The United States Changes It's Foreign Policy

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre the United States federal governmen has conducted a foreign policy most accurately described as unipolar in structure. In 2001 the United States was the world's only superpower. It had attained this status with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Spurned on by the savage attacks which transpired on September 11, 2001, members of (President) George W. Bush administration decided that it was in the interests of the United States government, and it's citizens, to maintain the unipolar hegemony no matter the cost. Therefore all agencies of the federal government having anything to do with foreign policy, intelligence and security, diplomacy, military, economic, to name a few, were to focus their efforts on preserving the unipolar status of America.

Following this direction the Bush administration engaged in two wars, one in Afghanistan, the other in Iraq. As well there were countless military strikes against forces not at war with the United States. An example of this fact was America's air strikes in Syria and other Middle Eastern and African countries.

Meanwhile a number of questionable economic actions were taken. Communist China was given most favoured (trade) nation status, allowing that nation's businesses unfettered access to U,S, markets. Other (managed) trade deals hollowed out America's manufacturing industry even further.

These policies were not changed under the political rule of Barrack O Bama (2009-2017). United States government actions continued a hegemonic behaviour, recognizing other nations interests only when it was convenient to do. An infamous instance was the ill advised involvement in the Libyan civil war. As a result of this intervention Libya was torn asunder, the United States gained no material or diplomatic benefit from their meddling, while the peoples of Northern Africa and Western Asia could suddenly migrate free of hinderance to Europe in massive numbers, which they proceeded to do.

At the same time the United States Federal Reserve, in order to preserve the international financial order, embarked on a massive money (not wealth) producing course of action. Quantative Easing, as it was politely called, resulted in impoverishing large numbers of American citizens while enriching a very few. Particularly egregious was the bailing out of major banks and corporations. This was done to keep the nation atop the globes financial hierarchy.

During the first Donald Trump administration (2017-2021) the unorthodox President made all kinds of noises about changing U.S. policy direction, such as having less involvement in other nations affairs, and even withdrawing from previous committments (such as NATO). Ultimately it was all talk. There was no withdrawal from military conflict, and while no new wars were started, old ones were conducted vigorously. Again Syria is a case in point. What was true in geopolitics was true in economics. With one notable exception (Asia Pacific)trade deals were renegotiated, yet none, however counterproductive to the interests of the average citizen, were abandoned. Managing the empire was more important than the general welfare of Americans.

Joe Biden's tenure as American President (2021-2025) saw the unipolar approach continue. Wisely the President did withdraw military forces from Afghanistan, albeit in an inept fashion, yet his military support of Israel resulted in a legion of air and naval strikes throughout the Middle East. Yemen and Syria (again) were the principle victims in this case. Meanwhile the administration embarked on a strategy of mass migration for the U.S., while encouraging it for other countries as well. In Asian the Americans built, or tried to build, pacts with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Australia, and India. All of these ventures drained a treasury which was depleted to begin with.

Within the geopolitical world much has changed over the quarter century since George W. Bush initiated the unipolar foreign strategy. Most obviously is the fading of Europe, with Brexit being the most apparent example. Brexit, which saw Great Britain leave the European Union after a national referendum authorizing the government to do so, coincided with the economic demise of France, and the de-industrialization of Germany.

As Europe fell Communist China has risen. In economics, military power, and diplomacy, China is a peer of the United States. Indeed in economics the Middle Kingdom might have surpassed America. In Africa, Asia, even South America, Chinese interests compete with American interests on an equal basis. A further international change is that India has emerged as a manufacturing giant while Japan, despite the globes most impressive increase in worker production, has remained stagnant.

Russia has re-emerged as a major international player. In Africa her mercenary groups have won victory after victory, particularly in the Francophone sector of that continent. She has thwarted NATO's poorly executed attempts to bring Georgia and Ukraine into that organization. Russia's economy has shown impressive resilency in the face of Western sanctions. Energy which was once delivered to European nations (pricipally Germany) has been successfully re-routed to India, China, along with other parts of the world. Converesly, deprived of Russian energy, now dependent on expensive Liquid Natural Gas exports from the United States, Europe's citizens and corporations have suffered grievously.

In order to maintain a realistic foreign strategy the second Donald Trump administration realeased a National Security Strategy on Thursday November 27, 2025. Anyone who believed it would it would committ the United States federal government to more of the same in foreign affairs will be quickly dissuaded from such an opinion. It is, in short, a repudiation of the unipolar strategy.

Although the document is a relatively short read, 33 pages, it is packed with changes to future U.S. government intentions. Interestingly it also is filled with a reaffirmation of the importance of individual rights. Within the jurisdiction of the United States the administration voices committment to those rights. This will have a dramatic effect on any trearty, of any nature, which the federal government negotiates with a foreign power. Nevertheless it must be stated that making promises, and actually delivering on those promises, is not a reputation the U.S. government possesses at present.

