more prosperous."
Walking away from the U.S.-led international systems that reinforce the principles of national self-determination and have kept the world relatively safe since World War II, the Trump administration is embracing the old idea of spheres of influence in which less powerful countries are controlled by great powers, a system in place before World War II and favored now by Russia's president Vladimir Putin, among others.
National security specialist Anne Applebaum wrote: "The new National Security Strategy is a propaganda document, designed to be widely read. It is also a performative suicide. Hard to think of another great power ever abdicating its influence so quickly and so publicly."
European Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Ulrike Franke commented: "The transatlantic relationship as we know it is over. Yes, we kinda knew this. But this is now official US White House policy. Not a speech, not a statement. The West as it used to be no longer exists."
Today, Gram Slattery and Humeyra Pamuk of Reuters reported that Pentagon officials this week told European diplomats in Washington, D.C., that the U.S. wants Europe to take over most of NATO's defense capabilities by 2027.
Whatever
Tags
Who is online
71 visitors
All those "non" Trump supporters who felt Trump was not the threat he had already proven he most certainly was, can knot untie themselves to the enablement their action, or inactions, most certainly have produced. From leader of the free world, to spinner of the truth, unfurled, cause this has VERY serious whirled implications, about our, definite ignorant nation, and this should cause N E N All, to take a fore pause, asze we all have skin inn this game
Without a doubt!
In its place is a bad joke. A weakened and demoralized America abandoning its friends and democracy so it can embrace its old enemies and authoritarianism all in the name of rightwing conservative Christo-fascism brought to us by scared weak white narcissistic conservative Christians caught up in their own little fantasy world where they believe themselves the chosen people of some fictional deity. And when they're at home or at Church doing their weekly LARPing that's fine, they can believe what they want just like the D&D LARPer's. But when they try and force all of us to go along with their fantasy, we need to stand up and vote these religious cosplayers out of office.
That's harsh. And exact....
Wow
just FCKN WOW !
She's on Substack. I just suscribed.
I'm familiar with her. She's damn smart. This is serious shit that can affect US ALL.
Sorry GOP and any Trump supporter or enabler. You OWN THIS shit
Why is this a bad thing?
if you must ask why, sorry, but you're not even worthy of a reply.
I can provide several reasons why this shift in the National Security Strategy is a good thing:
So that's five reasons why the shift in the NSS is a good thing. So, why is this shift a bad thing? And who is it bad for?
I pull this line out of your comment, because Russia is attempting to 'annex' more land which belongs to an independent nation already: Ukraine. Even seems to be testing the 'resolve' and 'development' of other European nations.
While I can agree with the sentiments that we are not this or that for the world indefinitely (not all traditions should be kept in place, it is important to look at the state of 'play' in the world before undermining, unlocking, and/or removing tangible (political) safeguards. Which would demonstrate an attitude of "covering our feet while undercovering our head or vice-versus.
This expediency to try to turn this country 'up' during one man's administration by moving with haste, can have lead to catastrophe actions by nations that have been biding their time to 'act' against their neighbors—even newly minted aims and ambitious personages can flood the world's stage when they sense an 'opening' in the world's defenses. . . and weakening resolve.
The War in Donbas was a civil war in Ukraine -- on Russia's border. The War in Donbas forced about 1.5 million Ukrainians to flee to Russia. Perhaps more. Ending the war in Ukraine requires a peace deal with Russia and a peace deal with Ukrainians in Donbas.
Why is that our fight? Russia decided to ally with Ukrainian separatists. Why is that our fight? Ukraine was allowing Russian gas to flow through Ukrainian pipelines during the war. Why is that our fight? Russia is testing Europe's willingness to defend Ukraine with troops on the ground. Why is that our fight?
How does fighting a war with Russia in Ukraine address the national security risks of dependence on imports? How does fighting Russia prepare the United States for an economic competition with Pacific Rim countries? Worrying about our head and feet may mean we lose our asses.
One man's second administration. What's happening is a continuation of policies from the first administration pursued more aggressively. The intervening administration allowed the world to backslide into complacency. The intervening administration was not preparing the United States for the shifts in geopolitics and global competition.
