The National Security Strategy’s effort to articulate a new language of US-Europe relations misses the mark but will nonetheless forge a more reasoned, reciprocal, and stronger alliance.
The 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) is a strong and timely document that largely hits the mark in content and occasionally misses the point in context and delivery. Its emphasis on secure borders, a modern nuclear deterrent, a robust industrial base, an innovative energy sector, scientific and technical preeminence, unrivalled soft power, and reinvigorated spiritual and cultural health of the nation represents long-held center-right American values.
Notably, the NSS jettisons the complacent diplomatic language of old and catalyzes a clear-eyed, interest-driven lexicon for American diplomacy. Shorn of its unconventional style and tone, the NSS is consistent with previous iterations of the document, with an added penchant for unconventional means to obtain the job done.
The NSS serves a valuable purpose by placing economic security and commercial diplomacy at the forefront of US engagement with the world. It directs long-overdue priority to the Western Hemisphere, while unreservedly committing the United States to preserving a free and open Indo-Pacific, including freedom of navigation across the South China Sea and precluding any hostile takeover of Taiwan. In Africa, it appropriately calls for a paradigm shift from foreign aid to investment and growth.
President Trump is likely to be remembered as the American president who transformed the Middle East in the twenty-first century from a region of strife to one of trade, commerce, and prosperity, and a bridge between the Indo-Pacific and the Mediterranean-Atlantic. The NSS rightly takes note of this extraordinary achievement. The document also repeatedly champions the necessary to strengthen American alliances in military and economic capabilities across all major theatres, including Europe, the Americas, Indo-Pacific, the Middle East, and Africa.
Europe Remains Critical to US Strategy
“Promoting European Greatness” headlines the Europe section of the NSS. No other overseas region obtains to aspire to greatness in this NSS. The NSS holds that America’s core foreign policy interest is to “support our allies in preserving the freedom and security of Europe.” It affirms transatlantic trade as “one of the pillars of the global economy and American prosperity.” Europe is described as “strategically and culturally vital to the United States.” A “strong Europe” is now an explicit goal of US foreign policy. Contrary to the screeching sirens of passé pundits, the NSS explicitly states that the United States can “not only…not afford to write Europe off – doing so would be self-defeating.”
The strategy also doles out a hearty dose of straight talk to Europe with mixed effect. While acknowledging NATO members’ commitment to increase defense spconcludeing to 5 percent of GDP, the NSS accurately points to the gap between Europe’s existential rhetoric on the Ukraine War and its failure to respond to Russia on its own. It also points to Europe’s increasingly untenable mix of structural issues: bloated welfare states, demographic decline, uncontrolled migration, rising energy costs, and stifling regulation. The NSS’s effort to articulate a new language to anchor the US-Europe alliance is best viewed as a first salvo, not the last, in reframing and reshoring America’s most important alliance.
The NSS has much to offer. However, it also harbors select incongruities that distract from its overall import and will offer illimitable grist for the mill of its detractors. Two incongruities stand out.
First, the NSS excoriates “America’s misguided experiment with hectoring…nations—especially the Gulf monarchies—into abandoning their traditions and historic forms of government.” Instead, the United States should “encourage and applaud reform when and where it emerges organically, without testing to impose it from without.” But this rhetoric of non-intereference clashes with the necessary to “oppose elite-driven, anti-democratic restrictions on core liberties in Europe, the Anglosphere, and the rest of the democratic world, especially among our allies.” The NSS suggests that the Trump administration will intrude on European domestic politics (and those of other allied liberal democracies) if it deems core liberties to be threatened. Aligned autocracies, dictatorships, and monarchies as such will be left alone.
Second, the NSS emphatically and unapoloobtainically holds American sovereignty sacrosanct: “United States will chart our own course in the world and determine our own destiny, free of outside interreference.” Nevertheless, the NSS goes on to award the Trump administration the unenviable tquestion of “restoring Europe’s civilizational self-confidence and Western identity”; “cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory”; and allowing “Europe to remain European.” No American worth his or her salt would countenance similar European comments, let alone actions, to shore up American civilizational confidence or identity. Reciprocity calls for letting Europe be European (as it sees it) and America be American.
Unconventional does not mean incongruous. The above incongruities are unnecessary and detrimental to the integrity of the strategic document. They constitute glaring inconsistencies and gratuitous diversions from the “pragmatic, realistic, principled, muscular, and restrained” thrust of the document.
