Jeffrey Sachs: Trump’s Empire of Hubris and Thuggery

Yves here. Even though the recent Trump National Security Strategy document created an uproar, among other reasons for its harsh criticism of Europe and its condescension towards Russia as needing to be brought in from a presumed successful economic deep freeze.

Despite the Trump Team stating things that might be better left unsaid, like “I hate you and I want a divorce,” it’s not clear that they will be able to execute all that much, even before getting to the key point by Sachs below, that US efforts to preserve its flagging empire via brute force will continue to backfire.

The Trump Administration declared its hostility towards providing past levels of military support to Europe at the Munich Security Conference in February. Secretary of State Rubio was a no-show at a NATO meeting of foreign ministers in December. Yet Trump is too hemmed in by the permanent bureaucracy, which is firmly neocon, and hawks like Lindsay Graham to operate freely. For instance, we and others have pointed out that the US could bring Zelensky to heel by cutting off intelligence support, which includes targeting. Trump apparently fears the consequences of taking that step.

But the US may be setting out to get its aims vis-a-vis Europe and Ukraine via other means. Recall how Michael Hudson has been writing about how destructive US economic policies towards Europe have become. A new story suggests that the US has even more overt destabilization plans. From the Brussels Times (hat tip Micael T):

The United States, led by President Donald Trump, aims to persuade four EU countries to follow the UK’s example and leave the EU, according to a longer leaked version of the American national security strategy reportedly seen by US defence website Defense One.

The secret file supposedly claims that the Trump administration wants to prise four EU countries – Austria, Italy, Hungary and Poland – away from the bloc and closer to the US’ circle of influence as part of a new strategy to “Make Europe Great Again.”

Mind you, the US has denied that this draft is bona fide. From the same article:

As the leak triggered alarm across social media platforms and among media outlets in Europe, the White House denied these claims, stating that there is no other version of the NSS than the one published last week.

“No alternative, private, or classified version exists,” said Anna Kelly, a spokeswoman for the White House. “President Trump is transparent and put his signature on one National Security Strategy that clearly instructs the US government to execute on his defined principles and priorities.”

Even if this idea is under consideration, it would be yet another show of US ignorance. The reason the UK could depart, a move a majority now see as a mistake, is that it has its own currency. Italy and Austria are in the Eurozone. As we explained long form with Greece during its 2015 bailout crisis, an attempt to depart, due to the considerable lead times, would lead to bank runs and a banking system crash. Hungary is too small and integrated into the EU trade-wise for that to work. Nearly 80% of Hungary’s imports and exports are with the Union. 74% of Poland’s exports and 67% of imports were with the bloc.

By Jeffrey D. Sachs, a University Professor and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University. Originally published at Common Dreams

The 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) recently released by President Donald Trump presents itself as a blueprint for renewed American strength. It is dangerously misconceived in four ways.

First, the NSS is anchored in grandiosity: the belief that the United States enjoys unmatched supremacy in every key dimension of power. Second, it is based on a starkly Machiavellian view of the world, treating other nations as instruments to be manipulated for American advantage. Third, it rests on a naïve nationalism that dismisses international law and institutions as encumbrances on US sovereignty rather than as frameworks that enhance US and global security together.

Fourth, it signals a thuggery in Trump’s use of the CIA and military. Within days of the NSS’s publication, the US brazenly seized a tanker carrying Venezuelan oil on the high seas—on the flimsy grounds that the vessel had previously violated US sanctions against Iran.

The seizure was not a defensive measure to avert an imminent threat. Nor is it remotely legal to seize vessels on the high seas because of unilateral US sanctions. Only the UN Security Council has such authority. Instead, the seizure is an illegal act designed to force regime change in Venezuela. It follows Trump’s declaration that he has directed the CIA to carry out covert operations inside Venezuela to destabilize the regime.

American security will not be strengthened by acting like a bully. It will be weakened—structurally, morally, and strategically. A great power that frightens its allies, coerces its neighbors, and disregards international rules ultimately isolates itself.

The NSS, in other words, is not just an exercise in hubris on paper. It is rapidly being translated into brazen practice.

A Glimmer of Realism, Then a Lurch into Hubris

To be fair, the NSS contains moments of long-overdue realism. It implicitly concedes that the United States cannot and should not attempt to dominate the entire world, and it correctly recognizes that some allies have dragged Washingtoninto costly wars of choice that were not in America’s true interests. It also steps back—at least rhetorically—from an all-consuming great-power crusade. The strategy rejects the fantasy that the United States can or should impose a universal political order.

But the modesty is short-lived. The NSS quickly reasserts that America possesses the “world’s single largest and most innovative economy,” “the world’s leading financial system,” and “the world’s most advanced and most profitable technology sector,” all backed by “the world’s most powerful and capable military.” These claims serve not simply as patriotic affirmations, but as a justification for using American dominance to impose terms on others. Smaller countries, it seems, will bear the brunt of this hubris, since the US cannot defeat the other great powers, not least because they are nuclear-armed.