Okay. Europe is a potential tinder box with NATO countries (connected to us). . we 'used' to care about that because as goes Europe goes the U.S. 'following after.'
This article puts 'all that' into question. It will be interesting to see just how long the citizens of this country will tolerate the power grabs of this one man and his 'forces.' After all, Trump is now deciding whom our international friends will be for us. . .
"Worrying about our head and feet may mean we lose our asses." Well now, that simply ignores the point of my sentence.
We know for certain that Trump is done Jan. 20, 2029. Trump is already a lame duck and is bleeding support from the retail political establishment. The only thing Trump has going for him now is Democrats refuse to offer alternatives.
The point of your sentence ignored the changed reality that emerged during Obama's time in office. Military threats became less effective and retaining allies became more expensive. Obama recognized that the United States was unable to economically compete with the Pacific Rim countries and tried to keep the United States in the game with another multi-lateral trade agreement called the Trans Pacific Partnership. Obama set up the United States to carry Pacific Rim parasites along with European parasites. Obama tried to sell our asses down the river.
If Obama's globalism was so wonderful then why didn't the United States do something to address the conflicts among African nations? How many genocides have taken place on the African continent since Ronald Reagan took office? The United States didn't feel the need to become involved. So, the humanitarian bullshit being spewed by the left wing seems rather hypocritical.
Obama. . . WHAT?! Not the topic. (In fact, "Obama" is mentioned 6 times in this article. . .five of the references being in your comment 3.1.5.) Please, return to the topci.
Wasn't President Barack Obama the predecessor to President Donald Trump? The topic is the shift in policy from that of President Obama to that of President Trump. I don't believe it is possible to talk about Trump's changes to foreign and domestic policies while ignoring Obama.
But if you want to limit discussion to your favorite asshole to complain about, okay by me. Trump entered office in 2017 with no domestic or foreign policy in place. So, Trump had to create policy on the fly to fill that vacuum. (Don't cite anything from past Presidents, including Obama, to refute that since Obama is not the topic.)
I see nothing to comment on in 3.1.7. It seems to be two paragraphs which can stand alone without further comment. As to the article itself: it is about what Trump is doing in his second-term (2025) right now!
Anyone who harbors any lingering doubts about the Trumpist regime's goal of the complete destruction of the American way of life is either ignorant or naive, or both. On the other hand, there are those who willingly subscribe to the Trumpist regime's evil ideology. They are the enemy within.
HE, and they, are
Trump wants to make Russian and American oligarchs interchangeable and indistinguishable from each other.
and he is well on his way
If this article is accurate, this is insanity.
But we have been headed in this direction ever since the white nationalists took over the Republican Party.
Yes, yes it very much is.
Ah yes,, those white nationalists who won elections by swapping elite whites for minorities.
We are all waiting with baited breath to see and read some of your vast amounts of links/information confirming that the Repubs are now the "white nationalist" party.
Don't disappoint us - as usual.
This has the stank of Russell Vought all over it.
But, but Trump never heard of project 2025
I had to look back to the top of the page to make sure this wasn't satire. What I now see is that Trump intends to outdo not just the Roman Empire, but to create the Fourth Reich, Hitler's dream. Well, maybe that's not such a surprise considering his ancestry. Don't we all see it? No birthright citizenship but absolute purity of ancestry, a "Gestapo" cleaning the immigrants (the Jews of today?) from the nation, persecution of critics and opponents, a SCotUS that promotes Trump to be above the law, quashes personal rights of women, i.e. a court that a reincarnation of the Nurenberg trials needs to deal with, the requirement that all nations kowtow to the new Fuhrer. It's not just God Help America, it's God Help the Rest of the World as Well as America.
I wouldn't count USA ll out just yet ....
[✘]
[✘]
What a reach - Heinlein or Clarke or Bradbury or Asimov help you with your information?
Amazing no link to the actual document was included, just links to out of context phrases. Given the author's history of lying for partisan purposes, that's no real surprise. Dollars to donuts no one freaking out about it actually read it, because there's very little any realist could object to.