In one way the document is a rather difficult read. Throughout the paper the authors, including President Trump, congratulate themselves on righting the ship of state. This self congratulation is standard to all administrations, nevertheless when the document is of such a profound nature this rhetoric is, at best, counter productive. Yet if the reader can persevere through this bias, while keeping their emotions in check, they will be witness to a historic document.

First and foremost the U.S. government admits that geopolitics is evolving into a multipolar world. China is acknowledged as a peer, with the United States realizing that China will have it's own sphere of influence. U.S. interest in Asia will be primarily economic, with military engagement resigned to securing those interests. Taiwan will remain important to the United States only because of her semi-conductor manufacturing. As for Japan, south Korea, etc., the administration will encourage peace pacts between them and their adversaries.

In Africa the Trump government refutes any attempt to promote democracy on the continent. In fact any type of nation building is rejected. Instead only economic interests will motivate American policy. This allows the President to continue to cut foreign aid while promoting trade.

Europe is eviscerated in the document. Due to mass migration, and censorship laws, the U.S. government believes Europe will lose it's Europeanness within twenty years. Mass migration, censorship, weak militaries, along with a belicose attitude in Ukraine, all are subject to criticism by the American federal government. Clearly the Trump administration not only sees Europe as losing it's core, it also believes the Europeans are incapable of stopping the loss. There is little sympathy by the Americans for Europe. Europe will only remain important to the United States if it rejuvenates itself. If it fails to do so the Americans will abandon the continent to it's fate!

It is for the America's that the foreign policy strategy is at it's most substantive. The Monroe Doctrine, established in 1823 by United States President James Monroe (1817-1825), asserted that the United States had the right, and duty, to arrest any attempt by powers outside the Western Hemisphere to gain undue influence, including colonies, within any part of the America's. Over time different American administrations expanded the doctrine to justify economic, financial, and political actions within sovereign nations which were beneficial to the United States. For diplomatic reasons U.S. governments over the last 70 years have been reluctant to mention the doctrine. Donald Trump has turned his back on that strategy. Now the Monroe doctrine will be espoused, and legally enforced, by U.S. forces. While the rest of the world is up for grabs the Western Hemisphere will be the domain of the U.S.A.!

If China, or Russia, or Iran, invest heavily in Venezuala for instance, they will be allowed to reap the profits of those investments. Control of Venezualan resources on the other hand, especially energy, will be at the behest of the United States government(s). This will be true for all Venezualan resources. For appearance sake the national jurisdiction will seem to exert control, yet in fact United States interests will be the actual decision makers. This scenario will occur with every nation within the Western Hemisphere. Only the political collapse of the United States, improbable though not inconceivable, will spare other nations within North, Central, and South America this fate. That or some regime in the America's triumphing militarily over the U.S.A. Unlikely, but not impossible.

For a nation such as Canada, with a governing party led by Prime Minister Mark Carney, the change in United States foreign strategy is unwelcome. As a result of Donald Trump's oratory in early 2025 advocating that Canada become a 51st State of America (this oratory was instigated after an approach to the President by Canadian businessmen, and women proposing a custom union between the two jurisdictions), coupled with Mr. Trump's instituting tariffs on Canadian goods and services, the Carney government saw the need to diversify the Canadian economy. Clearly too many Canadian businesses had put their eggs in one basket, a United States basket. So over the last 12 months representatives of the Canadian government have approached administrations all over the globe in an effort to promote trade and investment with the Great White North.

To date these efforts have produced meagre results. Playing nice with China and India was not reciprocated by the two Asian giants. Like sharks smelling blood most national governments have tried to take advantage of Canada's vulnerable position. Europe, in equally a perilous state as Canada, was an exception. Somewhat desperately the Carney government has tied it's financial, and military, fortune to Europe. Donald Trump's foreign policy makes this a highly dubious strategy. Without U.S. economic and military support Europe will almost certainly continue to decline. Mr. Carney will be seen as attaching himself to an albatross!

Even more disconcerting is the full fledge return by the United States to the Monroe Doctrine. During the first lifetime of the doctrine Canada, as part of the British Empire, was the one nation in the America's buffeted from it's effects. That is no longer the case. If, for instance, the United States government decides they need Canadian water resources, they will make sure they get it. Canada will be well paid for the product, yet it will not have a choice on whether it sells it or not. This will be the fate of all Canadian resources. American interests will prevail. Canadian sovereignty will be in name only. It is difficult to imagine a more uncomfortable situation for the politicians and bureaucrats in Ottawa (except perhaps being at the mercy of the Mainland Communist Chinese regime).

For the first time in her history the United States government has made a decision to retrench to the Western Hemisphere. There will remain American forces, especially military personnel, in other parts of the globe, yet these forces will be in a more flexible position than is currently the situation. They will be in a situation where they can be withdrawn more easily than in the past.

The repercussions of the new U.S. foreign strategy, if the administration does choose to follow through with it, will be jolting. Every citizen in America, and Canada, should dispassionately read the document. Most of our fates, and our children, will be fundamentally effected by it. Here is the Link!

whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf