For 80 years, what bound the United States to Europe was a shared commitment to defence and a common set of values: a commitment to defend democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

That era was inaugurated in March 1947 in an 18-minute speech by President Harry Truman, in which he pledged US support to defend Europe against further expansion by the Soviet Union.

America led the creation of Nato, the World Bank, the IMF and the United Nations. And it bound itself into what became known as the “rules-based international order“, in which nation states committed to a series of mutual obligations and shared burdens, designed to defend the democratic world against hostile authoritarian powers.

Now, the new US National Security Strategy (NSS), published in December, signals that, for the White House, that shared endeavour has ended; that much of what the world has taken for granted about America’s role is over.

The review refers to the “so-called ‘rules-based international order'”, putting the latter phrase in inverted commas: a kind of delegitimisation by punctuation mark.

Vice-President JD Vance warned America’s European allies that this was coming in a speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2025.

He told them bluntly that the real threat to Europe did not come from Russia but from within – from those censoring free speech, suppressing political opposition and therefore undermining European democracy. And he was damning about the “leftist liberal network”.

The French newspaper Le Monde said the speech was a declaration of “ideological war” against Europe.

Last month’s NSS codifies Vance’s remarks, and, in black and white, elevates them to the status of doctrine.

“Certainly America is no longer the country that promoted the global values that have been in place since the end of the Second World War,” says Karin von Hippel, who previously held senior positions in the US State Department and is a former Director of the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi), a Whitehall think tank.

“It is shifting to a very different place.”

So, if the world is indeed moving away from that order, what is it moving towards? And what does it mean for the rest of the world and in particular for Europe?

“International institutions, notably the United Nations, have been marked by dramatically anti-American sentiment, and have not served our or any other particular purpose,” says Victoria Coates, a vice-president at The Heritage Foundation, a prominent right-wing think tank in Washington.

In the eyes of Coates – who was previously the Deputy National Security Adviser to US President Donald Trump – change to the international order is inevitable in a changing world.

“The other issue we face here is that when that so-called rules-based international order was established after the Second World War, 80 short years ago, China wasn’t a major concern.

“We just have a different world today.”

This rules-based international order, built in the years after World War Two, was created by a generation that had come of age during an era of Great Power geopolitics, and had seen that system descend, twice, into catastrophic global conflict.

That international order, flawed and incomplete though it undoubtedly was, was the legacy of that experience.

But the NSS directly argues that American strategy went astray in the years since – and it blames what it calls “American foreign policy elites”.

“They lashed American policy to a network of international institutions, some of which are driven by outright anti-Americanism and many by a transnationalism that explicitly seeks to dissolve individual state sovereignty,” it says.

It suggests that in future, the US will seek to roll back the influence of supranational bodies.

“The world’s fundamental political unit is and will remain the nation-state… We stand for the sovereign rights of nations, against the sovereignty-sapping incursions of the most intrusive transnational organizations…”

Elsewhere in the document, reflecting on the “balance of power”, it states: “The outsized influence of larger, richer, and stronger nations is a timeless truth of international relations.”

The Kremlin responded to the review with praise, saying much of it aligned with Moscow’s own thinking.

“I think Trump, Xi, Putin and their more authoritarian acolytes are seeking to return us to an era of Great Power politics,” says Field Marshal Lord Richards, who, as General Sir David Richards, was the head of the UK’s armed forces from 2010 till 2013.

Yet Sir Lawrence Freedman, Emeritus Professor of War Studies at King’s College London, believes the new Security Strategy is not as radical a break with the past as it may appear.

“We need to be careful about the rules-based international order, which is a term that came into general use in the last decade or so,” he argues.

“Look back and you find plenty of violations of the rules, Vietnam for example. So there’s a sort of rosy glow about the past at times and everyone should be careful about nostalgia for what was a complex past.”

