Is this a sign of a shift in the global U.S. strategy?
Politico reports:
Pentagon plan prioritizes homeland over China threat
This marks a major departure from the first Trump administration, which emphasized deterring Beijing.
Pentagon officials are proposing the department prioritize protecting the homeland and Western Hemisphere, a striking reversal from the military’s yearslong mandate to focus on the threat from China.
A draft of the newest National Defense Strategy, which landed on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s desk last week, places domestic and regional missions above countering adversaries such as Beijing and Moscow, according to three people briefed on early versions of the report.
The move would mark a major shift from recent Democrat and Republican administrations, including President Donald Trump’s first term in office, when he referred to Beijing as America’s greatest rival. And it would likely inflame China hawks in both parties who view the country’s leadership as a danger to U.S. security.
“This is going to be a major shift for the U.S. and its allies on multiple continents,” said one of the people briefed on the draft document. “The old, trusted U.S. promises are being questioned.”
The National Defense Strategy (NDS) is written by the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy which currently is held by arch-Realist Elbridge Colby.
The draft of the new NDS seems to be a contradiction of his previous believes:
Identifying as a realist, Colby believes China is the principal threat faced by the United States. He believes the US should shift its military resources to Asia to prevent a Chinese takeover of Taiwan. Colby supports reducing military aid to Ukraine. During the AUKUS review in 2025, Elbridge pressured Australia to confirm what role it would play in a war with China over Taiwan.
Colby wants to change U.S. defense policy from concentrating on China, as he had previously argued, to the Western Hemisphere. He may have seen new facts that have moved his opinion.
The failed attempt by the U.S. Navy to secure shipping through the Red Sea against attacks by Houthi in Yemen may have caused such rethink. As may have the loss of the US/NATO's proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.
Or did he compare videos of the 'woke' U.S. military parade in Washington DC (vid) earlier this year with the recent flawless one in China (vid)? The difference was indeed glaring. It demonstrated that the U.S. has no chance of winning in a war against China.
Trump seems to concede that China is winning:
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump – Sep 04, 2025, 22:14 UTC
Looks like we’ve lost India and Russia to deepest, darkest, China. May they have a long and prosperous future together! President Donald J. Trump
It is difficult to believe though that the Trump administration will be able to change U.S. grand strategy. Any change will typically happen only at a snail's pace. It would need all party support over multiple administrations. The pivot to Asia was launched by the Obama administration in 2010 and has since has been followed by all later ones.
More from Politico:
Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon’s policy chief, is leading the strategy. He played a key role in writing the 2018 version during Trump’s first term and has been a staunch supporter of a more isolationist American policy. Despite his long track record as a China hawk, Colby aligns with Vice President JD Vance on the desire to disentangle the U.S. from foreign commitments.
Colby’s policy team is also responsible for a forthcoming global posture review, which outlines where U.S. forces are stationed around the globe, and a theater air and missile defense review, which takes stock of U.S. and allies’ air defenses and makes recommendations for where to locate American systems. The Pentagon is expected to release both reviews as soon as next month.
It is expected that the new global posture review will move U.S. military resources from Europe, and probably also from Asia, back to the States.
But a shift in resources may well be all that there is.
Over the last year the U.S. has urged its 'allies' to invest more in defense than previously. Moving U.S. resources away from where allies take over is not a real change of strategy.
The U.S. pulls back from Ukraine but pushes the Europeans to continue the war against Russia. The general aim of 'weakening Russia', thus stays the same.
So while U.S. military resources are shrinking or shifting to geographically more nearby issues the overarching grand strategy aim, the achievement of global U.S. primacy, may well stay the same. It is just that other are pushed to carry a bigger burden for it. Colby's pressure on Australia and Japan is pointing that way.
