On December 5, the White House released the Trump administration’s vision for U.S. national security, firmly rooted in the “America First” doctrine. The strategy prioritizes national sovereignty, military strength, and economic nationalism, framing global affairs as a competitive, zero-sum environment dominated by great power rivalry with China and Russia. Economic security is treated as inseparable from national security, alliances are approached transactionally, and multilateral institutions and international agreements are viewed with deep skepticism.

Notably, the National Security Strategy (NSS) signals a reassertion of a modernized Monroe Doctrine, emphasizing U.S. primacy in the Western hemisphere while warning against external influence in the region. At the same time, it scolds Europe for what it characterizes as a loss of cultural identity and political cohesion, arguing that openness and complacency have allowed others to erode freedoms and institutions once central to European identity. Democracy and human rights are referenced, but they are no longer organizing principles of U.S. engagement, subordinated instead to near-term strategic advantage.

Absent from the strategy, however, is any serious engagement with global development challenges. Foreign aid receives minimal attention beyond a narrow call to shift U.S.–Africa relations away from traditional assistance toward conflict-driven engagement based on presidential priorities. Although unsurprising given the effective dismantling of USAID and the weakening of other aid institutions, this omission reveals a deeper problem, a fundamental disconnect between policymakers and the realities of contemporary insecurity.

Today’s threats are increasingly transnational and structural. Fragile states, mass displacement, pandemics, climate stress, and widening inequality are not peripheral concerns but core drivers of instability. No amount of military dominance or rhetorical toughness can resolve these challenges in isolation.

Nowhere is this failure more evident than in the strategy’s handling of global health and climate. Both pose direct and escalating threats to the United States and to U.S. national security, yet neither is treated as a central priority. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how rapidly weak health systems and unequal access to infrastructure can cascade into global economic collapse and political instability. Public health experts warn that another major pandemic is likely within the next decade or two, driven by global mobility, zoonotic spill-over, antimicrobial resistance, and climate-related disruptions.

The document also fails to treat HIV and AIDS as national security threats or to recognize the strategic importance of long-standing U.S. leadership through initiatives such as the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Recent funding cuts and uncertainty have coincided with the sharpest rise in new HIV infections in more than a decade, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and among adolescent girls, young women, and other vulnerable populations. Disruptions to prevention, testing, and treatment threaten to reverse decades of progress, weaken labor forces, increase orphanhood, and destabilize already fragile regions. It is difficult, if not impossible, to promote sustainable economic growth, meaningful trade, or durable partnerships in regions riddled with disease.

Climate change further magnifies these risks by fueling food insecurity, water scarcity, extreme weather events, and displacement, all of which intensify conflict pressures and governance failures. These are security threats by any serious definition, yet the strategy treats them as secondary concerns at best. Climate change is real, accelerating, and already producing deadly consequences. As global warming drives more frequent droughts, floods, and natural disasters that undermine crop yields and livestock viability, competition over food, water, and livable land will intensify. The World Bank estimates that climate change could force more than 200 million people into internal displacement by 2050, while UN research shows climate shocks can raise armed conflict risk by 10 to 20 percent in fragile contexts.

This reality runs counter to the administration’s staunchly anti-refugee and anti-immigrant posture. Climate-driven displacement and health crises will produce more refugees, not fewer, regardless of political rhetoric or border restrictions. Ignoring these drivers does not enhance security. It merely postpones and magnifies future crises.

Rather than adapting to these realities, the new NSS moves in the opposite direction by elevating restoring American energy dominance as a top strategic priority, emphasizing expanded oil, gas, coal, and nuclear production. Energy is framed in terms of dominance and control rather than resilience or sustainability, reinforcing fossil fuel dependence and accelerating the very climate instability the strategy claims to confront.

The strategy also falls short in addressing geopolitical competition where development engagement matters most. Although it calls for rebalancing America’s economic relationship with China, it fails to address China’s expanding influence through the Belt and Road Initiative. As U.S. development engagement contracts, many developing countries are turning to China as an alternative partner. In practice, Belt and Road lending has entrenched economic dependence through opaque and predatory debt practices, often undermining environmental, labor, and health standards. This is the opposite of what the United States should seek to promote.

Similarly, the document largely ignores Russia’s expanding influence in Latin America, particularly in developing countries such as Nicaragua. Through security cooperation, arms transfers, intelligence sharing, disinformation, and the political backing of authoritarian regimes, Moscow has steadily expanded its footprint in the region. Compounding this failure, U.S. support for civil society organizations and independent media has been severely weakened. In countries like Nicaragua, where independent media and civil society face intense repression, this retreat creates a dangerous vacuum that Russia and other authoritarian actors are eager to exploit, amplifying their influence while undermining regional stability and U.S. interests.

Taken together, the National Security Strategy reflects a narrow, power-centric vision that underestimates the drivers of modern insecurity. By sidelining development, global health, climate realities, and support for democratic actors, it fundamentally misreads what security requires in the twenty-first century. Strength today is measured not by rhetoric or military dominance, but by the ability to prevent crises, build resilience, and lead through sustained global engagement. This approach does not make America first. Being first requires leadership at the forefront of addressing the world’s most urgent development challenges, not retreating from them. By that measure, the strategy falls short, and so too will U.S. national security.

Originally published by Foreign Policy in Focus.