Washington’s military operation in the Venezuelan capital Caracas that led to the capture of the country’s leader Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, is an early example of this more muscular assertion of sovereign unilateralism.

Some international law experts have questioned the legality of the Trump administration’s actions, and argued the US may have violated international statutes governing the use of force.

The US maintains its actions were legally justified.

“Under American law it certainly was [legal]” Robert Wilkie, who served as an Undersecretary of Defense in the first Trump administration, has previously told the BBC.

“Maduro – most of our European partners have not recognised his regime so he is an illegitimate figure. Because of that he is stripped of the normal protections that heads of state would have […]particularly when were are looking at constitutional provisions that exist in the United States, that would supersede anything the UN says.”

The NSS claims, for the United States, the right to be the pre-eminent power in the Western Hemisphere, and to bend its Latin American and Caribbean neighbours into alignment with Washington’s interests.

This is a muscular reassertion of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine and its promise of US supremacy in the Western hemisphere.

Colombia, Panama and Cuba are all also in the President’s sights.

“This starts primarily with the Panama Canal,” says Victoria Coates. “The degree to which control of the canal is necessary to the United States cannot be overstated.”

China is now Latin America’s biggest trading partner and a major infrastructure investor there. The NSS aims to roll back Chinese influence in Washington’s backyard.

When the canal was handed over to Panama, in 1999, by President George HW Bush, says Coates, “we were in the assumption that China was a reasonable actor… That turned out not to be true…

“So making sure that the United States retains a prime position over the canal is critical, and I think Panama is for the first time getting that message from the United States.”

But Sir Lawrence Freedman is among those who argue that the US’s ability to control its neighbours is not unlimited.

“The Strategy Review might say this is our hemisphere and we can do what we want, but there are still constraints. They may have extricated Maduro and his wife, but they’re still dealing with the old regime.

“They’re not running the country, despite what Trump says.”

Under the new strategy, the United States will no longer pressure authoritarian regimes to improve their human rights records.

In a phrase taken from the US Declaration of Independence of 1776, the review declares, “All nations are entitled by ‘the laws of nature and nature’s God’ to a ‘separate and equal station’ with respect to one another.”

In the Middle East, for example, the US says it will abandon the “misguided experiment with hectoring these nations – especially the Gulf monarchies – into abandoning their traditions and historic forms of government”.

“The key to successful relations with the Middle East,” it adds, “is accepting the region, its leaders, and its nations as they are while working together on areas of common interest.”

But it seems the same level of respect for traditions and historic forms of government is not extended to the democratic and allied nations of Europe.

Whilst it refers to an American sentimental attachment to the European continent – and to Britain and Ireland – what’s striking about this paper is that it seeks to redefine what is worth defending in the Western world.

This review is civilisational in its reach, and argues for a civilisation that is no longer built on the shared values of the Truman Doctrine, but instead on the primacy of the sovereign nation-state.

The review is damning about Europe’s “current trajectory” and raises questions about whether some European nations can be regarded as dependable allies in the future.

It talks about “economic decline” but adds that this is “eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure”.

Elsewhere in the document, it states: “It is more than plausible that within a few decades at the latest, certain Nato members will become majority non-European,” which raises doubts about their viability as long-term security partners, the strategy suggests.

“It’s a very nativist document,” argues Karin von Hippel. “It’s very ideological. The underlying message is that the Christian white male is no longer running many of the countries [in the West] and we’re seeing a threat to the dominance that the Christian white male has had in the United States and Europe.

“They’re very careful not to say any of that explicitly but I think that’s what’s implied.”

But Victoria Coates argues that, in her view, the “larger struggle we find ourselves in” is indeed civilisational.

“Sovereignty is also a critical issue,” she says. “Looking at the European Union project, especially after Brexit, I think a lot of countries are wondering if subverting the national interest to Brussels is a winning strategy.

“I do think that is one of the institutions that the NSS does call into question.”

