Reference News Network, December 16 report: On December 11, the website of the U.S. Foreign Policy Focus Research Program published an article titled "The U.S. 2025 National Security Strategy Is Undermining Its Own Hegemonic Order," authored by Timothy Hopper. The article is translated as follows:
On December 4, the White House released the 2025 National Security Strategy. This document reads less like a foreign policy roadmap and more like a farewell statement to the international order that emerged after the Cold War. The document not only reiterates the familiar slogan of "America First," but also marks a deeper and more significant shift: the United States is clearly stepping back from the institutional hegemonic structure it built, funded, and led for nearly 80 years.
In this document, mechanisms that once solidified America's global supremacy are now portrayed as threats to the American middle class. This rhetorical shift is not just an ideological adjustment, but reflects deeper strategic contradictions. The United States continues to seek to maintain its hegemony and global influence, but no longer shows the willingness to bear the political, institutional, and security costs required for this role.
From a realist perspective, the basis of hegemony is not slogans, but clear strategies, credible commitments, and the ability to coordinate allies. However, this strategy fails in all three aspects. It calls for "strategic stability" with Russia, while portraying Europe as a symbol of "civilizational decline." It urges NATO allies to take on greater security responsibilities, while questioning their reliability. It praises Trump as a "peace president," yet openly supports the use of "lethal force" in cross-border operations. The grand strategy presented is actually a series of unresolved contradictions.
At its core, the document replaces strategy with personal promotion. It portrays the President Trump as the central hero who brings peace and facilitates deals, rather than a leader of a system of institutions. This personalization undermines the structural credibility of American foreign policy.
The criticism of alliances in this document may be the most obvious sign that the U.S. hegemonic order is weakening. The strategy explicitly states that the United States will no longer "take responsibility for global order," and demands that NATO members allocate 5% of their GDP to defense. However, this move does not represent genuine burden-sharing, but can be interpreted as shifting responsibility and political extortion: security guarantees are conditional rewards given only upon compliance. This logic erodes the alliance from within, as the foundation of an alliance is trust, not transactional calculation.
The strategy condemns "transnationalism," thereby rejecting the institutions that once allowed the United States to exercise power in a legitimate and economically efficient manner. Abandoning them means abandoning long-term tools of influence in favor of naked coercion or short-term deals. This does not indicate a strengthening of hegemony, but rather marks its decline.
This strategy may represent the moment when the United States quietly abandons the idea of "grand strategy." It is full of contradictions, calling for stability while alienating allies, demanding cooperation while undermining trust, and threatening military action while promoting peace. This reflects not just the preferences of one administration, but the structural limitations of U.S. hegemony in a world that is no longer unipolar. (Translated by Ge Xuele)
Original: toutiao.com/article/7584344601763250724/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author alone.