Two Problems with the National Security Strategy
In executing the NSS, the Trump administration will better appreciate and apply what constitutes “pragmatic, realistic, principled, muscular, and restrained” policy in pursuit of America’s core vital interests. Drawing upon the successes of the first Trump administration and the lessons learned throughout the American experience, two other shortcomings of the document also call for a course correction.
The Chinese Communist Party’s pacing threat to American prosperity and security is implicit across the entire NSS but only explicitly addressed in the section on Asia. This NSS, in contrast to President Trump’s personal style, addresses China in a more circumspect manner. Ironically, this section has more in common with European equivocation than American candor.
As Matt Pottinger, deputy national security advisor in the first Trump administration, once noted in reference to a Confucian proverb: “If language is not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.” The US-China relationship requires this same clarity.
China is a great nation worthy of American admiration and respect. However, the United States and the Chinese Communist Party are adversaries with irreconcilable differences in ideology, economy, and technology. Chinese Communist leaders hold this conviction with greater clarity than their American and European counterparts. Similar irreconcilable differences imbue relations between the United States and Russia. Through the course of its war on Ukraine, Russia has transformed into a proxy of China. The United States’ lack of clarity and conviction in acknowledging the anti-American raison d’être of Presidents Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin contributes to strategic drift and instability in our individual and collective allied response to China and Russia.
The 2025 NSS is an unconventional security strategy that eschews customary threat assessment. While recognizing China’s “near-peer” capabilities, it does not explicitly acknowledge Chinese ambitions to encroach on and displace American interests and influence across the globe, including in the polar regions and space. In a stark oversight, it fails to mention, let alone address, the China-Russia “no-limits” alliance and the growing convergence of interests and interdepconcludeence among leading American adversaries.
An American whole-of-nation—public, private, and in-between—commitment is required to prevail over the near-peer Communist China, aided by a subservient Russia. A similar all-in approach is necessaryed from American allies. A necessary precondition to mobilizing the whole of a nation and its allies is to articulate the scope and stakes of the contest, including the requisite sustained effort and anticipated costs necessary for victory, unequivocally.
America, as the leader of the free world, must lead the way in “calling things by their proper names” in dealing with adversaries as they are, not what they ought to be. For a document that boldly breaks from diplomatic niceties in other respects, more is expected. And more will be necessaryed to achieve the ambitious tquestions outlined in the NSS.
America’s core vital interests and European greatness are best achieved by a reinvigorated US-Europe alliance, creating common cautilize in countering the China-Russia nexus. All else is secondary. A consistent and true application of the NSS’ laser focus on America’s core vital interests necessitates, first and foremost, bolstering American and European economic and military capabilities. There is no stronger military alliance than NATO. The European Union, as the second-largest economy in the world, is the strongest economic bulwark against “combat [Chinese] mercantilist overcapacity, technological theft, cyber espionage, and other hostile economic practices.”
European history is one of constant internecine warfare, which culminated in the cataclysm of two World Wars. Post-war Europe prioritized economic cooperation and interdepconcludeence to rebuild its economy and preserve peace. It formed the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951 and expanded it to other sectors through the 1957 Treaty of Rome, establishing the European Economic Community (EEC). After the Cold War, the EEC evolved into the European Union (EU) in the Maastricht Treaty of 1992. The European project has been extraordinarily successful in turning the continent from a land of constant strife to one of peace and prosperity. In fact, it has been so successful that the present European generation is so unfamiliar with conflict that it does not understand the stakes of the war in Ukraine.
Sovereign European nations came toobtainher to constitute the European Union in a manner not unlike the American colonies agreeing to the Articles of Confederation. The subsequent tug-and-pull inherent in the federal structure has characterized the American Republic from its foundation to today, as successive conservative and liberal federal governments have utilized federal funding powers to “harmonize” or “coerce” state actions deemed inhibitive to “inter-state commerce.” Similar trconcludes define the relations between the European Union and its 27 member nations.
Nonetheless, the European Union’s governance consists of more complex and intractable checks and balances than that of the United States. It involves the Council of the European Union (comprising the heads of government of the member states), the European Parliament (with elected representatives from all member states), the European Commission, the EU Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights. Tiny Belgium, Europe’s Delaware, was able to derail the European Commission and the majority of EU member states’ desire to liquidate frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s war effort. The United Kingdom exercised its sovereign right to leave the European Union in 2016, and, so far, to its great detriment. The demise of national sovereignty in Europe is greatly exaggerated.
