As the Eagles Sang: We Checked Out, but We Are Not Leaving.”
December 8, 2025
Dear Essential American Citizen,
We are at the intersection of history and destiny. We must ask ourselves: how long will we allow distant elites in Washington to dictate our national security? The very identity of America hangs in the balance. The newly unveiled National Security Strategy (NSS) boldly claims to prioritise an “America First” approach, but at what cost? It’s time to confront this illusion and reclaim our voices.
From the outset, I must express my deep disdain for the decisions made by those distant D.C. elites, who decide our national security strategy without consulting the citizens they claim to represent. Why should a handful of politicians and bureaucrats dictate our interests? This perspective comes from lived experiences. We encountered failures in earlier interventions, especially during the Vietnam War. During that time, narratives misled us about the “domino effect.” Look where that led us—into a quagmire that has cost us countless lives and resources.
Now we grapple with the aftermath of two decades of trying to force democracy on nations in Afghanistan and Iraq. As a citizen, I do not believe these elite policymakers truly understand what they are doing. The evidence screams otherwise.
The NSS claims to embody an “America First” approach, promising to prioritise our sovereignty and prosperity. But who asked us? When did we decide what should be defended and what is of lesser importance?
The genuine concern lies not on distant battlefields. It is in the very heart of our nation. The erosion of American identity and the infiltration of opposing ideologies are the true threats. What should we call this? Inter-political warfare! It’s in our name—yet we find ourselves sidelined in these crucial discussions about our future.
How can they assert they prioritise American interests while espousing a belief in an international order that must be defended? This perspective relies on a magical belief. It assumes the global status quo can and should be preserved. This happens even as we witness Russia waging war and China flouting international rules. How can they realistically predict the future of the Indo-Pacific when this rhetoric sounds more like surrender than resilience? We are living proof of a nation entangled in global alliances that commit us to conflicts even before they arise.
As we delve deeper, the 2025 NSS appears to be a groundbreaking document. Yet, a thorough examination reveals it to be a masterclass in deception. This strategy does not offer a genuine path to autonomy. Instead, it perpetuates entanglements. It serves elite interests. It systematically silences the voices of citizens like you and me.
Let’s unpack the contradictions within this so-called “America First” strategy:
1. IT’S A REBRAND, NOT A REVOLUTION
2. IT COMMITS TO CONFRONTATION, NOT PEACE
3. IT PRIORITIZES GLOBAL MILITARY SPENDING OVER DOMESTIC REVIVAL
4. ELITES, NOT CITIZENS, CRAFT IT
5. IT SERVES THE STATUS QUO, NOT THE NATION
1. IT’S A REBRAND—NOT A REVOLUTION: THE ILLUSION OF SOVEREIGNTY
A genuine “America First” doctrine should rest on a foundational principle: absolute freedom of action. This requires a definitive end to mutual defence treaties. These treaties can drag our nation into war against its will. It also involves reclaiming the sovereign right to choose peace or conflict based solely on national interest calculations. When did we surrender this right?
The 2025 NSS engages in a stunning sleight of hand, renewing commitments to entangling alliances while demanding independence. This is not simply oversight; it shows a fundamental betrayal of our sovereignty. The decision to go to war still partially depends on foreign adversaries. They can trigger these commitments with an attack on an ally. The strategy operates under the misconception that American power can control global engagement. It asks citizens to fund a rehashed version of the same obligations.
The “burden-shifting” solution shifts the cost of hegemony but not its fundamental nature. While demanding that allies spend more on their own defence, the U.S. remains the ultimate security backstop, technology provider, and nuclear-umbrella keeper. This model does not restore our freedom. It creates a more efficient form of entanglement. This maintains the same constraints on our sovereignty.
