The Trump administration’s quiet release of its new National Security Strategy (NSS) has sparked discussion in Washington not because of what it boldly declared, but because of how little noise accompanied it-and how much it left unsaid. Traditionally, the unveiling of a national security strategy is a political event in its own right. Past presidents have used the document as both a governing blueprint and a symbolic break from their predecessors, often introducing it with a high-profile speech meant to dominate headlines and reassure allies while warning adversaries. This time, however, there was no grand rollout, no major address by President Donald Trump or a senior cabinet official. Instead, a 33-page document quietly appeared online, signaling that the administration may view the strategy less as a defining statement and more as a formality.

That subdued release is telling. National security strategies are as much about messaging as they are about substance. They communicate priorities to allies, adversaries, Congress, and the American public. By choosing to publish the strategy with minimal fanfare, the administration implicitly suggested that the document itself is not where the real story lies. In the Trump era-perhaps more than in any recent presidency-policy direction is shaped less by carefully worded strategy papers and more by presidential instinct, political calculation, and immediate action.

Substantively, the strategy differs from its predecessors in structure and scope. Rather than attempting to address every corner of the globe, it narrows its focus to four main regions: the Western Hemisphere, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Africa appears only briefly at the end, almost as an afterthought, reinforcing the administration’s stated belief that previous strategies were too diffuse and insufficiently prioritized. On paper, this focus makes sense. Any strategy that tries to be everywhere risks being nowhere in particular. Yet selectivity also reveals hierarchy-and omission can be as meaningful as inclusion.

Among the four main regions, Europe has drawn the most scrutiny. The strategy’s treatment of the continent has been widely interpreted as a political rebuke of the transatlantic establishment. It questions longstanding assumptions about alliances and notably refrains from explicitly identifying Russia as an adversary or even a competitor. This marks a clear departure not only from the Biden administration’s approach but also from Trump’s own first-term strategy, which took a more confrontational tone toward Moscow in official documents, even when the president’s personal rhetoric suggested ambivalence.

By contrast, the Middle East and Asia sections were received more positively within policy circles. They largely align with existing US priorities: maintaining leverage in the Middle East while reducing direct military exposure, and counterbalancing China’s influence in Asia. Yet the clearest priority of the entire document is the Western Hemisphere. Protecting the homeland, controlling borders, combating organized crime, and limiting external influence in the Americas are framed as central to US national security. This emphasis reflects Trump’s long-standing worldview, one rooted in sovereignty, territorial control, and a sharp distinction between domestic security and overseas commitments.

Still, what the strategy leaves out may be more revealing than what it includes. One of the most striking omissions is any substantive reference to Central Asia or the South Caucasus. This absence is puzzling on multiple levels. Geographically and strategically, these regions serve as a bridge between Europe and Asia-two of the strategy’s four focal points. Politically, they have been the subject of significant diplomatic engagement by Trump himself. His administration invested considerable effort in facilitating a peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan, ending a conflict that had simmered for nearly three decades. Trump also hosted the leaders of Central Asian states at the White House to mark the tenth anniversary of the C5+1 format, the first such summit held at that level. Given this record, the total omission of these regions suggests either an internal disconnect between diplomacy and strategy writing, or a deliberate decision to downplay areas that do not fit neatly into the administration’s core narrative.

Equally surprising is the lack of attention paid to the Arctic. If the Western Hemisphere is the top priority, then the Arctic-particularly the northern approaches to the US mainland-should logically be central to that discussion. Climate change, increased shipping routes, and growing Russian and Chinese interest have transformed the Arctic into a key strategic arena. Trump himself has repeatedly raised the issue, most famously through his controversial remarks about Greenland and more substantively through recent announcements regarding new icebreaker capabilities. Yet the strategy focuses almost exclusively on the Caribbean and Latin America, leaving the northern half of the hemisphere conspicuously absent.

Afghanistan’s omission is even more striking. For more than two decades, Afghanistan was a central theater of US national security policy. Trump played a direct role in shaping its trajectory during his first term by overseeing negotiations with the Taliban that ultimately paved the way for the US withdrawal. Regardless of one’s view of that deal, Afghanistan remains relevant to discussions of terrorism, regional stability, and US credibility. This is reportedly the first national security strategy in nearly 30 years to make no mention of the country at all. Such silence may reflect a desire to turn the page politically, but it also underscores how strategy documents can be shaped by domestic considerations as much as by strategic realities.

The near absence of counterterrorism from the document is another notable shift. Despite polling that shows most Americans still view transnational terrorism as a major threat, the strategy barely addresses it, and when it does, it is largely framed through the lens of narco-terrorism in the Western Hemisphere. This contrasts sharply with Trump’s first-term strategy, which placed significant emphasis on terrorist threats. The change does not necessarily mean terrorism is no longer a concern within the administration; rather, it suggests a reframing of the issue to align with border security and domestic enforcement priorities.

Ultimately, national security strategies in the US system are best understood as signaling documents rather than binding roadmaps. While they originate in the White House, real power over national security is dispersed across institutions. The Pentagon conducts its own strategic reviews, the intelligence community produces independent assessments, and Congress wields enormous influence through its control of funding. History shows that the connection between strategy documents and actual policy is often tenuous-especially under presidents who govern through personal authority rather than bureaucratic consensus.

Trump’s first term offers ample evidence of this gap. Policies frequently diverged from formal strategies, driven instead by the president’s instincts, political pressures, or sudden shifts in priorities. There is little reason to believe his second term will be different. The newly released strategy may provide insight into how the administration wants to frame its worldview, but it should not be mistaken for a definitive guide to future action.

In the end, the most important factor in US national security is not the language of a 33-page document but the decisions of the individual in the Oval Office. Allies, adversaries, and observers would be wise to pay less attention to what is written on paper and more attention to what the president actually does. In the Trump era, actions-not strategies-are what truly define America’s role in the world.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel