 |
The RundownNews and analysis from AEI's Foreign and Defense Policy team. |
Scholar Insight |
The Trump administration recently released the 2025 US National Security Strategy (NSS), an articulation of its security priorities. |
 |
“The NSS failed to state the obvious: that Russia is an adversary and a growing security threat to the United States. Rather than acknowledging this threat, the NSS suggests that America’s new role will be to mediate between Europe and Russia to ‘reestablish conditions’ of European stability and to ‘correct’ Europe’s failed cultural, economic, and military trajectory.” |
How might Congress balance support for European security with political pressures from the White House? Will efforts to “correct” Europe’s failures come at the expense of European security?
Follow us on X @AEIfdp to keep up with our latest work. Have a great week, AEI's Foreign and Defense Policy team |
|
 |
Watching the news in Oz, it’s striking that the Jewish community, historically reticent, is laying blame squarely at @AlboMP’s feet. You know why? Bcs that’s where it belongs. Over 2 years of antisemitic threats & performative violence, the gov has stood by, taking the other side. |
US Foreign Policy |
In the News |
 |
Trump vowed to respond after two US service members and one civilian were killed in an ISIS ambush in Syria. |
Article Kori Schake | Foreign Policy Last week, the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy (NSS). Kori Schake explains that the NSS, which prioritizes identity politics over national defense, presents as not a strategy but a value statement. The document emphasizes a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine aimed at the Western Hemisphere, economic competition, and technological dominance, but it fails to connect its broad principles to actionable policy. Instead, it assumes that other states will continue to advance US interests even as Washington interferes in their domestic politics, withdraws protection, and disparages allies. The only war the Trump administration wants to fight is a culture war, for which it considers adversaries as partners but fails to recognize just how much it relies on allies’ voluntary assistance. |
Op-Ed Marc A. Thiessen | The Washington Post The most recent poll published by the Ronald Reagan Institute finds that MAGA Republicans strongly support Trump’s hawkish foreign policy strategy. Marc A. Thiessen argues that MAGA voters are less isolationist than any other group in America, rejecting a “Fortress America” approach in favor of assertive US leadership. The poll shows that supermajorities of MAGA Republicans support continued aid to Ukraine and that they are more pro-Taiwan than any group surveyed. Overall, the results suggest not only that MAGA voters favor an aggressive foreign policy, but also that Trump remains closely aligned with the preferences of his base. |
Article Danielle Pletka | What the Hell Is Going On? Since the National Security Strategy (NSS) was released, President Trump has faced several criticisms about his administration’s analysis of Europe. Danielle Pletka argues that the critics are wrong and that it is time to admit the underlying problems in European societies, such as suppression of free speech and immigration issues. Europe has lost civic education and cultural cohesion, which has weakened national identity. Donald Trump and his team see Europe for what it has become. In that vein, the NSS could be the wake-up call Europe needs to return to the ideals it once upheld. |
Op-Ed Liam Karr and Yale Ford | Time Last week, President Trump announced a peace deal between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda. Liam Karr and Yale Ford explain that despite the peace agreement, the Rwanda-backed M23 rebel group in the eastern DRC continues its attacks, and there has been little meaningful effort to demobilize fighters. For the agreement that Trump facilitated to hold, he must build on the initial momentum through sustained high-level engagement and stronger pressure on both governments to honor their commitments. Lasting peace will require deeper involvement and credible enforcement mechanisms. Only through a more comprehensive and rigorous framework can President Trump’s vision of peace and prosperity in the region be realized. |
Defense |
In the News |
 |
US lawmakers approved a $900 billion defense authorization bill, $8 billion more than Trump requested, underscoring bipartisan support for strengthening military readiness. |
Working Paper Elaine McCusker and John G. Ferrari | AEI Foreign and Defense Policy Working Paper Series The House advanced the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), authorizing $900 billion for defense. Elaine McCusker and John G. Ferrari write that the NDAA is evidence that Congress can still pass significant bipartisan legislation, even in a politically divided environment. The bill emphasizes strengthening US and allied deterrence against geopolitical threats—namely, Russia and China. It also supports continued military aid to Ukraine, further acquisition reform, and a stronger military-industrial base. Despite broader congressional gridlock, defense authorization remains one of the few areas where consensus persists. |
Blog Post Elaine McCusker | AEIdeas The new National Security Strategy (NSS) prioritizes combating the threat posed by drug cartels. Elaine McCusker explains that the costs of US Southern Command operations have risen to nearly $1 billion. Often, these operations carry more risk than reward—particularly in the aftermath of the 43-day shutdown, which left the Pentagon operating under yet another continuing resolution. America’s military faces significant constraints, including increased operational demands, limited funding, and supply- chain interruptions. Prioritizing expensive strikes on individual drug boats means accepting more risk and trade-offs to higher consequence threats. The administration should make clear its priorities and the trade-offs and risks it is accepting—and asking the American public to support—as it employs scarce military resources. |
Asia |
In the News |
 |
Thailand and Cambodia’s long-running border dispute erupted into fresh clashes this week, killing 27 people and displacing hundreds of thousands. |
Blog Post Zack Cooper and Noah Burke | AEIdeas The annual National Defense Authorization Act allocates $900.6 billion in spending on defense for fiscal year 2026, including a number of critical provisions on Asia policy. Zack Cooper and Noah Burke explain that the bill contains key provisions related to Congress’s role in alliance building in Asia. It directs Congress’s role in affirming allied relationships in Asia, restricts the Trump administration from decreasing US forces in South Korea, and reiterates robust support for Taiwan. The bill also takes significant steps to strengthen the US-Philippines alliance. |
Op-Ed Chris Miller | The Washington Post President Trump recently authorized the export of Nvidia’s advanced H200 chips to China. Chris Miller argues that giving the green light to Chinese purchases of H200s—critical to AI applications—will narrow America’s technological edge against China on AI. Trump’s decision stems from an internal debate over whether US interests are better served by strict controls or by maximizing sales abroad. Supporters argue that continued exports would limit competitors and sustain US technological leadership. These congressional efforts have made more progress than expected, attracting surprising support from heavy hitters in the industry. Only time will tell if this new era of tech policy helps US businesses or hurts US security. |
Blog Post Derek Scissors | AEIdeas China has sought to increase global dependence on itself while reducing its dependence on others. Derek Scissors explains that although Chinese gross domestic product per capita will not now or ever even remotely approach US levels of wealth, its future lies in technology; Beijing has sharply narrowed the bilateral technology gap. As China’s population begins to decline, it will increasingly need to do more with less. Nonetheless, the most powerful factors shaping US-China competition—comparative wealth, aging, and China’s tech rise—should remain durable. The future of US-China competition may thus become one of Chinese tech advantage versus America’s financial, physical, and human resources advantage. |
|