US Moves Forward With Interim 2025 National Defense Strategy, Shifting Focus to Homeland and Regional Security

From Interim Guidance to Full 2025 NDS

On May 2, 2025, the U.S. Department of Defense issued a public statement announcing that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has formally directed the development of the 2025 National Defense Strategy (NDS). That announcement aligns with a classified memorandum released concurrently, which tasks the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to lead the drafting process and deliver a full version by August 31, 2025.

The classified document emphasizes that the new NDS will use the 2025 Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance (INDSG) as its foundation. That interim guidance, completed earlier in 2025, already signals a reordering of U.S. defense priorities.

In public remarks, the Pentagon has confirmed that the draft NDS will foreground defense of the U.S. homeland, including air and border security. At the same time, it will retain China and the Indo-Pacific as major strategic concerns—though potentially in a subordinate role.

What the Interim NDS Reveals: Strategic Priorities

Homeland Defense at the Forefront

The administration’s interim strategy marks a stark pivot: protecting the homeland is being elevated above expeditionary missions overseas. The classified guidance calls for the U.S. military to assist in border security, countering narcotics and human smuggling, and repelling what it formally terms “forms of invasion.

Retaining China as a “Pacing Threat” (But with Caveats)

Despite the inward turn, China remains doctrinally central. The interim guidance frames a potential invasion of Taiwan as the primary scenario for planning future force posture. That said, analysts stress the shift is less about abandoning China than reprioritizing outcome-based risk distribution across regions.

Assuming Risks in Other Theaters

The interim strategy makes explicit that the U.S. will “assume risk” in regions outside homeland defense and China contingency planning. This implicitly signals a possible drawdown of U.S. involvement in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East—unless allied nations bolster their own capacity.

Burden-Sharing and Allied Pressures

The new guidance reiterates long-standing calls for allies and partners to increase their defense contributions. The DoD will press more forcefully for burden-sharing, and expects U.S. forces to concentrate on missions deemed most critical under the new philosophy.

Emerging Contours of the 2025 NDS Draft

A September 2025 report in Politico reveals a draft of the 2025 NDS has landed on Secretary Hegseth’s desk, confirming the strategic turn: home and Western Hemisphere defense will take precedence over global commitments. Sources suggest the document sharply recalibrates the department’s global roles, scaling back emphasis on China and Russia in favor of a more isolationist posture.

Defense News reports that, in internal discussions, Pentagon officials have told Military Times the final NDS will closely align with President Trump’s “America First” defense doctrine. Some inside the Pentagon believe the shift could shrink U.S. forces abroad and consolidate operational commands closer to home.

However, Pentagon officials also insist that China’s threat will still be treated as a key concern—if no longer the preeminent priority. The strategy, in their portrayal, aims for a more balanced posture: “We will not abandon Indo-Pacific interests but will put homeland and regional security first.”

Strategic Implications & Expert Commentary

Tension with Uniformed Leadership

The proposed redirection has prompted unease among top uniformed leaders. Reports suggest internal dissent over a plan that some see as overly nostalgic or politically driven rather than operationally prudent. Some military officers worry that abrupt reassignments, command reorganizations, or force drawdowns could undermine readiness.

Allies and Credibility Risks

For U.S. allies in Europe and Asia, the 2025 NDS draft presents disconcerting signals. A U.S. pullback could exacerbate security gaps and encourage adversarial behavior—particularly from Russia in Eastern Europe and China in Indo-Pacific theaters. NATO nations already face uncertainty about future U.S. force posture commitments.

Questions of Doctrine Versus Practice

Analysts emphasize that what matters is not just what appears on paper, but how the Pentagon allocates resources, force structure, and overseas presence. A strategy may reorient rhetoric, but unless followed by personnel realignments and budget shifts, its impact remains symbolic.

FAQs

Source 1 | Source 2 | Source 3