“America First” policy is unsettling Israel

The Trump administration’s “National Security Strategy (NSS)” has been released, and next on the agenda is the “National Defense Strategy (NDS)” prepared by the Department of War. The views laid out in the National Security Strategy, in a sense, already offered clues about the forthcoming National Defense Strategy. This is because national security and defense institutions are required to operate in full alignment in implementing the same overarching strategy. The “National Security Strategy” articulates a vision regarding national threats, priorities, and strategy. These views are then translated into military plans, force structures, and budgets within the “National Defense Strategy.”Responsibility for drafting the National Defense Strategy lies with Elbridge Colby, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy at the Department of War. Colby was also the architect of the “National Defense Strategy” during Trump’s first term. For years, Colby has argued that U.S. global military power should be drawn away from Europe and the Middle East and refocused on the Asia-Pacific.

Colby has maintained that U.S. support for Ukraine and its expanding involvement in the Middle East undermine efforts to deter China. It is well known that this approach has deeply unsettled Neoconservatives, the Israel lobby, globalist-liberal hawks, and Republican hawks alike.

President Donald Trump’s nomination of Colby as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy was met with backlash in pro-Israel media outlets. While campaigns were waged against Colby in these publications, many hawks—among them Mitch McConnell, who led Senate Republicans for many years—sought to complicate Colby’s Senate confirmation process. Senator McConnell and other hawks argue that Colby’s Asia-Pacific–focused defense strategy would weaken America’s key alliances in other regions.

With the intervention of Vice President JD Vance, Colby’s confirmation process in the Senate was completed with difficulty. Senator McConnell, however, did not alter his stance against Colby. McConnell was the only Republican senator to vote against Colby’s nomination. Vice President Vance sharply criticized Senator Mitch in a post on his “X” account.

Nevertheless, Republican hawks who control the Senate Armed Services Committee continue to block the confirmation processes of several senior officials said to be very close to Colby. Meanwhile, Republican hawks on the committee—led by Senator Tom Cotton—have not let up in their criticism of Colby. These Republican hawks accuse Colby of failing to communicate sufficiently with them during the drafting of the National Defense Strategy. The friction between Colby and the hawkish Republicans appears to remain unresolved.

Political alignments in Washington, as always, largely revolve around foreign policy. Trump’s “America First” rhetoric—frequently voiced and also reflected in the National Security Strategy—advocates scaling back U.S. global commitments and prioritizing the Western Hemisphere under a “New Monroe Doctrine,” rather than Europe and the Middle East. This approach has sent hawks into an uproar. For this reason, alongside the National Defense Strategy, documents related to the “Global Posture Review” and air/missile defense concepts are being eagerly awaited.

Changes to military force alignments outlined in the U.S. “Global Posture Review” are likely to affect Israel. A U.S. military focus on the Western Hemisphere and, to some extent, the Asia-Pacific raises the possibility that U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), responsible for the “greater Middle East,” could be pushed into the background. There is little doubt that a diminished role for CENTCOM would not be good news for Israel.

The entrenched foreign policy establishment in the United States appears divided over how closely aligned the “National Security” and “National Defense” strategy documents—mandated by Congress—will ultimately be. However, a lengthy speech delivered by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth at the “Reagan National Defense Forum” on December 6, along with statements made by Elbridge Colby two days later on his “X” account, signaled that there would be no contradiction between the two strategy documents and that Trump’s “America First” foreign policy approach would dominate both.

On the other hand, disputes and unease in both chambers of Congress over the policies articulated in the strategy documents point to potential challenges in implementing Trump’s National Security and National Defense strategies.