A new US national security document signals a radical foreign policy shift. It explicitly states the US will support "right wing, far right and populist right parties" in Europe that align with its anti-immigration stance, effectively interfering in the domestic politics of allied nations to promote a "MAGA like" Europe.
Related Insights
The US foreign policy establishment is not driven by partisan ideology but by strategic interests. It will fund contradictory groups—from right-wing Ukrainian nationalists to progressive artists—if they serve the immediate goal of destabilizing a region to secure economic or military advantages.
US agencies and NATO fund a network of NGOs that act as a cohesive "swarm." This swarm delivers threats of political instability or economic ruin to foreign leaders, effectively coercing them to align with US interests without direct government intervention.
With the U.S. stepping back from its traditional leadership role, European countries are creating new, direct alliances to ensure their own security. A notable example is the emerging UK-Scandinavia-Baltic-Poland axis, which signals a fundamental shift in the continent's geopolitical architecture away from a singular reliance on Washington.
The promise of asylum is a critical tool for gaining support and intelligence from local collaborators in hostile territories. Rescinding these promises, as threatened by Trump, eliminates this incentive, making it harder to recruit allies and directly putting U.S. service members in greater peril.
Following the disastrous optics of the Charlottesville rally, the far-right engaged in an internal "optics debate." They concluded that overt European pagan and National Socialist aesthetics were alienating and strategically shifted to a more palatable American populist image to advance their goals.
US agencies and linked NGOs actively recruit from marginalized and radicalized populations. These individuals' higher risk tolerance and perceived grievances make them ideal "frontline muscle" for instigating street protests and revolutions, as they are often more willing to get arrested and create disruption.
A recurring political pattern involves well-intentioned progressive policies being implemented without regard for practical consequences (e.g., border management). This creates a political vacuum and public frustration that the far-right exploits, leading to a severe, often cruel, overcorrection that dismantles both the flawed policy and underlying positive intentions.
High-level US military and intelligence figures see independent online voices as a primary geopolitical threat. They fear that uncontrolled narratives can foster nationalism (like Brexit), which could lead to the dissolution of key alliances like the EU and NATO, disrupting the established world order.
The latest U.S. National Security Strategy drops confrontational rhetoric about China as an ideological threat, instead framing the relationship around economic rivalry and rebalancing. This shift prioritizes tangible deals over promoting American values globally, marking a departure from Reagan-era foreign policy.
Anne Applebaum highlights a disturbing shift where high-stakes foreign policy, like the Ukraine peace plan, is conducted by businesspeople seeking personal financial gain. This mirrors the kleptocratic systems of autocratic states, prioritizing private profit over national or allied interests, and raises questions about who American foreign policy truly serves.