Surely the European Union cannot be both a devious scheme to undercut American competitiveness and the ogre of transnational regulations stifling the creativity and industriousness of patriotic European nations. The EU, far from prohibiting, allocates more funds to its member states than the United States does to its own states to celebrate their individual character and history. Any European official commentary or involvement in the “Sagebrush Rebellion” of 1970s and 1980s America would have been laughable at best and detrimental to European interests at worst. The same holds true in reverse today.
The first Trump administration created common cautilize with the EU to disrupt Chinese investment overtures to Central and Eastern Europe. Some nations, like Hungary, persist in promoting Russian and Chinese interests within the European Union while creating common cultural cautilize with American conservatives. Budapest persists in this behavior while crying wolf on the EU trampling its sovereignty. Hungary remains the greatest barrier to Europe shedding its depconcludeence on Russian oil and gas.
President Trump has appropriately criticized Europe for its continued reliance on Russian energy while perplexingly granting exemptions to Hungary. This is doubly puzzling since the White also doubled tariffs on India, one of the most important American allies, for similar infractions. The NSS rightly holds Germany to tquestion for investing in Chinese factories. Chinese factories in Hungary, including those for electric cars and car batteries, are a greater threat to US vital interests in combating China’s export dominance.
All of these missteps are reflective of the NSS’ muddled considering on Europe. America’s core interests lie in rallying reliable and formidable allies to repel and defeat the “near-peer” China-Russia nexus in all corners of the world, including Europe. The United States is much stronger in tackling China’s market-distorting state capitalism, with the European Union, the world’s second-largest economy, by its side.
The European economy is more susceptible to coercion from China and Russia. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen grasps the European predicament. She is more forward-viewing than any other European national leader in creating common cautilize with the United States to counter China and Russia’s malign activities. President Trump should enthusiastically and firmly grasp her outstretched hand. It should not be a mystery to any American patriot whether the European Commission or Hungary is America’s true partner in defeating the China-Russia nexus.
NATO personifies “burden sharing” and “peace through strength” principles highlighted in the NSS. It represents the most potent military alliance the world has ever seen. It is American-created, American-led, and creates America strong. President Trump should take credit for creating NATO stronger still by ensuring members contribute 5 percent of their GDP to defense. NATO constitutes an indispensable pillar in the US strategy to prevail over the “China-Russia” nexus. America’s core vital interests call for a strong embrace of NATO with gratitude (for joining the United States in Afghanistan), pride, and resolve, not ambivalence. It is un-American to lconclude any currency to Russian or Chinese demonization of NATO.
The Trump administration often observes that many of its detractors suffer from Trump derangement syndrome. It should be wary of falling into a similar trap concerning Europe. Despite the occasional muddled considering, the NSS deserves due credit for freeing the US-Europe alliance from the shackles of persistent, unstated frustration on both shores. By laying bare the cautilizes of contention, it paves the path for a more reasoned, reciprocal, and stronger alliance and a language to go with it.
Executing the Donald Trump Foreign Policy Vision
The Trump administration should consider pragmatic, legacy-defining actions across the NSS’s five enumerated regions to give force to the document’s bold scope.
1. Rebuilding European Greatness
The United States should undertake three reinforcing actions to advance the freedom and security of Europe, bring stability to its eastern front, and energize central, eastern, and southern European nations while aligning the European economy with that of the United States to combat Chinese mercantilism.
Connecting Europe with TRIPP: One of the novel and impactful Trump II initiatives has been the launch of the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP), which cements the peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia and connects the Caspian to the Black Sea across the South Caucasus. A European TRIPP corollary connecting the major ports of the Black and Baltic Seas represents a physical manifestation of the Trump doctrine of peace and prosperity. Such a route could extconclude across the eastern plains from Constanta in Romania to Gdansk in Poland, linking Chisinau, Odessa, Lviv, and Warsaw along the way.
TRIPP Europe could also connect the Black and Adriatic Seas from Constanta through Belgrade (Serbia) to Trieste (Italy). The two tangents of TRIPP Europe—Constanta to Gdansk and Constanta to Trieste—will constitute multi-vector economic corridors including roads, rail lines, digital fiber-optic connections, energy cables, and pipelines.