This chimes with the interests of the American tech giants that oppose EU efforts to regulate their activities on the European continent.

Last month Elon Musk posted on X that the European Union should be abolished and sovereignty returned to the individual nation states.

The review is clear about how Europe can regain its “self-confidence”.

It says: “The growing influence of patriotic European parties indeed gives cause for great optimism. Our goal should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory. We will need a strong Europe to help us successfully compete.”

And one of its policies for doing this is by “cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations”.

What is meant precisely by “cultivating resistance” raises many questions.

In Europe, some have already concluded that the USA may no longer be a reliable ally, at a time when Russia poses a growing threat. After Vice-President Vance’s speech in Munich, Germany’s Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, said Europe would need to “achieve independence” from America with a reshaped Nato.

But this takes time.

“It’s not achievable in the short term,” says Sir Lawrence. “The Europeans have become very dependent upon the United States, and this was a matter of choice: it was cheaper and simpler.

“Though in practice it would be desirable to be able to act without the Americans… in practice it’s going to take years to disentangle ourselves. And it’ll be extremely expensive.

“So Europe has a difficulty: it can’t rely on the Americans, but it can’t operate easily without them.”

As to the pressing question of what it means for Europe – and the EU – in the near future, Lord Richards issues a stark warning: “[It] risks falling between the cracks.”

“The EU cannot be a Great Power, nor can any of its constituent nations,” he argues. “[So] the UK/EU must decide under whose sphere of influence they should shelter?

“The answer is they are likely to remain in the USA’s – and within a reshaped Nato.”

But Lord Richards also believes that increased spending commitment is long overdue.

“European nations are going to have to spend much more on their own defence. This has long been coming but in the UK it is not yet translating into any fresh money. Indeed this year the armed forces are being required to save money rather than spend more.”

The US has been pushing Europe to increase defence spending for years, notes Sir Lawrence.

“The message that Europe needs to do more for its own defence has been around a long time. It was pushed by both Obama and Biden.”

Last year Trump secured from the European allies a commitment to increase defence spending to 5% of GDP – and in doing so may have done Europe a security favour, by pushing it, in the long term, towards greater operational independence from Washington.

“Spending has gone up quite significantly,” says Sir Lawrence. “The Germans have been making quite impressive strides. So there is movement, not as fast as many would wish, but it’s happening.”

The review is clear about how America thinks it can “help” Europe. “We want to work with aligned countries that want to restore their former greatness,” it says.

Ultimately, what the report reveals is not so much an ideological divide that separates the US and Europe, but one that slices through both continents.

Both sides of the Atlantic have certain concerns in common, argues Victor Mallet, a Paris-based journalist and author of a forthcoming book, Far Right France: Le Pen, Bardella and the Future of Europe.

“Concerns about immigration, concerns about the economy… and there’s an extraordinary cultural gulf between supporters of people like Donald Trump, the National Rally in France, the AfD in Germany, and the intellectual, metropolitan, educated liberal elite.

“It’s definitely a popular revolt against the establishment.”

He believes that one of the problems is inequality. “America has, on average, the richest group of consumers the world has ever seen and yet many ordinary Americans find it hard to make ends meet and the same applies in Western Europe.”

In the NSS, the US commits to scrapping certain practices, such as Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, that are derided by many in Trump’s base.

In this document, the culture wars that shape America’s bitter public discourse now to a degree also shape its in foreign policy, and – by extension, affect the security of the Western world.

Russia is not mentioned as a hostile power, despite its invasion of Ukraine, a Western ally.

For in the culture wars, some in Trump’s Maga base see in Vladimir Putin not a foe but a natural ally in the defence of white, Christian nationalist civilisation: a man who proudly defends his country, its traditions and identity – the very attributes, after all, that they value and admire in Donald Trump.

Top picture credit: AFP / Getty Images

BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. You can now sign up for notifications that will alert you whenever an InDepth story is published – click here to find out how.