2. IT CHOOSES CONFRONTATION—NOT PEACE: THE IDEOLOGICAL GAMBIT
The entire strategy is built on a shaky premise. If China takes Taiwan, it will use that foothold to assert dominance across Southeast Asia. This move will ultimately lead to global Chinese hegemony. This assumption—echoed in the NSS—sets the stage for a confrontational U.S. foreign policy. Still, it overlooks many obstacles to China’s domination. It also raises the critical question of whether China possesses the will to pursue such aggressive ambitions.
This flawed narrative aligns with what Barbara Tuchman described as “woodenheadedness.” It is the tendency to interpret situations through a rigid lens of preconceived notions. The expectation of inevitable Chinese hegemony simplifies the realities of the Indo-Pacific. Strategic analysts insist the region is multipolar, meaning China’s aspirations will not unfold as the NSS suggests. Economic constraints pose a challenge. Potential internal dissent is also a concern. There is also the risk of an international backlash from China’s increasing assertiveness. These are formidable hurdles that this strategy can’t resolve.
The 2025 NSS does not fully account for the emerging multipolar landscape; power dynamics are shifting beyond the traditional U.S.-China rivalry. As the Eagles famously sang, “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.” This perfectly captures our situation. Instead of returning home to rebuild and strengthen our nation, the NSS suggests we linger in a precarious geopolitical limbo. We straddle the line between engagement and confrontation without a clear exit strategy.
This strategy often faces criticism as fostering “isolationism.” This term is a slur used to dismiss the legitimate concerns of American citizens. These citizens advocate for a more focused approach. Refusing to enter endless commitments to defend other nations doesn’t equate to isolationism. Instead, it paves the way for a refreshed relationship based on mutually supportive trade and economic ties.
The NSS commits the nation to a high-risk path. It is anchored on the framework’s assumption of impending hegemony. This leads to perpetual competition with a nuclear-armed peer. It prioritises speculative future threats over tangible domestic needs. A prudent doctrine would steer us away from such open-ended confrontations. Instead, this strategy plants us firmly in the ground of conflict. It demonstrates a magical thinking approach. This approach assumes military presence guarantees security, despite the unpredictable nature of international relations.
3. IT PUTS THE PENTAGON FIRST—NOT THE PEOPLE: THE DOMESTIC VACUUM
The most tangible betrayal appears not in foreign capitals but in American homes. The document reveals brutal prioritisation. There are vast investments in military modernisation, nuclear arsenals, and global power projection. In contrast, it offers only vague aspirations for “re-industrialisation.”
This prioritisation leads to devastating opportunity costs. Resources funnelled into globalism are actively denied to our communities—not for rebuilding infrastructure, revitalising industries, or enhancing healthcare. Families bear the burdens of military service and economic decline disproportionately. The message to them is simple. The strategy is “Pentagon First,” which drapes patriotic slogans over an agenda serving elites rather than ordinary citizens.
The document’s economic vision also betrays its principles. It advocates for “fair and reciprocal trade.” At the same time, it fuels aggressive economic competition with China. It demands deep coordination with allies on tariffs and technology controls. This entangles us in commitments that constrain our autonomy as effectively as military alliances. The NSS can’t wage economic warfare against China while maintaining total freedom of action. This cooperation requires compromises. These compromises limit our sovereignty.
4. IT WAS WRITTEN BY ELITES—NOT BY THE PEOPLE: THE TRUST DEFICIT
The strategy’s fundamental flaw lies in its crafting. Closed networks of political and intellectual elites draft this process. They are the very establishment it claims to challenge. This situation breeds profound hypocrisy and mistrust among citizens.
This glaring hypocrisy is obvious: a strategy marketed as “America First” was developed entirely without the American people. It forms elite capture—co-opting a populist slogan to mask a top-down agenda. The very citizens whose sovereignty and interests it claims to prioritise had no meaningful role in its formation. This absence renders the label profoundly disingenuous.