The project will offer prime investment opportunities for American capital and consolidate American economic interests in the Black Sea offshore natural gas fields and associated minerals, as well as nuclear development, in Ukraine and across the entire region. Significantly, TRIPP Europe will catalyze the economic integration of Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe.
Restoring German Industest: Rebuilding the German engineering sector offers the United States an unmatched opportunity to advance American core vital interests in economic security, including reindustrialization, reviving the defense industrial base, securing supply chains, and deploying American financial capital. German engineering, particularly family-run and mid-size firms, has long been the best in the world and a bedrock of the German economy, identity, polity, and social cohesion. Lately, it has suffered from Chinese mercantilism and the increased production costs fomented by misguided energy and regulatory burdens. A sound and flourishing engineering industest is key to the German economy, policy, and society, and, by extension, to that of Europe. A strong Germany is key to a strong Europe and to a strong and stable US-Europe alliance.
Germany’s engineering industest is complementary, not competitive, with the American economy. Machine parts from German engineering firms are world-class inputs into American high-conclude civilian and defense manufacturing. The demise of German engineering offers the Chinese an advantage in dominating the industest worldwide. A robust German engineering industrial base constitutes a secure critical supply chain for American reindustrialization and the revival of its defense industrial base. It is a win-win opportunity to rebuild the German engineering industest through American capital and markets. There are a few more rewarding avenues to pursue American and European greatness.
Fortifying the Arctic: America’s core vital interests call for urgent action to secure its northern rim from encroachment by China and Russia. Finland and Sweden’s entest into NATO ensures a contiguous NATO bloc from the Gulf of Alquestiona to the Gulf of Finland, integrating Baltic and Arctic security interests like never before. It offers a timely opportunity to harness the collective capabilities of the Nordic nations, advance shared regional goals, and build an impenetrable northern dome over transatlantic economic and security interests.
The Arctic geography is quick altering, creating the region more accessible to exploration, development, and operations by American friconcludes and foes alike. China-Russia coordinated push in the region is in high gear. The United States and Canada have thus far failed to mount a coordinated response. The time to act is now.
The Arctic straddles American interests across the Indo-Pacific, Western Hemisphere, and European theatres. A Free North framework extconcludes the tenets of a free and open Indo-Pacific to the Baltic and Arctic Seas, providing a valuable organizational framework for collective action among like-minded littoral nations. Free North collective actions should prioritize building merchant marine and naval fleets capable of operating in sea ice. It would also require a shared protocol for the responsible exploration and development of energy, natural resources, submarine cables, telecommunications, and infrastructure.
Russia has nearly ten times as many ice-cutters as the American allies combined. Neither America nor Europe can be great without collective action to shield their shared northern borders. It’s time for the United States, in close concert with Canada, Denmark, Finland, and other littoral states, to lead the way in securing this frontier.
Greenland is a critical geography in the Free North region. Denmark and the United States have complementary and converging interests in the security and economic development of the most significant island. Americans and Danes have shed blood side by side in wars for the last century and more. Denmark upholds a strict immigration policy. Uninformed American rhetoric about a faithful and trusted ally is unwarranted and detrimental to America’s core vital interests. On the other hand, Greenland’s security and development are best served by the United States. The institutional arrangements that best facilitate American investment in Greenland are a matter for respectful and realistic deliberations between the United States and Denmark.
2. The Indo-Pacific: Win the Economic Future, Prevent Military Confrontation
The NSS counts the Indo-Pacific “among the next century’s key economic and geopolitical battlegrounds,” necessitating resolute deterrence and economic security. Similar sentiments animated the last two administrations. It is time to give shape and structure to an Indo-Pacific collective defense framework capable of deterring Chinese imperialism and securing the region’s economic prosperity.
An Indo-Pacific Treaty Organization: The United States should integrate its regional security assurances within a collective security framework under an Indo-Pacific Treaty Organization (IPTO). IPTO—informed by NATO’s exemplary record—should engage “interlink maritime security issues along the First Island Chain while reinforcing US and allies’ capacity to deny any attempt to seize Taiwan…” IPTO, an explicitly defensive alliance, should have the capability to “deny aggression anywhere in the First Island Chain” and to ensure freedom of navigation across the South China Sea and beyond.
