China is the top priority in the Trump administration’s national security strategy, but that’s balanced with a sharpened focus on the Western Hemisphere, a panel of defense experts agreed Thursday.
Mackenzie Eaglen, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said, “China first, full stop” sits atop the security concerns in an administration with a diverse global outlook.
Beijing’s investments in developing weapons systems like its hypersonic glide vehicle reinforce the point of placing China as the nation’s top security concern, she added.
Looking at the immediate threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, Michael O’Hanlon, director of Brookings’ Strobe Talbott Center, said he was “a little more hopeful” that such an attack would not any time happen soon. “I’m not saying deterrence is about to fail” when it comes to holding back Xi Jin ping’s ambitions to take control of the self-governing island by force if necessary.
O’Hanlon noted the steps taken by the United States and its Pacific allies to bolster their own defenses and readiness to respond to possible China aggression in the Indo-Pacific has been effective.
The United States is “pretty good at combat,” he added. “I think [China is] wary” of undertaking an amphibious and air assault on Taiwan with forces untested in war for decades.
In a recently released paper, O’Hanlon wrote, “crossing the strait requires the PLA to protect big, vulnerable ships and airplanes. By contrast, using various gray-zone methods of harassment against shipping, limited missile strikes against ships and ports, or submarine attacks as part of a blockade (whether airtight or “leaky”) seems more consistent with Chinese military thinking—and more promising.”
Stephen Tankel, a professor of foreign policy and global security at American University, said in the Western Hemisphere the emphasis especially shows with the actions taken by the Pentagon in sending troops on a mission to secure the 2,000-mile-long southern border with Mexico.
Shortly after taking office, the Trump administration ordered 3,000 more active-duty soldiers to the border with Mexico. They joined the 1,200 already there and the 5,000 National Guardsmen under the control of local governors.
As an example of that new naval emphasis on the hemisphere and also as a demonstration of hard power, Eaglen pointed to the deployment of guided-missile destroyer USS Gravely (DDG-107) last week. The warship embarked with a Coast Guard law enforcement detachment to provide southern border protection with the dual mission of halting illegal migration by sea and stopping the flow of fentanyl into the United States.
USNI News reported U.S. Fleet Forces Commander Adm. Daryl Caudle told reporters there could be other West Coast-based destroyers that operate off the coast of San Diego.
“But you can think of operations in the Gulf of America being a predominant part of [southern border enforcement] for the East Coast ship, and then on the West Coast ship, you can think of the area in and around the San Diego area, and that traffic area coming in between Mexico and the United States.”
This deployment came at the same time as the Air Force confirmed U-2 and RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft were flying intelligence missions along the border.
The Washington Post reported that the administration is considering plans to allow active-duty service members to detain migrants who cross into the country illegally and then turn them over to law enforcement officials.
“How much of that is driven by domestic politics” is yet to be determined, said Tankel. Border security was a constant theme of President Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. He expressed concern over these border deployments are having on the active-duty force.
Also unclear now is whether the administration’s security approach is leaning toward allowing “spheres of influence” thinking where China is considered the lead in Asia, Russia in Europe and the United States in the Americas.
“Disruption can be good,” but when occurring across the board it sows confusion among the American workforce and allies, Tankel said. He included examples like downsizing the Pentagon civilian workforce and Washington and Moscow opening peace talks on Ukraine without Kyiv or the European Union present.
Nowhere is that more obvious than with Europe when it comes to Ukraine’s future and Washington’s commitment to the NATO alliance, O’Hanlon said.
“I think it’s a very bad idea” for the United States to give up the position of Supreme Allied Commander Europe [SACEUR],” he said.
“The United States still accounts for two-thirds of NATO’s spending. Why would we give up the command?”
Tankel said the administration’s push to have Europe provide more for its own security was important and positive.
As to whether the structure of the combatant commands should be re-examined, Eaglen said in the past “everything has been just additive.”
Questions weren’t asked about the relevance of geography in an era of cyber and space warfare. In effect, defense leaders created “new barnacles of bureaucracy,” rather than changes to strategic thinking.
Reports say European and African Commands and Northern and Southern Commands are being considered in the drive to reallocate up to 8 percent of the Pentagon’s budget to more pressing priorities.