This process embodies the antithesis of “America First.” They would shape public policy through open debate and civic engagement. Instead, this strategy was crafted behind closed doors. It was presented as a fait accompli. It demands trust from a public that has observed decades of failures from established circles. It assumes a nonexistent consensus, showcasing a disconnection that chips away at public confidence and mocks democratic accountability.
This approach mirrors the insider-class mindset behind recent foreign policy blunders. Seeing new strategies emerge from the same closed circles—without accountability for past mistakes—fuels justified cynicism. It teaches citizens that the permanent establishment remains unchallenged. Millions view a plan that should unite us as illegitimate. This perception cripples national cohesion and resilience when we need it most.
5. IT SERVES THE STATUS QUO—NOT THE NATION: THE SERVANT TO ELITE INTERESTS
Ultimately, the strategy perpetuates the influence of the military-industrial complex and financial elites profiting from endless foreign conflicts. It offers a more efficient and cost-effective form of the same old globalism. Still, it does not give the bold, disentangled approach that true sovereignty requires. The document’s allegiance lies not with citizens. It aligns with powerful groups benefiting from a world teetering on the edge of conflict. This ensures their profits continue under a populist veneer.
The most profound betrayal is this: America’s foreign policy is entangled not just by treaties. It is also bound by the very architecture of domestic governance. The strategy is influenced by the military-industrial complex. It is also shaped by the financial sector’s globalisation efforts and elite interests profiting from the status quo. A genuine “America First” policy would need confronting these power centres. It would involve divesting from perpetual warfare. We must reclaim our destiny for the citizens. Failing to do so proves this doctrine isn’t merely compromised abroad; it’s captive to powerful interests at home.
THE DANGEROUS ASSUMPTIONS BEHIND THE MIRAGE
The entire strategy rests on a series of dangerous, unproven assumptions that expert analysis challenges. Challenges.
– INEVITABLE Chinese HEGEMONY: Assumes that China’s dominance in Asia is preordained, despite arguments about the region’s complexity and diversity.
– MANAGEABLE CONFRONTATION: Assumes the U.S. can engage in long-term confrontation with a nuclear peer without escalating to open conflict.
– UNLIMITED RESOURCES: Assumes America has unending resources for military buildup. It also assumes there are resources for economic competition with China. Additionally, it assumes resources are available for domestic crisis management at the same time.
– ENDURING DOMESTIC WILL: Assumes the American public will continue to support endless confrontation. This is despite being excluded from the decision-making process.
– ALLY COMPLIANCE: Assumes the U.S. allies will follow its lead against China, even when it contradicts their interests.
✅ THE BOTTOM LINE: THE CHOICE BETWEEN SLOGAN AND SOVEREIGNTY
The 2025 National Security Strategy signifies a document of profound dissonance. It demands sacrifices from citizens to keep an elite-managed status quo, cloaked in populist revolutionary language. It speaks of sovereignty but binds us to foreign commitments. It promises domestic renewal but invests in foreign conflicts. It invokes our will yet dismisses our voices.
So, the essential question for every citizen is not whether we support “America First,” but which version we will accept.
Will we settle for a mirage—a strategy that offers a slogan without substance, perpetuating entanglement and elite prioritization? Will we demand the authentic article? We need a foreign policy of genuine restraint. It should dissolve entangling alliances. It should avoid ideological crusades. It should redirect our national treasure inward toward genuine domestic revival and unimpeachable sovereignty.
The 2025 NSS signifies a mirage. The courage to choose the real thing remains ours to summon.
Your Turn: What steps will you take? How will you make sure that your voice is heard in shaping the future of our national security? How can we collectively challenge elite agendas that undermine our identity and sovereignty?
You deserve the truth. You deserve real choices. Share this analysis if you believe policy should be made by the people—not for the
Tom Raquer is a retired U.S. Air Force Officer and former U.S Army Sergeant. Tom served in Thailand, Vietnam, South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, and East Timor.
Leave a Reply The Essential American Citizen Thanks you!