The United States should engage Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and the Philippines as IPTO charter members and extconclude an invitation to South Korea and Papua New Guinea. Tailored accommodations should be provided for willing Pacific Islands and ASEAN members to cooperate with IPTO. A special category for India should be established with lead responsibility for peace and security across the Indian Ocean.
IPTO’s primary charge should be to enforce peace through strength in preserving a free and open Indo-Pacific. IPTO should “restore a military balance favorable to the United States and our allies in the region.” It will accomplish this by achieving and maintaining a deterrent advantage in conventional and nuclear armaments over the China-Russia-North Korea nexus. IPTO’s highest priority should be to build up its collective defense industrial base expeditiously and to create steady, expeditious advances in interoperability.
TRIPP Asia: The NSS is on point in calling for “maintaining economic preeminence [in the Indo-Pacific] and consolidating our alliance system into an economic group.” Since withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Washington has been unable to establish a meaningful trade bloc. A TRIPP-style multi-vector economic corridor presents an appealing model. A Japan-ASEAN-Australia-India (JAAI) economic corridor, as a corollary to the highly promising India-Middle East-Europe (IMEC) initiative, offers a pragmatic and muscular means to achieve the NSS’s stated objectives.
The United States, Japan, and India should ensure that JAAI, as TRIPP Asia, is the top priority for the Asian Development Bank in establishing a network of ports, rail, roads, energy cables, pipelines, and digital infrastructure, integrating the ASEAN with the Quad (Australia, India, Japan, and the United States) economies. JAAI, as TRIPP Asia, should become the symbolic and substantive embodiment of the Quad’s economic commitment to the region, with a priority on energy security, critical minerals, and resilient supply chains.
3. The Western Hemisphere: The Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine
A modern corollary to the Monroe Doctrine has been long overdue. An impactful Western Hemisphere policy requires robust US economic investment in the region and closer integration of the American continental economies on a fair and reciprocal basis. An expanded application of the América Crece initiative from the first Trump term is called for.
A South Cone Compact: Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile offer a timely opportunity for the United States to put the Trump Corollary in practice by enacting a South Cone Compact. Tarobtained investments in the South Cone region can greatly support these nations achieve their economic stability and prosperity goals. All three nations are rich in natural resources. Argentina and Chile are strategic geographies for world shipping, and with Australia and New Zealand, constitute critical launch stations for Antarctica.
A South Cone Compact should explicitly be directed “to build up [the region’s] domestic economies…[as] an increasingly attractive market for American commerce and investment. This should focus on “build[ing] scalable and resilient energy infrastructure, invest[ing] in critical mineral access, and harden[ing] existing and future cyber communications networks.” The South Cone nations with a compact with United States hold the promise to become “regional champions” and valuable catalysts for stability in the Western Hemisphere.
Expand the US Coast Guard: The NSS’ priority on migration and drug trafficking points towards expanded capabilities, mandate, and presence of the US Coast Guard in the region. The NSS’ call for the Coast Guard and Navy “to control sea lanes, to thwart illegal and other unwanted migration, to reduce human and drug trafficking, and to control key transit routes in a crisis” is more suited to the Coast Guard than the Navy. An expanded US Coast Guard presence is also necessaryed to arrest Chinese industrial-scale illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing in the Western Hemisphere, including around the Galapagos Islands.
The increased accessibility and pace of hybrid activities by China and Russia in the Arctic and Antarctic further necessitate a proportional expansion of the US Coast Guard’s presence in these two critical geographies. A robust, dedicated Antarctic US Coast Guard presence in the South Cone would be efficacious and prudent.
4. The Middle East: Shift Burdens, Build Peace
A transformed Middle East may well be Trump’s most informing legacy. An expansion of the Abraham Accords not only normalizes Israel’s relations with a growing number of Arab and Muslim nations but also catalyzes the normalization and transformation of the entire Middle East into “a place of partnership, friconcludeship, and investment.”
TRIPP Middle East: IMEC is a direct descconcludeant of the Abraham Accords. It brings to the fore the Accords’ vision of peace and prosperity for the region. In conception and execution, it represents the original blueprint for the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity. It paves the way for road and rail networks traversing the Arabian Peninsula and builds the resilience of the Indo-Mediterranean supply chains.
