The White House’s new National Security Strategy, broadly attributed to Michael Anton, shifts the US foreign‑policy focus toward immigration as a principal threat and signals a retreat from deep engagement with Europe. The 33‑page NSS revives Monroe‑Doctrine‑style rhetoric, downplays great‑power rivalry with China and Russia, and reflects the influence of advisers such as JD Vance, Stephen Miller and Marco Rubio. Critics note the NSS is not binding, but its tone is already shaping diplomatic behaviour and may serve as a blueprint for future MAGA foreign policy.
You and Me Against the World: Who Shaped Trump’s Anti‑Europe National Security Strategy?
Michael Anton, former deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, in National Harbor, Maryland, on 2 March 2023.Photograph: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images
The latest National Security Strategy (NSS) marked an abrupt departure from decades of US foreign‑policy consensus, reframing immigration as a primary security threat and signalling a reduced emphasis on great‑power competition with China and Russia. The draft — widely attributed to Michael Anton, a prominent MAGA ideologue — stunned many allies in Europe and prompted intense debate inside the US foreign‑policy establishment.
Anton, Flight 93 Rhetoric and a New Tone
Michael Anton, who served as director of policy planning at the State Department, rose to public attention in 2016 when he published a widely cited essay under a pseudonym that likened that year’s election to a hijacked airliner. His combative rhetorical style — including the notorious line, “2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die” — helps explain the sharp tenor of the new NSS.
What the NSS Says and Why It Shocked Allies
The 33‑page document diverges from long‑standing US orthodoxy that treated NATO and the European Union as indispensable partners in countering authoritarian powers. Instead, it warns that migration to Europe risks “civilizational erasure,” revives Monroe‑Doctrine‑style language toward the Western Hemisphere, and urges courting illiberal partners in Europe. For many European leaders, the language signalled that US scepticism toward Europe had been elevated to official doctrine.
“I think what’s clear is that MAGA is trying to be a revolutionary movement,” said Max Bergmann, director of the Europe, Russia and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It’s trying to completely upend post‑war US foreign policy and really change the direction of the country.”
Who Influenced the Strategy?
Observers say the NSS reads like a manifesto for a cohort of Trump’s closest foreign‑policy advisers. Names commonly linked to the document’s worldview include JD Vance, who has criticised European liberalism at international forums; Stephen Miller, who long has pushed for immigration to be treated as a national‑security priority; and Marco Rubio, named in the piece as a leading voice on Latin America policy. Though Anton left government months before the NSS was released, diplomats and officials say his fingerprints — and those of allied aides — are visible throughout.
Process, Implementation and Bureaucratic Changes
Analysts cautioned that an NSS is not a binding blueprint: it is not tied to appropriations and historically serves as a negotiating text that reflects competing visions. Still, under this administration the White House has dramatically trimmed staff in key national‑security bodies as part of a broader drive to streamline operations and purge officials deemed disloyal, including cuts at the National Security Council. Those personnel changes, critics say, have produced a document that is less polished and potentially harder to implement.
Some sceptics also question whether President Trump closely reads such documents. John Bolton, a former national security adviser under Trump, said the president typically does not engage with dense strategy papers. Yet Trump echoed the NSS’s anti‑migration messaging in a recent Politico interview, warning that continued migration could render some European countries “not viable.”
Tangible Signs Of Influence
Even without formal policy prescriptions, the NSS’s tone appears to be shaping behavior across parts of the federal bureaucracy. US embassies in Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand were reportedly asked to collect data on crimes involving immigrants. Officials publicly described mass migration as an “existential threat to Western civilization.”
The administration’s 2024 State Department human‑rights report was also revised before release, according to officials, with edits by Anton and other senior aides reportedly resulting in stronger language on some issues (for example, warnings about Germany) and softened criticism on others (including language about Israel’s conduct in Gaza and human‑rights concerns in El Salvador).
Reactions and Longer‑Term Stakes
European diplomats reacted with alarm. “This is sort of like a divorce,” Bergmann said. “They don’t want the marriage to end. They’re looking for signs that the United States is still interested in them … and this was sort of confirmation that it’s over.”
Conservative commentators warn that, even if the administration does not adopt every radical proposal in the NSS, the document provides a ready blueprint for future MAGA leaders. An editorial in the Wall Street Journal argued that the NSS “represents the worldview of those who hope to shape American policy long after Mr. Trump completes his second term.”
Implication: Whether or not it becomes formal policy, the NSS crystallizes an influential faction’s worldview — prioritising immigration control, seeking new alignments in Europe, and reframing traditional alliances — and will likely shape debates about America’s international role for years to come.
