2017 National Security Strategy

2017 National Security Strategy
Name	2017 National Security Strategy
Date	December 2017
Author	Donald J. Trump Administration
Publisher	White House
Country	United States

Contents

2017 National Security Strategy

The 2017 National Security Strategy set out strategic guidance issued in December 2017 during the administration of Donald Trump and published by the White House. It updated guidance following the National Security Strategy documents of prior administrations including 2010 and 2015, and it framed priorities for interactions with actors such as China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The document influenced policy debates in forums including the United States Congress, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and allied institutions such as NATO.

Background and Development

The document was produced under the direction of Donald Trump with inputs from officials including H. R. McMaster, James Mattis, John Bolton, and advisors linked to the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget. Drafting drew on prior frameworks from the Bush administration, Obama administration, and advisory reports such as the Quadrennial Defense Review and the 2018 National Defense Strategy. Interagency coordination involved the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Homeland Security, and congressional oversight from committees in the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. External inputs included think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Council on Foreign Relations, as well as testimony from representatives of Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon.

The strategy articulated four primary pillars described as "principled realism": protecting the homeland against threats such as terrorism, enhancing promoting American prosperity through trade and industry references including World Trade Organization disputes, preserving peace through strength by rebuilding United States Armed Forces capacity, and advancing American influence via partnerships with allies including Japan, United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, and South Korea. It emphasized competition with revisionist powers such as China and Russia, counterproliferation regarding North Korea and Iran, and counterterrorism against groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Al-Qaeda. The text linked strategic objectives to instruments including the Congressional budget process, force posture debates involving United States Indo-Pacific Command, and diplomatic engagement through the United States Mission to the United Nations.

The strategy allocated priorities across domains including defense, diplomacy, economic statecraft, and homeland resilience. Defense priorities referenced modernization of capabilities such as F-35 Lightning II, Ohio-class submarine, and missile defense systems like Terminal High Altitude Area Defense while stressing readiness of services including the United States Army, United States Air Force, United States Navy, and United States Marine Corps. Diplomatic priorities emphasized burden-sharing in alliances such as NATO and bilateral ties with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and India. Economic statecraft mentioned leveraging sanctions administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control and trade measures under statutes like the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and actions at the World Trade Organization. Homeland resilience priorities engaged agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Transportation Security Administration to address threats from transnational criminal organizations like the Sinaloa Cartel and cybersecurity threats traced to networks in China, Russia, and Iran.

Reactions spanned bipartisan commentary from figures including Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, John McCain, and Bernie Sanders, and critiques from scholars at institutions like Harvard Kennedy School, Georgetown University, and Princeton University. International responses included statements from leaders in Germany, France, United Kingdom, and Canada. Critics argued that the document's emphasis on great-power competition reprioritized resources away from counterterrorism and climate concerns noted in the Paris Agreement, and raised concerns about language on unilateral measures referenced against WTO norms. Supporters cited alignment with recommendations from the Project for the New American Century and defense industry stakeholders including General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman.

Implementation relied on budgetary decisions reflected in the Fiscal Year 2018 United States federal budget and subsequent defense appropriations overseen by the Senate Appropriations Committee and the House Committee on Appropriations. Operational impacts included posture reviews such as the Nuclear Posture Review and shifts in deployments under commands like United States Central Command and United States European Command. The strategy influenced major decisions including sanctions on Iran, tariff measures affecting China and European Union, and force adjustments in Syria and Afghanistan. Longer-term effects informed debates on procurement programs including Virginia-class submarine construction and modernization of nuclear delivery systems like the Columbia-class submarine.

The strategy operated within statutory authorities such as the National Security Act of 1947 and oversight frameworks embodied by the United States Congress. Legal constraints involved executive authorities, statutory war powers debated under the War Powers Resolution, and international law considerations raised in relations with entities like the International Criminal Court and treaty regimes such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Institutional mechanisms for review included the President's Daily Brief, interagency processes via the NSC, and congressional hearings before committees such as the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Category:United States national security