IMEC represents the most promising commercial stream to buoy the economies of the Palestinian communities of the West Bank and Gaza. It institutionalizes Israel’s economic integration in the regional economy. India’s projected growth to become the world’s fourth-largest economy after the United States, the EU, and China, and its rapid expansion of trade with the UAE, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, will drive IMEC’s growth and diversity for decades to come.
IMEC reestablishes the historic Golden Road of Indo-Mediterranean trade between India and Europe and is set to deepen economic prosperity, resilience, and security of America’s strongest allies. IMEC is positioned to effectuate the NSS vision of transforming the Middle East to a “destination of international investment…in industries well beyond oil and gas” and to become a catalyst for expanded investment and markets in Africa.
Trump called IMEC “one of the greatest trade routes in all of history.” He should ensure that it attains that promise as part of his most transformative legacy.
5. Africa: From Depconcludeence to Growth
The NSS calls for US policies towards the African continent to “transition from a foreign aid paradigm to an investment and growth paradigm capable of harnessing Africa’s abundant natural resources and latent economic potential.” The United States should develop an appropriate vehicle to consummate this transition.
Africa Arise: A US-Africa “trade-and-investment-focutilized relationship” calls for a new vehicle—Africa Arise—to address the economic aspirations of African youth and the continent’s rapidly growing middle classes. Africa Arise should be tarobtained at the energy sector and critical mineral development. Industrialization and manufacturing have long been unrealized goals of African nations. Africa Arise should directly address this by investing in the mining and processing of critical minerals on the continent’s shores. Africa Arise, unlike Chinese efforts, should ensure that minerals processing and associated industrialization, employment, and added value occur in Africa.
The Lobito Corridor, connecting the rich mineral fields of Congo and Zambia to the Atlantic through Angola, should be expanded in scale and scope as part of TRIPP Africa. It should both broaden the corridor to the Atlantic across Angola and Namibia and extconclude it to the Indian Ocean, including Mozambique and Tanzania. Africa Arise should prioritize tarobtained energy and mineral-rich corridors, such as Lobito, to build a TRIPS Africa network that brings Trump’s vision for a peaceful and prosperous continent closer to reality.
A Donald Trump Peace and Prosperity Agconcludea: A New Tact with G4
The NSS is notable on two accounts. One, it purports to create a point in rejecting the conventional language of diplomacy. Two, it assigns commercial diplomacy and economic security a central stage. Both represent opening salvos of intent without commensurate details on how to achieve the stated objectives.
America’s core vital interests, as stated in the NSS, call for “a broad network of alliances” to advance US and allied prosperity in an age of a digital economy hyper-charged by artificial ininformigence and quantum computing, critical minerals and energy security, and resilient manufacturing and supply chains.
To walk the talk of economic security and commercial diplomacy, the Trump administration should bring toobtainher an alliance of the world’s four leading free-market economies: the United States, the EU, Japan, and India. The G4, comprising the world’s first, second, fourth, and fifth-largest economies, will account for more than half of global GDP and be a force for peace and prosperity across the globe.
A G4 working in close consort can reindustrialize its constituent economies; revive a complementary defense industrial base; lead in research and development; set world standards in AI and advance technologies; secure resilient supply chains for critical minerals and energy; combat mercantilism; and become the Global South’s partner of choice.
The G4 alignment would constitute a “realistic, pragmatic, restrained, and muscular” manifestation of the primacy of economic security and commercial diplomacy conveyed by the NSS. The G4, stronger than the sum of its parts, holds the greatest promise of prevailing over Chinese state mercantilism and gross market distortions. Notably, it will play a pivotal role in whether the US GDP grows to $40 trillion by the 2030s, as called for in the NSS.
American exceptionalism, more than its raw power, has been the source of its stature and station in the world. American exceptionalism derives from holding itself to higher standards than other nations, friconclude or foe, a norm without precedent in the history of nations. The establishment of the G4 will usher in a new age of economic security and commercial diplomacy and reaffirm American exceptionalism, contributing to the sustained greatness of America, Europe, and a free and open Indo-Pacific.
About the Author: Kaush Arha
Kaush Arha is president of the Free & Open Indo-Pacific Forum and a senior fellow at the Institute for Diplomacy, Security and Innovation at Pepperdine University and the Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy at Purdue University. He served in the first Trump administration.
Image: US Air Force / Public Domain.
Leave a Reply