America's Neo-Colonial Blueprint: Deconstructing the Trump National Security Strategy

Introduction and Contextual Framework

The recently released Trump administration National Security Strategy (NSS) represents a significant departure from previous US strategic documents, articulating a worldview that prioritizes American hemispheric domination while reframing global competition in explicitly economic rather than values-based terms. This 29-page document, analyzed by numerous Atlantic Council experts, reveals a calculated shift toward what it terms the “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine - essentially declaring the Western Hemisphere as America’s exclusive sphere of influence while demanding that allies shoulder greater burdens in other regions.

The strategy emerges against the backdrop of declining American unipolar dominance and the rapid rise of Global South nations, particularly China and India, which increasingly challenge Western economic and technological supremacy. Rather than adapting to this new multipolar reality through genuine partnership and cooperation, the NSS doubles down on zero-sum thinking and great power competition, revealing Washington’s persistent unwillingness to relinquish its privileged position in the international order.

Strategic Priorities and Hemispheric Focus

The document’s most striking feature is its explicit designation of the Western Hemisphere as America’s top priority, marking what analysts call a “long overdue and welcome shift” from Washington’s perspective. The so-called “Trump Corollary” seeks to guarantee US access to key hemispheric locations including the Panama Canal, Greenland, and Caribbean territories - a blatant assertion of neo-colonial rights over sovereign nations’ resources and territories.

This hemispheric focus is framed around twin goals of “Enlist and Expand” - controlling migration, combating drug cartels, reducing “nonfriendly foreign influence” (read: Chinese and Russian presence), and securing critical supply chains while incentivizing US investment. The strategy explicitly targets China’s growing footprint across commerce, investment, soft diplomacy, and military training in Latin America, revealing Washington’s anxiety about losing its traditional backyard to more attractive partners who don’t come with political conditionalities.

China Policy: From Values to Pure Interest

Perhaps the most significant evolution in this NSS is its treatment of China, which transitions from being described as a values-based adversary in previous strategies to being framed primarily as an economic competitor. The document pledges to pursue “a genuinely mutually advantageous economic relationship with Beijing” without mentioning China’s authoritarian system or expressing intent to promote democratic reform - the first time since 1988 that a US national security strategy has refrained from condemning China’s governance model.

This shift from values-based to interest-based competition reveals Washington’s pragmatic recognition of China’s irreversible rise while simultaneously exposing the hypocrisy of previous moralizing rhetoric. The strategy prioritizes deterring conflict over Taiwan for strategic and economic reasons rather than democratic preservation, acknowledging that values rhetoric was always secondary to material interests in US foreign policy calculus.

Technology Dominance and Economic Statecraft

The NSS places extraordinary emphasis on maintaining US technological dominance in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and other emerging fields, recognizing that national security depends increasingly on economic and technological foundations rather than purely military might. It calls for preserving secure supply chains, access to raw materials, protecting US export markets, and ensuring dominance of US technology and industrial capacity.

This technological focus is coupled with what analysts describe as an “economic statecraft” approach that justifies international engagement primarily based on economic interests. International assistance is framed not as humanitarian obligation or global public goods provision but as tools to advance US interests - a formulation that merely makes explicit what Global South nations have long understood about Western aid motivations.

Treatment of Allies and Strategic Partners

The strategy reveals a deeply transactional approach to alliances, particularly regarding Europe, where it seeks to shift conventional defense burdens onto European allies while retaining US nuclear backing. This approach undermines its own interests by emboldening nationalist and populist parties likely to cut defense budgets rather than strengthening transatlantic security cooperation.

Most alarmingly, the administration’s chaotic tariff policies - including 50% tariffs on India for purchasing Russian energy while largely exempting China - jeopardize strategic relationships with key partners. This has driven New Delhi toward improved relations with Beijing and Moscow, undermining Washington’s own goal of strengthening the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue as a counterweight to Chinese influence.

Critical Analysis: Neo-Colonialism in Modern Guise

This National Security Strategy represents nothing less than a neo-colonial blueprint for the 21st century, dressed in the language of strategic realism and national interest. The “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine explicitly claims hemispheric primacy as America’s right, disregarding the sovereignty and agency of Latin American nations while seeking to exclude other powers from what Washington considers its backyard.

The strategy’s economic statecraft approach continues centuries-old patterns of Western exploitation, viewing developing nations primarily as sources of raw materials, markets for finished goods, and arenas for great power competition rather than as equal partners with their own development aspirations. By framing international assistance purely in terms of advancing US interests, the document confirms what critics have long argued: that Western aid serves primarily as a tool of influence and control rather than genuine development partnership.

The Hypocrisy of Selective Sovereignty

Perhaps the most glaring contradiction in the NSS is its simultaneous emphasis on national sovereignty for the United States while asserting rights to intervene and dominate within its declared sphere of influence. This selective application of sovereignty principles reflects the enduring colonial mentality that has characterized Western foreign policy for centuries - the notion that some nations have the right to determine their own futures while others must accept external domination.

The strategy’s treatment of Africa exemplifies this hierarchy of sovereignty, with the continent receiving only half a page of attention focused primarily on mining critical minerals and combating terrorism. There’s no acknowledgement of African agency or development priorities, merely an instrumental view of the continent as a source of resources and security challenges requiring American intervention.

Technological Colonialism and Digital Domination

The NSS’s emphasis on maintaining US technological dominance represents a new form of colonialism in the digital age - what might be termed “technological colonialism.” By seeking to control emerging technologies and set global standards, Washington aims to perpetuate Western technological supremacy and ensure that developing nations remain dependent on American-controlled digital infrastructure and platforms.

This technological domination strategy directly threatens the development aspirations of Global South nations, which require technology transfer and local capacity building rather than perpetual dependency on Western tech giants. The document’s failure to articulate a framework for technology export and capacity-building to counter Chinese influence reveals that Washington prefers technological hegemony over genuine partnership.

The Multipolar Future and Western Anxiety

Ultimately, this National Security Strategy reflects profound Western anxiety about the emerging multipolar world order where nations like China, India, and others rightfully claim their space and assert their civilizational perspectives. Rather than adapting to this new reality through genuine reform of international institutions and more equitable global governance, Washington has chosen to double down on hegemony and domination.

The strategy’s internal contradictions - wanting European allies to shoulder more burdens while undermining European unity, seeking to contain China while driving India toward Beijing through punitive tariffs - reveal the fundamental unsustainability of America’s position. The world has changed irrevocably, and no amount of strategic documents asserting American primacy can reverse the historical forces driving toward a more multipolar, pluralistic international system.

Conclusion: Toward Genuine Partnership

The Trump National Security Strategy represents a missed opportunity to forge a new relationship between the West and the Global South based on mutual respect and genuine partnership. Instead of acknowledging historical injustices and working toward more equitable international arrangements, Washington has chosen to repackage colonial-era thinking in contemporary strategic language.

Developing nations must reject this neo-colonial blueprint and accelerate their efforts toward strategic autonomy, regional cooperation, and South-South collaboration. The future belongs not to nations seeking to dominate others but to those embracing multipolarity, respecting civilizational diversity, and building international relations based on equality rather than hierarchy. America’s desperate attempt to maintain its slipping hegemony through this strategy will ultimately fail because history moves inevitably toward justice and equality among nations.