2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf
yea, ok
Like he said.......a rrealist
It is the first link on her substack page, along with all the other material that she quoted or mentioned.
www.kenklippenstein.com /p/leak-fbi-list-of-extremists-is-coming
FBI Making List of American “Extremists,” Leaked Memo Reveals
Ken Klippenstein 4-5 minutes 12/6/2025
Attorney General Pam Bondi is ordering the FBI to “compile a list of groups or entities engaging in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism,” according to a Justice Department memo published here exclusively.
The target is those expressing “opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology,” as well as “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” and “anti-Christianity.”
That language echoes the so-called indicators of terrorism identified by President Trump’s directive National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 , or NSPM-7, which the memo says it’s intended to implement. Where NSPM-7 was a declaration of war on just about anyone who isn’t MAGA, this is the war plan for how the government will wage it on a tactical level.
In addition to compiling a list of undesirables, Bondi directs the FBI to enhance the capabilities (and publicity) of its tipline in order to more aggressively solicit tips from the American public on, well, other Americans. To that end, Bondi also directs the FBI to establish “a cash reward system” for information leading to identification and arrest of leadership figures within these purported domestic terrorist organizations. (The memo later instructs the FBI to “establish cooperators to provide information and eventually testify against other members” of the groups.)
The payouts don’t end there. Justice Department grants are now to prioritize funding to programs for state and local law enforcement to go after domestic terrorism.
In a section titled “Defining the domestic terrorism threat,” the memo cites “extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment” — indicators that federal law enforcement are instructed to refer to FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs). Those JTTFs are then instructed to “use all available investigative tools” in order to “map the full network of culpable actors involved” in both “inside and outside the United States.”
The memo also directs the FBI and JTTFs to retroactively investigate incidents going back five years, authorizing the JTTFs in particular to use everything at their disposal to do so.
“Upon receipt of these referrals, the JTTFs shall use all available investigative tools, consistent with law enforcement internal policies and statutory obligations, to map the full network of culpable actors involved in the referred conduct inside and outside the United States,” the memo says.
For months, major media outlets have largely blown off the story of NSPM-7, thinking it was all just Trump bluster and too crazy to be serious. But a memo like this one shows you that the administration is absolutely taking this seriously — even if the media are not — and is actively working to operationalize NSPM-7.
NSPM-7 was signed in September largely in response to the murder of Charlie Kirk, which was a 9/11-type event for the Trump administration, as I’ve reported . (Kirk’s assassination is referenced explicitly in the Justice Department memo.) As anyone who lived through 9/11 can remember, the government doesn’t always think rationally in moments like those, to say the least. And so here we are, with a new War on Terrorism — only this time, millions of Americans like you and I could be the target.
I don't doubt that many of US Are already.
It sounds like a police state.
Really ? If Trump continues to use the DOJ to pursue his perceived enemies as he has already done, how can you continue to believe, "It's not allowed here."?
Then take a look at Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel, and any poor journalist that asks the wrong question to a supersensitive Trump, who calls them stupid or a piggy
Bingo.
You are free to write what you ever want about Trump or the DOJ and make fun of them in any way you want.
[✘] k at Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel,
Two guys who are paid millions of dollars to host unprofitable shows that do nothing but mock the President? In what other "authoritarian" countries does that happen? That progressives use that as their best example of how oppressed says all that needs to be said.
For how much longer is one free with a child wanna be king in our Walmart Whitehouse with the gold fringe, and one who sure appears to be, on the fringe. He is a sick fck. No way should this man child be in power over so much, cause he has slipped his clutch...
This is relevant to the document's pov on Europe and a lot of people's attitude towards free speech, [ ✘ ] The support for the banning of anything critical as "hate speech" while still claiming to support freedom of thought and expression is rampant.
The world is changing rapidly and it's a mistake to think the Europe of 2050 is going to resemble the Europe of 2000.
We were warned. . . . we talked about this. . . .now hopefully the 'horse' will drink the water. . . .
How this country plans to operate with a high percentage of its citizens suppressed. . . is beyond me. Here we go. . . .
I think about 33% of the horses prefer Kool-aid....