Transatlantic tensions: Europe and 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy - OPINION
By Aytan Aliyeva
2025 U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS): Core priorities
The 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy outlines an approach to American security policy that is both sovereignty-centered and interest-driven, and that is grounded in the principle of “America First.” The strategy defines national security as primarily the protection of the United States as an independent sovereign republic. It emphasizes border control, economic independence, military strength, and internal cultural unity. The strategy rejects post-Cold War models of global leadership, multilateralism, and open-ended intervention. It argues that these models weakened America’s industrial base, middle class, and strategic focus.
The document stresses a strict definition of national interests and prioritization. Key objectives include ending mass migration, achieving full border control, countering foreign influence, maintaining a strong military and nuclear deterrent, and rebuilding domestic industrial, energy, and technological capacity. The document treats economic security as an integral part of national security and identifies reindustrialization, supply-chain independence, and energy independence as core pillars of American power.
The strategy promotes peace through strength and a tendency toward isolationism, favoring prevention, economic leverage, and presidential diplomacy over large-scale military operations. Alliances are retained but reframed as transactional, and partners are expected to share more of the responsibility. Regionally, the Western Hemisphere is prioritized through a revised Monroe Doctrine approach. In the Indo-Pacific, the focus is on long-term economic and technological competition with China while avoiding conflict. Europe is considered strategically important yet internally vulnerable. The United States seeks a more self-reliant European partner. The Middle East receives reduced emphasis, and Africa is approached through trade and investment rather than long-term security commitments.
“Make Europe Great Again”: Strategic reframing of Europe in US policy
According to an analysis by the “Defense One” platform of the longer, unpublished version of the NSS, "Make Europe Great Again" is not simply a slogan, but rather a strategic concept designed to reshape Europe's political, cultural, and institutional order. The analysis presents Europe as experiencing "civilizational erasure," driven by mass immigration, limitations on free speech, population decrease, and the increasing power of EU institutions over national sovereignty. These trends are presented as weakening Europe internally and reducing its effectiveness as a long-term U.S. partner.
At the core of this concept is a shift away from considering Europe as a unified political entity, particularly the European Union, and toward engaging in targeted bilateral cooperation with selected EU member states. The leaked strategy identifies Austria, Poland, Italy, and Hungary as countries whose governments, political movements, or social trends align with the Trump administration's focus on sovereignty, nationalism, and traditional values. The stated objective of "pulling them away from the European Union" signals an intention to privilege nation-to-nation engagement over EU-level interaction, making weakened EU solidarity a strategic goal rather than an unintended consequence.
These four countries are viewed as "regional champions," through which U.S. influence could be exercised more effectively by bypassing Brussels and engaging directly with national governments and aligned political forces. Bilateral cooperation is defined to include diplomacy, trade, security dialogue, and political support. Rather than formulating exit strategies, this approach relies on different incentives, political signaling, and selective partnerships that encourage distance from EU institutions while promoting alignment with Washington on migration, security, trade, and cultural policy.
A defining feature of this approach is the integration of culture and ideology into foreign policy. The NSS, which hasn't been published yet, calls for the U.S. to support political parties, movements, and intellectuals and cultural figures in Europe who support sovereignty and the preservation or restoration of traditional European ways of life, as long as they remain pro-American. The NSS defines Europe’s “greatness” less by liberal integration and multilateral governance and more by cultural continuity, national identity, and resistance to supra-national authority.
The strategy also links this bilateral focus to reduced U.S. commitment to Europe’s collective defense. European states are urged to take on more responsibility for their own security, while U.S. political and strategic support becomes more conditional and unpredictable. The call to end a constantly expanding NATO highlights the shift from comprehensive guarantees to selective, interest-based cooperation. This approach aligns with the administration’s broader rejection of American global hegemony. It frames U.S. withdrawal as necessary and uses targeted partnerships to prevent Russia or China from filling the gap.
The response of Austria, Poland, Italy, and Hungary to the “leaked” strategy
Officials in the four countries - Austria, Poland, Italy, and Hungary that were mentioned in the leaked version of the U.S. National Security Strategy have reacted in different ways that reflect their political cultures, domestic debates, and relationships with both the European Union and the United States. While none has endorsed leaving the EU, their reactions reveal varying degrees of resistance, caution, pragmatism, and rhetorical alignment with elements of the U.S. critique of Europe.
At the governmental level, Austria’s reaction has been the most direct and confrontational. Chancellor Christian Stocker and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have categorically rejected any suggestion that the United States could influence Austria’s EU membership. They have described such notions as divisive, unacceptable, and incompatible with European sovereignty. As the country marks the 30th anniversary of its accession, Vienna emphasized that Austria is and will remain strongly committed to the EU. The Foreign Ministry also rejected the NSS’s perception of Europe as economically or culturally declining and opposed any U.S. interference in Europe’s internal political affairs.