Naked Machiavellianism in Doctrine

The NSS’s grandiosity is welded to a naked Machiavellianism. The question it asks is not how the United States and other countries can cooperate for mutual benefit, but how American leverage—over markets, finance, technology, and security—can be applied to extract maximal concessions from other countries.

This is most pronounced in the NSS discussion of the Western Hemisphere section, which declares a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. The United States, the NSS declares, will ensure that Latin America “remains free of hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets,” and alliances and aid will be conditioned on “winding down adversarial outside influence.” That “influence” clearly refers to Chinese investment, infrastructure, and lending.

The NSS is explicit: US agreements with countries “that depend on us most and therefore over which we have the most leverage” must result in sole-source contracts for American firms. US policy should “make every effort to push out foreign companies” that build infrastructure in the region, and the US should reshape multilateral development institutions, such as the World Bank, so that they “serve American interests.”

Latin American governments, many of whom trade extensively with both the United States and China, are effectively being told: you must deal with us, not China—or face the consequences.

Such a strategy is strategically naive. China is the main trading partner for most of the world, including many countries in the Western hemisphere. The US will be unable to compel Latin American nations to expel Chinese firms, but will gravely damage US diplomacy in the attempt.

Thuggery So Brazen Even Close Allies Are Alarmed

The NSS proclaims a doctrine of “sovereignty and respect,” yet its behavior has already reduced that principle to sovereignty for the US, vulnerability for the rest. What makes the emerging doctrine even more extraordinary is that it is now frightening not only small states in Latin America, but even the United States’ closest allies in Europe.

In a remarkable development, Denmark—one of America’s most loyal NATO partners—has openly declared the United States a potential threat to Danish national security. Danish defense planners have stated publicly that Washington under Trump cannot be assumed to respect the Kingdom of Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland, and that a coercive US attempt to seize the island is a contingency for which Denmark must now plan.

This is astonishing on several levels. Greenland is already host to the US Thule Air Base and firmly within the Western security system. Denmark is not anti-American, nor is it seeking to provoke Washington. It is simply responding rationally to a world in which the United States has begun to behave unpredictably—even toward its supposed friends.

That Copenhagen feels compelled to contemplate defensive measures against Washington speaks volumes. It suggests that the legitimacy of the US-led security architecture is eroding from within. If even Denmark believes it must hedge against the United States, the problem is no longer one of Latin America’s vulnerability. It is a systemic crisis of confidence among nations that once saw the US as the guarantor of stability but now view it as a possible or likely aggressor.

In short, the NSS seems to channel the energy previously devoted to great-power confrontation into bullying of smaller states. If America seems to be a bit less inclined to launch trillion-dollar wars abroad, it is more inclined to weaponize sanctions, financial coercion, asset seizures, and theft on the high seas.

The Missing Pillar: Law, Reciprocity, and Decency

Perhaps the deepest flaw of the NSS is what it omits: a commitment to international law, reciprocity, and basic decency as foundations of American security.

The NSS regards global governance structures as obstacles to US action. It dismisses climate cooperation as “ideology,” and indeed a “hoax” according to Trump’s recent speech at the UN. It downplays the UN Charter and envisions international institutions primarily as instruments to be bent toward American preferences. Yet it is precisely legal frameworks, treaties, and predictable rules that have historically protected American interests.

The founders of the United States understood this clearly. Following the American War of Independence, thirteen newly sovereign states soon adopted a constitution to pool key powers—over taxation, defense, and diplomacy—not to weaken the states’ sovereignty, but to secure it by creating the US Federal Government. The post-WWII foreign policy of the United States government did the same through the UN, the Bretton Woods institutions, the World Trade Organization, and arms-control agreements.

The Trump NSS now reverses that logic. It treats the freedom to coerce others as the essence of sovereignty. From that perspective, the Venezuelan tanker seizure and Denmark’s anxieties are manifestations of the new policy.

Athens, Melos, and Washington

Such hubris will come back to haunt the United States. The ancient Greek historian Thucydides records that when imperial Athens confronted the small island of Melos in 416 BC, the Athenians declared that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Yet Athens’ hubris was also its undoing. Twelve years later, in 404 BC, Athens fell to Sparta. Athenian arrogance, overreach, and contempt for smaller states helped galvanize the alliance that ultimately brought it down.

The 2025 NSS speaks in a similar arrogant register. It is a doctrine of power over law, coercion over consent, and dominance over diplomacy. American security will not be strengthened by acting like a bully. It will be weakened—structurally, morally, and strategically. A great power that frightens its allies, coerces its neighbors, and disregards international rules ultimately isolates itself.

America’s national security strategy should be based on wholly different premises: acceptance of a plural world; recognition that sovereignty is strengthened, not diminished, through international law; acknowledgment that global cooperation on climate, health, and technology is indispensable; and understanding that America’s global influence depends more on persuasion than coercion.