Trump Pivots to the 'Homeland': Neocon Deathblow? Or Simply Imperialism Repackaged?

Major outlets are reporting that the US is set to shift its entire geopolitical strategy away from Eurasia and toward its own sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere. This is according to “sources” briefed on a new National Defense Strategy framework whose chief architect is Elbridge Colby, the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy.

From the above Politico link:

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.

This is particularly interesting because, as Politico notes, Elbridge Colby has previously been a China hawk, and Trump and his policy makers have in general cited China as the US’ principle threat in the past, advocating for a quick end to the Ukrainian war for the sole purpose of being able to pivot to the so-called “Chinese threat”.

So—if these rumors are true—why the sudden about face on this critical geopolitical issue?

Bernhard at MoA seems to have nailed the most realistic explanation:

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.

B goes on to share this quite emblematic post from Trump:

Trump appears to be expressing his indifference for the Dragon-Bear-Elephant union—though it could be a kind of feigned affectation owing to a self-admitted powerlessness in the circumstances. In truth, Trump’s recent actions appear almost designed to alienate India from the US into China and Russia’s arms, as if the plan is to intentionally isolate the US in a kind of cunning 4D out-maneuvering of the embedded warhawk-MIC establishment. This drunken-master Kung Fu-style of geopolitics leaves one guessing at which positive and successful outcomes are by design, and which by sheer chaotic luck-of-the-draw, which, for now, leaves Trump as a kind of ultimate political enigma as president.

In accordance with this news, FT reports that the US is set to cut key security funds for European countries bordering Russia.

The US is to phase out security assistance programmes for European armies along Russia’s border, as it pushes the continent to pay for more of its own defence.

Pentagon officials last week informed European diplomats that the US would no longer fund programmes that train and equip militaries in eastern European countries that would be on the frontline of any conflict with Russia, people familiar with the matter said.

Now Trump has launched an initiative to take crime and dysfunction-plagued US cities under military and ICE stewardship, as he has done in DC.

This has led many to naturally conclude that Trump truly is leaning into prioritizing the domestic sphere away from global and international concerns, boldly moving to unyoke the US from its disastrous neocon-led hegemonic trajectory.

But as B noted in his earlier MoA piece, there is little of actual substance yet to demonstrate that these moves will change the calculus at all:

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.

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.

Recall the US even under Trump has dragged its feet for years on initiatives to pull troops from Iraq, Europe, etc. An excuse is always somehow resurrected at the last moment which buys the MIC time and keeps US occupation forces perpetually in places where their presence stirs conflict, exacerbates tensions, and unnecessarily provokes so-called “adversaries” like Russia, China, or Iran. US troops in Syria, for instance—which Trump has likewise failed to pull—have done nothing but facilitate conflict, act as JTACs for Israeli strike corridors, etc.; the claim of being some sort of ‘peacekeepers’ is a sham.

It’s no wonder that Trump proudly heralds the resurrection of the ‘Department of War’ while preaching feigned peace and isolationism:

But the most representative new consequence of this apparent reorientation to the Western Hemisphere is Trump’s sudden focus on Venezuela.

Under a false pretext of targeting drug cartels, Trump’s administration has ramped up threatening military pressure against Maduro’s government, proving that the so-called ‘anti-neocon’ approach may very well be just the same old ‘hegemonism’ in a different guise, as B had alluded to.

It’s been shown that comparatively few of the US’ narcotics are sourced from Venezuela, so Trump’s sudden high-octane gunboat diplomacy is clearly designed to target Maduro’s unwelcome “regime”, and cleanse the US’ backyard of any adversarial—i.e. Chinese, Iranian, or Russian—presence or ‘meddling’.