Even if it seems to be very unusual for politicians on the left, President Trump is keeping his campaign promises, this time by unveiling the new America First national security strategy:
The new national security strategy will focus on US’ diplomatic and commercial relationships with the rest of the world, while reversing the globalist policies dating back from Obama’s reign in the White House. Basically, Donald Trump just threw Barack Obama’s national security strategy in the trash, as his new policies are a clear rejection of Obama’s.
For example, Trump’s vision with regard to national security is placing an emphasis on mitigating Islamic terrorism, two words Barack Obama never said during his presidency. Obama’s administration actually rejected the so-called “lie that America and its allies are at war with Islam” and I am quoting exactly from Obama’s 2015 national security strategy.
Trump’s new strategy reads:
“The United States continues to wage a long war against jihadist terrorist groups such as ISIS and Al Qaeda. These groups are linked by a common radical Islamist ideology that encourages violence against the United States and our partners and produces misery for those under their control; jihadist terrorists such as ISIS and al-Qaida continue to spread a barbaric ideology that calls for the violent destruction of governments and innocents they consider to be apostates. These Islamist terrorists attempt to force those under their influence to submit to Sharia law.”
What a difference a President makes! Also, Trump dumped Climate Change as a national security threat, while Obama’s 2015 national security strategy put an emphasis and actually prioritized anthropological climate change as being a national security threat for the US, devoting more space to this theory than to the clear and present danger posed by North Korea’s nuclear/ICBM programs:
“Climate change is an urgent and growing threat to our national security, contributing to increased natural disasters, refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources like food and water,”
Trump’s new strategy reads:
“U.S. leadership is indispensable to countering an antigrowth energy agenda that is detrimental to U.S. economic and energy security interests. Given future global energy demand, much of the developing world will require fossil fuels, as well as other forms of energy, to power their economies and lift their people out of poverty.”
One of the biggest contrasts between Obama’s national security strategy and Trump’s is that now Iran is the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East. Trump describes Iran as the world’s most significant state sponsor of terrorism, while Obama’s pillar legacy as POTUS was the Iran nuclear deal.
Finally, while Obama’s administration did everything to give amnesty to illegal aliens and to offer them a path to citizenship, which was a slap in the face to every person trying to immigrate legally into the US; Trump’s national security strategy describes the immigration issue in terms of sovereignty, stating that the United States “affirms its sovereign right to determine who should enter our country and under what circumstances.”
The United States affirms its sovereign right to determine who should enter our country and under what circumstances. The United States understands the contributions immigrants have made to our Nation throughout its history. Illegal immigration, however, burdens the economy, hurts American workers, presents public safety risks, and enriches smugglers and other criminals.
The United States will continue to welcome lawful immigrants who do not pose a security threat and whose entry is consistent with the national interest, while at the same time enhancing the screening and vetting of travelers, closing dangerous loopholes, revising outdated laws, and eliminating easily exploited vulnerabilities. We will also reform our current immigration system, which, contrary to our national interest and national security, allows for randomized entry and extended-family chain migration. Residency and citizenship determinations should be based on individuals’ merit and their ability to positively contribute to U.S. society, rather than chance or extended family connections.