How did Donald Trump use national security powers during his second term?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Donald Trump’s second-term use of national-security powers centered on a new 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) that reoriented U.S. priorities toward a hemispheric focus, economic nationalism, and an expanded view of presidential authority; the NSS explicitly asserts a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine and calls for increased U.S. military presence in the Western Hemisphere [1] [2]. Analysts across think tanks and media describe the document as a break with past strategies — emphasizing “America First,” industrial mobilization, and stronger deterrence while downplaying democracy promotion and the old rules-based order [3] [4] [5].
1. A declarative shift: the 2025 NSS as the vehicle of power
The central instrument for Trump’s national-security agenda in his second term is the 2025 National Security Strategy, a 29-page White House document that redefines U.S. priorities around a “focused definition of the national interest,” homeland strength, and a transactional foreign policy; the strategy frames these aims as the rationale for sweeping uses of executive tools across diplomacy, defense, trade, and domestic mobilization [1] [3]. Commentators say the NSS reads less like a traditional security blueprint and more like a manifesto for a different American project, linking domestic industrial policy directly to security and elevating economic levers as national-security tools [6] [4].
2. The Western Hemisphere and the “Trump Corollary”
A signature concrete policy in the NSS is an explicit push to expand U.S. military and law-enforcement posture in the Western Hemisphere to counter migration, drugs, and adversarial influence — labeled in the strategy as a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine [2] [1]. Reporting and analysis underscore that this is both a declarative claim of regional primacy and a justification for shifting assets and diplomatic focus closer to the Americas, including demands for allied burden‑sharing and new basing or presence concepts [2] [6].
3. Economic nationalism as a security portfolio
Trump’s second-term approach treats industrial policy, tariffs, and reshoring as central national-security instruments: the NSS calls for reinvigorating manufacturing, securing supply chains for critical technologies (AI, biotech, quantum), and using trade policy as a function of defense preparedness [1] [6]. Analysts warn this conflation of economics and security underpins executive actions — such as tariffs and industrial mobilization directives — that expand the president’s practical reach into private sector decisions [7] [6].
4. Military posture, deterrence, and “Golden Dome” ambitions
The NSS asserts U.S. goals of “military dominance” and modernizing deterrence, including next-generation missile defenses (described by some as a “Golden Dome”), and calls for allied burden-sharing at higher levels; supporters say this restores deterrence, critics argue it risks destabilizing nuclear logic and provoking rivals [5] [4]. The document’s emphasis on overmatch and homeland defenses provides administrative cover for expanded defense procurement and posture shifts that the White House is already pursuing [5] [6].
5. A softer rhetorical posture toward autocrats, harder line on Europe
The strategy downplays the traditional emphasis on advancing democratic norms and the “rules-based order,” favoring transactional ties and tolerating coexistence with other great powers so long as U.S. commercial and strategic interests are preserved; reviewers note a distinct willingness to “tread gently” with autocratic powers while sharpening criticisms of European partners and demanding they “regain civilizational confidence” [8] [9] [10]. Critics across Chatham House, Brookings, and other outlets view this as a deliberate reprioritization that can be read as political messaging as much as strategic planning [11] [8].
6. Legal and institutional implications: executive power expanded, contested
Multiple analysts flag that implementing the NSS depends on an expansive executive interpretation of national-security authority that is already producing litigation and institutional friction; one analysis argues that the strategy’s reliance on executive action “is currently being contested in the federal courts,” and that the approach tests the balance between presidential prerogative and congressional or judicial restraints [7]. Think tanks caution that ambitious aims for “national mobilization” and domestic policy levers will collide with legal, budgetary, and alliance constraints [12] [7].
7. Competing judgments: order-restorer or strategic gamble?
Supportive outlets present the NSS as a necessary correction to overreach and a pragmatic alignment of means with ends, stressing reinvestment in deterrence and domestic strength [13] [14]. Critics, including Brookings, War on the Rocks, and Stimson, describe it as a destabilizing pivot that undermines international law, risks nuclear brinkmanship, and substitutes civilizational nationalism for sustainable strategy [11] [4] [12]. Both camps agree the document represents a decisive use of national-security powers to reshape U.S. policy; they disagree sharply on its wisdom and legality [5] [4].
Limitations: available sources focus on the 2025 National Security Strategy and contemporaneous analysis; specific executive orders, operations beyond those mentioned in the NSS, and court cases implementing the strategy are not detailed in the provided reporting (not found in current reporting).