The 2025 US NSS is a Contradiction in Terms
By: COL Dencio S Acop (Ret), PhD, CPP | Published: December 24, 2025
Reading Time: 6 minutes
PERTH, AUSTRALIA — Contradictions! That’s what the 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy document illustrates. While the Trump administration makes itself look like a champion for peace, its actions in the Caribbean reveal it as a bully.
While it was on the side of Ukraine earlier on, now it appears to be on the side of Russia if that most recent peace proposal from it is to be assessed.
While the US supports the international rule of law in the South China Sea, its unilateral executive action in waging war against Venezuela and supporting Russia over Ukraine is a clear violation of those principles and the just war theory.
While the Philippines is a critical ally in the Asia-Pacific region, it is not even mentioned in the NSS document. While Trump has been sidelining NATO allies, “NATO” is mentioned forty-eight times in the document.
While America tries to sustain leadership of what’s left of the global order it once led, US actions in the current administration betrays a declining power which now seems comfortable with co-existing spheres of regional influence relative to China and Russia.
While the NSS is supposed to be about security, it appears to be more about business. While Trump and Hegseth rely on their military leaders to do the dirty work, they have both treated these seasoned warriors with no respect. While foreign policy initiatives are supposed to be undertaken to benefit the domestic stakeholders, American immigrants have been treated as the enemy within. (Also read: The price of doing business with Trump’s America)
While advancing the interests of an egalitarian society is supposed to be the goal of political power, having a self-promoting billionaire for a leader neglects the fundamental interests of the vulnerable segments of the American population. And this ironic situation has persisted historically and is not limited to America alone.
Subscribe to the API Newsletter
Bite-sized updates sent straight to your inbox.
Success!
First Name
Last Name
By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
I think the greatness of America has always been its commitment to moral order, the international rule of law, and the championing of democracy. These hallmarks of American greatness have been gradually eroding under the Trump administration. While the electoral colleges came up with Trump to lead America, the actions of the elected leader have done more harm than good. While some of these actions may have satisfied certain factions of the population, they have done little for the common good. And if immigrants are seen as the enemy, the reason why immigrants flock to America should be a clue.
Foreigners want to become Americans or residents because America has developed itself to be the bastion of the best governance in the world. People have left what’s most valuable to them for America because they wanted a better quality of life. America is founded on the backs of immigrants, and this has been its undisputed strength. To target immigrants, therefore, is a repudiation of what has made America great – its people.
Behaving like the leaders of aggressor nations no longer identifies America as the “good guy” but rather the “bad guy” too same as those who’ve invaded other countries, forcibly occupied disputed territories, and ruthlessly killed innocent civilians. The international rule of law allowing freedom of navigation is what justifies the US Navy as well as the ships of other nations when they pass through international waters in the South China Sea despite China’s Nine Dash Line. Adherence to the rule of law in the Indo-Pacific but not in the Caribbean is inconsistent. Such inconsistency will eventually be used by competitors against the United States if they haven’t already.
Trump is a democratic leader but is acting like an authoritarian. How the US leader is allowed to muscle his way through America’s “hard” institutions boggles the mind, honestly. But, if these are signs of the times that the US in the 21st Century is foregoing democratic principles for political expediency, then it is abandoning a political system that has made America great. Instead of championing the moral order it once led, along with the rule of law, and preferring idealist options than realist ones in international relations, Donald Trump has been acting like Trump’s loyal servant first and serving the American people second.
Finally, the characters of national leaders dictate the cultures nations become stuck with. A fundamental principle I like to point out is the fact that having elitist leaders is likely to tilt the priorities of governance toward the “haves” but ignore the “have-nots” in their societies.
If we take a scan of political leaders, especially the big powers, we find that Trump is of course a billionaire, Vladimir Putin is the richest person in Russia, Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party lord it over the Chinese people. Even Marcos Jr. in the Philippines has always been a member of the domestic elite.
In our recent podcast at API, I assessed that the Philippines’ refusal to purchase US F-16s resulted in it not even mentioned in the 2025 US NSS. It is not without its merit for the Americans who must have rationalized that the highly publicized massive corruption in the country can be afforded by the Philippine government, but it cannot even invest in highly critical defense systems for the good of its national security.
In a functional government, there is always a symbiotic relationship between foreign policy choices and prioritized domestic concerns. Democratic governments are more sensitive to the pulse of their constituents and are more pacifist in their approach to conflict resolution. Authoritarian ones are not.
However, foreign policy decisions are often justified by national leaders toward satisfying the critical needs of the populace. Wars, except for defensive ones, are not a favored policy option for democracies (democratic peace).
I have to say that the world was relatively a peaceful place until Russia decided to invade Ukraine. There was a world order characterized by globalized economic trade. The mutual economic satisfaction of countries’ needs made wars unnecessary as they are undesirable. Wars treat people as collateral damage. But it has unmistakably revealed the character of Vladimir Putin. Israel justifies its long-range bombings killing even civilians as a necessary evil and it is illustrative of leaders like Benjamin Netanyahu. China hasn’t invaded Taiwan yet (Will it?) but the bullying and controlled attacks on Filipino fishermen reflect Xi Jinping.
Now, Trump is attacking Venezuela. While their domestic populations abhor wars, it is authoritarian leaders who seem not to think twice about fomenting them as if that genie can easily be put back in the bottle. (Also read: Understanding the Current Threats, De-escalations, and National Interests In-Between)
While we expect conventional wars to continue given these, the specter of nuclear war cannot be dismissed. These nuclear arsenals are now being treated by political leaders as just political bargaining chips to achieve their goals. The stockpiling of these deadly weapons is pursued as if they are trophies to brandish around for exacting political concessions. But the dangers lie in smaller actors who might push the switch.
Some of the wars that we know from history have been ignited by such incidents, like the American Civil War, Philippine-American War, etc. And they have also been pursued by charismatic leaders driven by personal and radical passions than sound decision-making in favor of peace. In this category, leaders like Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, easily come to mind. What do we see in the current leaders of today? Shall history again repeat itself?
The post The 2025 US NSS is a Contradiction in Terms appeared first on asiapacificinsights.com.