Trump's National Defense Strategy: Paleoconservatism Through Force

The Trump administration released its 2026 National Defense Strategy, highlighting President Trump’s untethered focus on homeland security, protecting the economic interests of the U.S. and its citizens, as well as urging the allies to bear a greater share of the burden. The strategy also highlights a discernible disposition for force in order to protect vital American interests. The contours of the document, juxtaposed with the administration’s current policies, indicate the most vivid application of paleoconservatism across the American policy landscape, both at the domestic and foreign policy milieus.

President Trump’s National Defense Strategy categorically outlines the significance of homeland security and deems it vital to American sovereignty. Upholding the tenet of America First, it demonstrates an unapologetic approach towards curbing illegal immigration. Resultantly, it aims to secure the cultural interests of American citizens from alien cultures and nuances that are antithetical to American values. The document also manifests an unwavering resolve against the exorbitant influx of narcotics into American society. This highlights the Trump administration’s adherence to paleoconservatism in its true essence. The primacy of American citizens and the preeminence of American values appear to be the topmost priority of the Trump administration, much aligned with the principles enshrined by the paleoconservative tradition.

Another manifestation of paleoconservative doctrine in the 2026 National Defense Strategy is upholding the economic interests of the U.S. and its citizens. Paleoconservatism is rooted in protecting the economic stakes of its citizens and securing them from its own government’s messianic tendencies as well as from foreign actors, involving foreign countries, intergovernmental organizations and MNCs. In order to further American economic interests, tariffs are wielded as a potent tool by the Trump administration, whereby they are employed to tilt the trade balance in the American favor.

President Trump’s reinforced commitment to the Monroe Doctrine and solidifying American clout in the Western Hemisphere highlights the underlying concerns for the economic security of American citizens. China, in the last few years, has deeply penetrated into Latin America, becoming the 2^nd largest trading partner in the region. Its stakes in the Panama Canal and aspirations for exploring Greenland’s mineral wealth not only pose a serious threat to American economic interests but also undermine American regional predominance and stature. In order to reestablish American economic clout in the region and to ensure unrestrained access to the region’s resources, the reinstatement of the Monroe Doctrine is essential, as highlighted in the strategy.

This approach is multifaceted in character as it aims to diminish China’s economic engagement in the Western Hemisphere while increasing American trade with the Latin American countries. Consequently, this will boost the American economy through increased trade and access to natural resources, thus leading to greater employment opportunities for the American middle class. This debilitation of a foreign country's economic shackles to ascertain the American layman’s interests is synchronous with paleoconservative tradition being spearheaded by President Trump. 

The intention of an increased engagement in the Indo-Pacific is also linked with countering China’s strength in that area of immense commercial significance. China’s possible blockage of Indo-Pacific Sea lines will be lethal to American trade routes and its economic interests. The Trump administration’s intent at militarizing a key strategic location like the Indo-Pacific and deterring China through strength stems from the very paleoconservative motivation to safeguard American commercial interests.  

In order to prioritize the American taxpayer and limit American patronage of its allies, President Trump’s National Defense Strategy stresses the need for American allies to carry a bigger share of the burden. The document highlights the need for American allies in Europe, the Middle East and Indo-Pacific to amplify their military budgets, which will reduce the strain on American resources and, resultantly, the American middle class. The U.S. will remain the net security provider for its allies; however, not at the cost of its taxpayers.

A striking feature of the National Defense Strategy is its categorical inclination towards maintaining and, wherever needed, employing military force. This aspect, on the surface, appears divergent from classical paleoconservative tenets, which refrain from overseas military engagement. A more nuanced and in-depth reflection on the rationale for military engagement demonstrates a paleoconservative argument for such actions.

The paleoconservative tradition underscores American supremacy, exceptionalism and unilateralism. It only rejects the messianic proliferation of its higher ideals to others as vividly expressed in the 2026 document released by the Department of War. It, nevertheless, maintains an unequivocal regard for American defense and the protection of its citizens and their interests, be they economic, social, or cultural. The Trump administration’s rationale for the employment of military force draws from the same paleoconservative ideals that prioritize the safeguard of American citizens’ interests.

Operation Midnight Hammer against Iran was conducted to avenge the blood of American citizens and protect U.S. allies as well as its commercial interests. Operation Rough Rider was carried out against the Yemeni Houthis to deter their attacks on American shipping lanes. Likewise, Operation Absolute Resolve was conducted in Venezuela to counter narco-terrorism emanating from the Latin American state and devastating American society, while simultaneously ousting Chinese influence from the region. All these military engagements were limited in scope, carrying precise objectives, refraining from nation-building interventionism and undertaken primarily to protect American economic, societal or cultural interests.

It can be argued that the enforcement of the military option insinuates a sway towards neoconservatism. It can also suggest the emergence of a new branch of paleoconservatism. The former argument can be disregarded, given the paleoconservative rationale behind the use of force by the Trump administration. The latter argument, however, indicates that the paleoconservative tradition may be going through a phase of evolution. The rationale for the use of force rests on the paleoconservative argument, yet the use of force itself is a relatively new phenomenon in the broader rubric of paleoconservatism. At present, the labeling of this new tradition, or even calling it a new tradition, might be premature. Nevertheless, the use of force by the Trump administration, backed by the rationale of America First, demonstrates a vivid enforcement of paleoconservatism in the American policy spectrum.

Hamza Zaman holds an M.Phil. degree in International Relations from Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan. He works as an assistant research associate at the Islamabad Policy Research Institute, Pakistan.