The recently released U.S. national security strategy under President Donald Trump has ignited sharp criticism across Europe, with leaders and foreign-policy analysts condemning what they describe as “far-right rhetoric,” heightened hostility toward migration, and a significant shift in Washington’s global priorities.
Unveiled this week, the strategy outlines the administration’s overarching vision for U.S. security and foreign engagement. Yet instead of reassuring allies, it has triggered renewed concern among European governments already uneasy about Washington’s increasingly unilateral approach.
European Commission officials expressed alarm over the document’s framing of migration as a primary security threat, calling the language “excessively combative” and warning that it risks stigmatizing vulnerable populations. Several EU diplomats privately described the tone as reminiscent of hard-right political platforms gaining traction across parts of Europe.
Foreign-policy analysts echoed these concerns, noting that the strategy departs sharply from decades of U.S. doctrine emphasizing global partnerships and collective responsibility. “It is inward-looking, ideologically charged, and dismissive of the multilateral order that the U.S. itself helped build,” said one senior European security expert based in Brussels.
Particularly contentious is the document’s pivot toward the Western Hemisphere as the central arena for U.S. strategic focus—an approach that sidelines traditional transatlantic and Indo-Pacific priorities. European officials fear this shift could weaken NATO cooperation at a time of heightened geopolitical tensions, especially with Russia’s expanding military posture.
Critics also point to the strategy’s treatment of global migration, which it frames not as a humanitarian or economic phenomenon but as a national security challenge. Human-rights organizations argue that such wording threatens to justify harsher border policies and undermine international refugee protections.
Despite the backlash, the White House defended the strategy as “realistic, modern, and aligned with America’s core interests.” U.S. officials say the new framework reflects shifting geopolitical realities and emphasizes the need to secure borders, counter transnational crime, and strengthen hemispheric alliances.
European leaders, however, warn that Washington’s sharper tone and hemispheric refocus may deepen existing fractures within the transatlantic alliance. As one senior EU diplomat put it, “This is not just a policy document. It is a signal of where America wants to go—and Europe must decide how to respond.”
The debate is expected to intensify in the coming weeks, particularly as NATO ministers prepare for a series of high-level meetings where the implications of the strategy will be a central topic of discussion.
