The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy, released last week, formalized what had previously been obvious only in practice: It is the position of the United States government that Europe, like America, must be protected from the immigrant hordes.
At only 29 pages, the core strategy document is neither particularly complex nor exhaustive. It outlines an approach to security that might be embraced by the manager of a Walmart: Sell as much as you can — and keep an eye out for vandals and shoplifters. The document is useful because it ties Trump’s generally rambling presentation of his desired outcomes into something of a structure.
What results, though, is a somewhat bizarre vision of the U.S., one explicitly at odds with this country’s post-World War II approach.
It is the position of the United States government that Europe, like America, must be protected from the immigrant hordes.
“American foreign policy elites convinced themselves that permanent American domination of the entire world was in the best interests of our country,” the document says of the post-Soviet Union era. “Yet the affairs of other countries are our concern only if their activities directly threaten our interests.”
The line about domination is an exaggerated presentation of past U.S. policy, to be sure, but this new proposed worldview is an obviously fraught path forward. A lot of damage has been done to the U.S. from indirect threats to our interests — some of which are presented in the document! — but those are apparently not of our concern.
The strategy reflects Trump’s broader hostility to immigration, insisting that the U.S. must be protected from “hostile foreign influence,” including but not limited to “human trafficking, destructive propaganda and influence operations [and] cultural subversion.” That it also denounces “DEI” gives a sense of what it considers subversion.
“We want a world in which migration is not merely ‘orderly,’” it says, “but one in which sovereign countries work together to stop rather than facilitate destabilizing population flows.”
What does “destabilizing” mean in that context? That, it turns out, is the heart of the issue.
Among “the United States’ core, vital national interests” (their emphasis), the document notes: “Support[ing] our allies in preserving the freedom and security of Europe, while restoring Europe’s civilizational self-confidence and Western identity.”
If you’re curious about how that comports with being of concern only if our interests are directly threatened, consult the section titled “Promoting European Greatness.” The subtext sits just below the surface, presenting our country as eternally and centrally European — specifically white European.
“America is, understandably, sentimentally attached to the European continent — and, of course, to Britain and Ireland,” the document states. “The character of these countries is also strategically important because we count upon creative, capable, confident, democratic allies to establish conditions of stability and security.”
It is important to maintain the character of those countries, we are told, since that character is under threat. Yes, Europe’s decline as a portion of the world’s economy is bad, but that “economic decline is eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure.”
The U.S. government is committed to protecting the Europeanness of Europe.
“[C]ratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence” mean that “the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less.” Europe, the U.S. government insists, must “remain European” and “regain its civilizational self-confidence.”
“Over the long term, it is more than plausible that within a few decades at the latest, certain NATO members will become majority non-European,” the document says. “As such, it is an open question whether they will view their place in the world, or their alliance with the United States, in the same way as those who signed the NATO charter.”
One can certainly see this as aligning with Trump’s long-standing antipathy toward NATO. But it’s simpler to understand the document for exactly what it says: that the U.S. government is committed to protecting the Europeanness of Europe, with unvarnished hand-wringing over the increased diversity of places like Britain and Ireland. So much of Trumpism, after all, is hand-wringing over the increased diversity of the United States. If European nations become majority non-European (wink, wink) will they even respect basic agreements their countries once signed? This, the stated concern of a U.S. president who has abandoned or ignored past national agreements with giddy enthusiasm. Another section quickly dispatches with the supposed dangers of immigration, including weakened social cohesion — a nifty bit of question-begging, given how much that weakening is driven by immigration opponents. This paranoia about nonwhite and non-European people is obviously not only about Europe. It’s also about the revamped vision offered of the U.S. place in the world. The document insists that the U.S. produces the greatest goods and should do more of it, an economic isolationism that makes it essential either that America does offer the highest-quality products without exception (which may be unattainable) or that Americans believe that we do (which is probably easier to make happen). The same holds for people: Either we necessarily have the best human beings on Earth doing the best work, or Americans have to believe that we do, in order to support keeping nonwhite foreign workers out. America should stand up for “unapologetic celebrations of European nations’ individual character and history,” the only-focused-on-direct-threats document demands. “America encourages its political allies in Europe to promote this revival of spirit, and the growing influence of patriotic European parties indeed gives cause for great optimism.” By “patriotic,” the document obviously means “right-wing,” given where influence in European politics has actually grown. And that brought to mind a conversation I had with Thomas Zimmer, a historian of 20th century democracy. “There’s a reason why, when Trump got elected in 2016, every far-right movement all over the Western world rejoiced,” Zimmer told me. “They, I think quite rightly, looked at America as an advanced test case for whether or not it would be possible to erect a stable, functioning, multiracial democracy.” The stakes were incredibly high, he said. And that was when we spoke four years ago, soon after Trump had been rejected by voters. It was well before Trump’s second administration decided that a central concern for American security would be that Europe remain “European.”
Philip Bump is a data journalist and MS NOW contributor. 
