America's Neighborhood: Why the Western Hemisphere Is Now a U.S. National Security Priority

This is Part I of a two-part series examining the Trump Administration's reorientation of U.S. national security strategy.

For decades, U.S. national security strategy treated the Western Hemisphere as largely settled terrain. Serious threats were assumed to lie elsewhere—in Europe, the Middle East, or Asia. Problems closer to home were treated as diplomatic, economic, or law-enforcement matters rather than core security concerns.

That assumption no longer holds.

The Trump Administration's 2025 National Security Strategy marks a clear reprioritization. The Western Hemisphere is now described as America's near strategic environment—a region where instability directly affects U.S. security, public health, and geopolitical influence. Migration, drug trafficking, transnational crime, and foreign state penetration are no longer treated as secondary issues. They are treated as strategic threats.

The Evolution of a Strategy

This shift didn't emerge suddenly. It began during President Trump's first term, when senior officials openly revived the Monroe Doctrine as a statement of hemispheric responsibility, warned against the expansion of Chinese and Russian influence, recognized Juan Guaidó as Venezuela's legitimate leader, and imposed unprecedented economic pressure on the Maduro regime. What changed over time wasn't the diagnosis but the willingness to enforce consequences.

During the years between Trump's administrations, the underlying problems intensified. Drug overdoses surged. Migration pressures mounted. Criminal networks became more deeply integrated with state actors. Foreign powers expanded their footholds in weak and corrupt states. By the time Trump returned to office, the costs of treating the hemisphere as a secondary concern were no longer abstract.

Why Now? The Numbers Tell the Story

The scale of the drug crisis alone explains the strategic shift. Among Americans ages 25–34, drug overdoses have become the leading cause of death—surpassing heart disease, cancer, suicide, and homicide.

Put this in perspective: a comparable number of Americans have died from overdoses in just the past five years as U.S. military casualties in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, and the War on Terror combined.

This is why the administration has reframed drug trafficking as a national security threat rather than a purely public-health or law-enforcement issue. Organized, transnational criminal systems are inflicting mass casualties on the United States. Treating that reality as peripheral is no longer defensible.

Venezuela: Where All the Problems Converge

Within this framework, Venezuela occupies a central position. It's not the only source of drugs, migration, or instability, but it's where these challenges converge most efficiently. Under Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela has become a permissive hub for narcotics trafficking, a primary driver of regional migration, a petro-state dependent on sanctions evasion, and a platform for Chinese, Russian, Iranian, and Cuban influence. Pressure applied there affects multiple U.S. priorities simultaneously.

If this strategic reorientation endures across administrations, it could coincide with a rare alignment of leadership in the region. Countries such as El Salvador, Argentina, Chile, and Honduras are experimenting—each in its own way—with departures from failed orthodoxies. Combined with sustained U.S. engagement focused on security and enforcement rather than ideology, the result could be a generational transformation of the hemisphere.

Winners and Losers: The Strategic Reshuffling

This shift carries consequences for allies and partners. Strategy is inherently about prioritization, and prioritization produces winners and losers.

Canada faces a difficult recalibration. Some argue it should diversify its trade and diplomatic relationships, including with China. Others warn that doing so would directly conflict with U.S. strategic objectives. Geography and economics leave Canada deeply linked to a neighbor moving in a new direction.

Europe is clearly less important relative to other regions under the new NSS. Elements of the Trump Administration argue that Europe has enjoyed a strategic free ride for decades and must now assume greater responsibility—not only for its defense but also for preserving social and cultural cohesion strained by misguided immigration policies.

In the Middle East, the administration remains committed to advancing the Abraham Accords, reducing Iranian influence, and promoting peaceful coexistence and economic integration among regional partners. In Africa, the emphasis is shifting away from open-ended aid toward investment, opportunity, and mutually beneficial economic engagement.

The United States isn't abandoning Europe, the Middle East, or Africa. But its approach to those regions and the resources devoted to them will be reduced relative to those for the Western Hemisphere.

The Bigger Question: Spheres of Influence?

A larger, unresolved question looms: how will China, Russia, and others interpret this shift? Will they view it as a retreat from global leadership and a tacit division of the world into spheres of influence? If the U.S. can declare an entire hemisphere its sphere of influence, can China do the same? Some believe this is precisely what President Trump intends, but there is no definitive evidence of that. But if such a system emerges, intentionally or otherwise, it would mark a fundamental change in the post-Cold War international order.

Pentagon Restructuring: Strategy Meets Structure

This reprioritization is already evident within the Pentagon. The Department of War is restructuring the combatant command system, reportedly reducing the number of commands from eleven to eight. Plans include consolidating U.S. European, Central, and Africa Commands into a new International Command and unifying Northern and Southern Commands into a single Americas Command. The result would be fewer four-star headquarters and a force posture more closely aligned with hemispheric priorities.

What Matters: Strategy, Not Tactics

Whether this strategy succeeds will depend on execution and endurance across administrations. But the strategic diagnosis is hard to dispute. The United States is no longer insulated from instability in its own hemisphere. The Western Hemisphere is no longer optional terrain. It is strategic ground.

Predictably, much media and congressional attention has focused on tactical events—most notably the killing of two men aboard a drug-running vessel. The use of lethal force warrants review, and there are established military mechanisms to conduct it. But these incidents shouldn't eclipse the larger issue: a historic shift in national strategy.

That shift should be front and center in public debate. Instead, it's often overshadowed by sensational imagery and partisan reflexes. Congress, in particular, has largely abdicated its role in shaping strategy, instead serving as a rubber stamp for whichever political team is in power.

Some in Congress now object on constitutional grounds, citing Congress's authority to declare war. In theory, they're correct. In practice, Congress has long since surrendered that role, allowing presidents of both parties to conduct military operations worldwide with tacit consent. If Congress wishes to reclaim its authority, it should debate the strategy—approve it, reject it, or amend it—not feign outrage over enforcement actions to score political points.

The Debate We Should Be Having

This is a major shift in American national security strategy. Citizens and their representatives should debate it seriously—not the tactics, but the strategy itself. The first step in that process is understanding what is happening.

I hope this post contributes, in a small way, to that effort.

In the next post, I will examine how this strategic shift is now being translated into concrete military and enforcement actions in the Caribbean.

------

SHARING: Please consider sharing these blog posts via social media or email if you find them interesting by providing a link to either https://www.libertytakeseffort.com or https://libertytakeseffort.substack.com

DISTRIBUTION: Liberty Takes Effort shifted its distribution from social media to email delivery via Substack as a Newsletter. If you would like to receive distribution, please email me at libertytakeseffort@gmail.com. To see archived blog posts since 2014, visit www.libertytakeseffort.com.

DISCLAIMER: The entire content of this website and newsletter are based solely upon the opinions and thoughts of the author unless otherwise noted. It is not considered advice for action by readers in any realm of human activity. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to readers to further inform the public square. Use of any information on this site is at the sole choice and risk of the reader.