Meanwhile, the Austrian government interpreted the NSS as a strategic warning that Europe must take on a larger role in ensuring its own security and defense. This dual response; rejecting interference while acknowledging Europe’s growing security burden illustrates Austria’s attempt to defend EU cohesion while adapting to shifting U.S. priorities.
However, domestically, the leaked strategy has exacerbated existing political polarization. The far-right Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) welcomed the U.S. strategy and shared its criticism of EU integration. Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Beate Meinl-Reisinger accused the FPÖ of being “stooges” of Russian President Vladimir Putin and warned against Europe's dependence on U.S. political processes. FPÖ politicians' evident connections to U.S. Republican circles, including attending events hosted by the New York Young Republican Club and publicly supporting Donald Trump, have led some analysts to describe Austria as a potential "bridge state" for U.S. ideological influence within the EU. The Austrian government has firmly rejected this description.
The reaction in Poland has been more restrained and pragmatic. Official responses have avoided confrontation, instead focusing on continued engagement with Washington. Senior Polish security officials, aligned with President Karol Nawrocki, traveled to the United States for consultations. They framed these meetings as opportunities to clarify the implications of the leaked strategy and explore bilateral cooperation.
Although some in Poland's political leadership have long advocated for greater national sovereignty within the EU and criticized what they see as centralization in Brussels, there has been no official support for withdrawing from the EU. Polish officials have been careful to distinguish criticism of EU policies from the issue of membership itself, recognizing that EU accession enjoys strong and consistent public support. Thus, Poland’s response combines a commitment to remaining within the EU framework with openness to closer U.S. ties.
Italy’s response has been shaped by its historical role as a founding member of the European integration project, as well as by its concern about perceptions of EU instability. However, the idea of distancing Italy from the Union was not endorsed by any Italian government official. Instead, Italian leaders emphasized that reports of U.S. efforts to detach Italy from the EU were based on leaked documents rather than official U.S. policy.
They reaffirmed the country’s commitment to EU membership while stressing the importance of maintaining strong transatlantic relations. Public discourse in Italy reflected distrust of the leaked narrative and included calls for clarification from Washington. Italy’s reaction demonstrates a balancing act of maintaining constructive relations with the United States while rejecting any challenge to its place in the EU.
Among the four countries, Hungary has responded most positively to the critique of European integration underlying the NSS, though not to the idea of leaving the EU. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán publicly welcomed the NSS’s recognition of Europe’s “civilizational-scale decline,” aligning it with Hungary’s long-standing opposition to EU migration policies and emphasizing national sovereignty.
Orbán framed elements of the U.S. strategy as validation of Hungary’s political direction, especially regarding cultural and demographic matters. However, Hungary has not advocated for EU withdrawal and continues to pursue a pragmatic strategy of remaining within the EU while seeking to maximize national autonomy. Hungary's recent securing of a temporary exemption from U.S. sanctions on Russian energy highlights its efforts to leverage its relationship with Washington for national benefits, while remaining formally committed to EU membership.
The reactions of Austria, Poland, Italy, and Hungary demonstrate that the leaked U.S. strategy has not produced any official momentum toward EU exit. Austria and Italy have rejected the premise outright, Poland has engaged diplomatically without signaling withdrawal, and Hungary has embraced the critique of EU policies while remaining in the Union. These responses reflect diverse domestic political landscapes and a shared recognition that EU membership continues to serve essential economic, security, and political interests.
Broader European Responses
Beyond the four named countries, reactions across Europe have been largely negative, and there is a strong sense of dissatisfaction with the decision. EU institutions and leaders of member states responded with alarm and rejection, opposing any external interference in European politics. European Council President António Costa emphasized that allies do not influence one another’s domestic political systems, reaffirming European sovereignty in decision-making.
In France, the leaked strategy was described as a “brutal clarification” of shifting U.S. priorities, further strengthening the call for European strategic autonomy, particularly in defense and industrial policy. Germany shared these concerns, with senior officials rejecting any attempt to influence Europe’s political orientation. They stressed the importance of greater European self-reliance while maintaining NATO cooperation.
Benelux and Scandinavian governments rejected the notion that EU solidarity is a liability and emphasized that supporting particular parties or movements could jeopardize democratic principles. Southern European states, including Spain and Portugal, expressed concern that weakening EU unity would harm stability amid geopolitical tensions. Beyond Poland and Hungary, Central and Eastern European countries such as the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, and the Baltic states expressed anxiety that reduced U.S. engagement combined with EU fragmentation could weaken defense against Russia.
At the EU institutional level, the leaked strategy reinforced calls for closer coordination regarding defense, counter-disinformation, and protection against foreign political influence. Thus, most European governments rejected the legitimacy of U.S. involvement in Europe’s internal political affairs, strengthening their commitment to European unity and strategic autonomy. They argued that external encouragement of fragmentation would weaken Europe, not make it great.
