The study examines global leadership and alliances, refuting claims that Washington is retreating from its international role. A recent research study by the TRENDS Research & Advisory‘s United States office has claimed that, despite its apparent differences in character and orientation, the new National Security Strategy under President Donald Trump shares many subjects, policies, and methods with those of previous American administrations. The study argues that Trump’s rude and blunt language is primarily responsible for creating a misleading impression of fundamental change. The study, authored by Bilal Y. Saab, Senior Director at TRENDS US, identified the concept of “peace through strength” as a prominent example of this continuity. It explained that although this term is at the forefront of the new strategy, it is not new to American foreign policy thinking. While it is most famously associated with President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, its roots extend back to 1951 under President Harry S. Truman, and it has remained a favored Republican Party slogan ever since. The study also highlighted key points on prioritizing pragmatism over ideology. It argued that the strategy adopts a principle of pure pragmatism, stressing that the United States will do whatever serves its national interests without apology. This approach has been followed by all previous administrations, including those of Bush, Obama, and Biden, in which strategic interests—such as energy security and arms sales—have consistently prevailed over ideological commitments and human rights concerns. In addition, the study addressed enduring Middle East priorities. Saab explained that the strategy’s objective of preventing hostile forces from controlling energy resources and strategic waterways, while simultaneously avoiding “the Forever War,” has been a consistent American goal for nearly eight decades. The study claims that the primary difference lies not in the objective itself but in the desire to avoid the implementation errors and failed policies witnessed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The study also examines global leadership and alliances, refuting claims that Washington is retreating from its international role. It asserts that the strategy continues to view Europe as “strategically and culturally vital”. It maintains the traditional commitment to Taiwan and to preserving the status quo, thereby rejecting the isolationist hypothesis. In the context of economic competition, the study identifies a significant gap in the document: treating competition with China solely from an economic perspective while neglecting its military dimension. It notes that the strategy still reflects the core logic of “great power competition,” even if this concept is not explicitly presented as a central heading. The study concludes by emphasizing that the current National Security Strategy, like its predecessor, provides clear strategic guidance but remains silent on resource allocation — an issue expected to be addressed in the forthcoming National Defense Strategy (NDS).