The Trump administration presents its new National Defense Strategy (NDS) as a break from previous strategies, including that of the first Trump administration. Out are Russia, Europe, and climate change. In are hemispheric security, “warrior ethos,” and burden shifting. Many changes are indeed substantial, even radical, and reportedly received pushback from military leaders during the drafting process. Others, however, may not be as significant as they first appear, and there is some continuity with previous strategy documents. The document also constitutes a different reading experience, departing from the analytic tone of previous strategy documents and often adopting the tone of a political rally.
Summary of the 2026 NDS
Approach: The 2026 NDS covers the same topics as the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) and does so in a similar way. It is not an implementation document but, in effect, a second policy document. The Department of Defense (DOD; this white paper uses the name Department of Defense because that continues to be the agency’s legal name) was apparently reluctant to get ahead of the president in any realm. As evidence of this, the president’s name or a reference to him appears 47 times.
Tone: The tone is populist and partisan. The document rejects the national security approach of previous administrations, including, by implication, the first Trump administration. Indeed, the first Trump administration is mentioned only once—and in passing.
Radical changes: Homeland and hemispheric security are the top priorities, though the effect on forces is unclear. There is extensive discussion of counter-drug and counter-migration efforts but no discussion of military use in cities. Europe is turned over to the Europeans to defend, with the United States in support. The strategy does not see a conventional conflict with Russia or North Korea as major U.S. force drivers.
Moderate changes: Missile defense expands with the new concept of Golden Dome. North Korea is seen as a threat but mainly to South Korea and Japan, with the United States focused on missile capabilities that can strike the U.S. homeland.
Continuity: Strong support for Taiwan and countering China persists. Also continuing are backing for nuclear modernization and strengthening of the industrial base. Unlike the NSS, which saw the Middle East as a low-demand theater, Iran and terrorism will continue to demand attention. The 2026 NDS continues the two-conflict construct of recent decades but shifts the second conflict to allies.
Omissions: The absence of diversity, equity, and inclusion and climate are expected. Unexpected is the omission of any mention of the all-volunteer force or the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
Why an NDS?
The NDS fulfills a congressional mandate that the secretary of defense publish a “strategic framework” to address “priority missions of the Department of Defense” and the “assumed strategic environment.” Since 2018, the result of this comprehensive examination has been called the National Defense Strategy. This replaced the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The custom of publishing strategy reviews every four years began with the Clinton administration’s 1993 Bottom-Up Review (BUR).
Despite the limitations and problems with strategy documents, the 2026 NDS is significant because, along with the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS), it sets out the second Trump administration’s worldview, policy goals, and theory of how to achieve them. Such a reference document is particularly helpful now because of the Trump administration’s sometimes shifting policies during its first year in office.
Promptness, Length, and Tone
Before diving into the substance of the new NDS, it is worth stepping back and considering the NDS as a document. Three attributes are worth examining because they affect policy and perception: promptness (how quickly the document was published compared to earlier strategy documents), length (how long the document is compared to other strategy documents and, therefore, how much information it provides), and finally, the tone (analytical or partisan).
Promptness: The statutory language requires a new administration to publish the NDA “as soon as possible.” A draft document was reportedly circulating by late September, but the final version was not released until January 23—a month after the NSS dropped.
The NDS statutorily should “support the most recent national security strategy report of the President.” The two documents were drafted simultaneously, which happens frequently. Release of both was reportedly delayed by internal debates about China as the Trump administration continued trade negotiations during the fall. Indeed, the NSS was dated November even though it came out in December.
Still, compared to recent administrations, the 2026 NDS was published relatively quickly. The Biden administration took a year and a half to publish its NDS because the Russian invasion of Ukraine prompted a delay and rewrite. Rapid publication of an NDS allows an administration to provide more coherence to the sprawling defense establishment—at least in theory. For the second Trump administration, this provides structure for the FY 2027 budget, which the administration is currently developing and will submit in early February, and gives strategic context for its military operations at home and overseas.