After the Winter Collapse: Blue Prints for a New American Spring

THE ROOSEVELT RULE: WHY THE 2025 NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY PUTS AMERICA LAST

—

by

Tom Raquer
in ,

December 21, 2025

BY TOM RAQUER

Dear Essential American Citizen,

The vast majority of American citizens had no say in shaping the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS). It is crucial to realize this, despite its branding as an “America First” strategy. To tackle this significant oversight, I conducted my own assessment of the NSS. I invite you to review my findings.

AT A GLANCE:

  • The 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) promises “America First.” But, it was made behind closed doors. As a result, the American people had no say in important decisions about their safety.
  • It doesn’t follow the “Roosevelt Rule,” which is the most successful strategic plan in history. This plan says that a strong domestic base is the key to foreign influence.
  • In 2025, Japan and Australia both officially turned down requests to “pre-commit” to an anti-hegemonic military coalition against China. This showed that this confrontational approach was not working right away.
  • We need to invest in American communities and infrastructure first, not spread our military too thin around the world.

We all know what it means. It sounds easy: put the people and country of America first. Supporters say that in a world full of danger, we need to act quickly and decisively to protect our interests.

But when the 2025 National Security Strategy comes out with “America First” on the cover, a fundamental question comes up. Whose America is being put first? This isn’t just a question; we can already see the effects: Elbridge Colby, the U.S. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy approached Japan and Australia in 2025. He asked them to ‘pre-commit’ to an anti-hegemonic military coalition. This was if a conflict occurred with China. Both countries said no. Both countries stay essential U.S. allies, but they don’t want to commit to future military actions to preserve their “strategic flexibility” and national sovereignty.

Is it the America of nurses, factory workers, and teachers? Or is it America where powerful politicians make big decisions behind closed doors? Does it help people on Main Street? Or does it support a system where success relies on big contracts instead of real results?

People need to be involved in making a strategy that really works for them. It’s not a plan without it; it’s a command. A country is already divided. A process conducted behind closed doors makes people more suspicious. It does not bring them together.

THE REAL BATTLEFIELD: SAFETY AT HOME

Our sense of belonging to the same nation is under strain. We disagree on what America means anymore.

Healthy debate is good for democracy, but it also makes us the most vulnerable. A country that is divided against itself can’t stand, let alone show strength to other countries.

The 2025 NSS is a lost chance to heal. It has been a project that brought us together to find things we all agree on again. Instead, it feels like it divides us. It resembles a weapon in the culture wars that are still ongoing.

SECRECY BREEDS DISTRUST, WHILE INCLUSION BUILDS TRUST

Press releases don’t make people trust our institutions again; they do that by being open and letting people take part. Rebuilding trust would mean opening the doors to town halls, citizen advisory panels, and public forums.

But that didn’t happen. The same political insiders who many people in the country have learned to distrust wrote this strategy. This makes the divide between a governing “them” and a disenfranchised “us” even worse.

THE BAIT AND SWITCH

The last election called for change. Focus on the home. End wars that never end. Put the needs of citizens first.

Why does the 2025 NSS seem like a classic bait-and-switch?

  • Promise: Put sovereignty first. In real life, you should use tactics that make it harder to get along with your allies.
  • Promise: Tear down the establishment. The truth is that loyalty is more important than skill behind thicker curtains of secrecy.
  • Promise: Put Americans first. Reality: Put international projects ahead of domestic needs, like roads and bridges that are falling apart.

THE ROOSEVELT RULE: A PLAN FOR THE FUTURE

What does this plan mean for the average American? This plan affects families worried about the cost of groceries. It also impacts business owners trying to figure out how to get supplies, and graduates in debt?

The NSS talks about them but not to them. This approach goes against the Roosevelt Rule. It is considered the best strategic playbook in history.

Franklin D. Roosevelt had a harsh rule during the Great Depression and World War II: fix the foundation first. He wanted to save the economy first. He aimed to get people back to work. He also intended to bring industry back to life before addressing problems in other countries. He knew that a country can’t seem strong abroad if it’s weak, broke, and divided at home. The “Arsenal of Democracy” only worked because America became the arsenal first.

In this upside-down way of doing things, the citizen is both a stakeholder and a victim. They are stakeholders because their kids have to fight these wars. Their tax dollars finance these expenses. For example, $13 billion is spent on another plane carrier. Meanwhile, bridges that are falling apart at home stay unfixed. They’re victims of inflation caused by wars. They lose loved ones in wars that don’t seem right. They also bear the spiritual cost of a democracy that feels like a sport to watch.

An authentic “America First” policy would emphasize the well-being of citizens as the primary security goal. It acknowledges that economic stability, infrastructure, and public services are integral to national security. These elements form its essential foundation.

STRATEGIC FORGETTING: REMEMBERING WAR, FORGETTING PEACE

Our policy elite has a bad case of historical amnesia. They talk about how great Roosevelt was as a leader on the world stage. They don’t mention how he helped the Allies win.

They can see the “Arsenal of Democracy,” but they can’t see the New Deal that made it possible. They like the commander-in-chief who prepared for war. They forget the president who prepared to save the country from itself.

This isn’t oversight; it’s a dangerous mistake that supports policies that don’t work. The people who make foreign policy have emptied Roosevelt’s doctrine of meaning. They have turned it into blank checks to get involved in other countries. They do this without worrying about what happens at home.

They’ve used FDR’s legacy as a weapon. They push a vision he wouldn’t recognise. Security is managed by experts in far-off capitals. It should be built by people on Main Street. They use his name to get things done in other countries. Yet, they ignore his main point. The government’s job is to guarantee its people are strong, prosperous, and confident.

THE MODERN ROOSEVELT RULE: A USEFUL PLAN

If FDR were making a plan today, it would be very different from the one we are on now:

  1. ECONOMIC REVITALISATION is a MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY.
    Before any fights with other countries, he would start a new New Deal. The focus would be on rebuilding infrastructure like bridges, high-speed rail, and energy grids for the 21st century.
  • Bringing back essential industries to the US, like semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and basic goods
  • Making plans for work on infrastructure and environmental projects
  1. BRINGING THE COUNTRY BACK TOGETHER
    He would talk directly to Americans through fireside chats. He knew that unity was essential for strategy.
  • Make programs for national service, bridging gaps between people
  • Make it a goal of security to lower polarization
  1. REENGAGEMENT IN DIPLOMACY FROM A POSITION OF STRENGTH
    He would only look outward after he was strong at home:
  • Rebuilding alliances based on mutual advantage, not demands
  • Using economic diplomacy, like trade and technology partnerships, to lead the way. – Using “speak softly” diplomacy to rebuild trust.
  1. SMARTLY MODERNISING THE MILITARY
    The military would be the last thing on his mind:
  • Spending money on new threats like cyber, space, and AI – Staying away from endless wars on the ground and building nations
  • Keeping a strong, focused deterrent

THE BIG DIFFERENCE

The 2025 NSS runs counter to this idea by prioritizing foreign conflict over domestic investment.

  1. Making divisions worse by using exclusive processes
  2. Making allies feel like they have to do things instead of bringing them in through leadership
  3. Using up military resources while ignoring their economic base

Roosevelt would think this is crazy from a strategic standpoint. His rule reminds us that you can’t fix the world until you fix your own home. Focus on Main Street, not in foreign capitals.

We need to demand a plan that truly benefits the United States. It should start with strong communities and economic security. We also need a shared goal.

THE MAIN CONTRADICTION

The main problem with the strategy is its use of “America First” language. This justifies being a “World Policeman” while essential needs at home are ignored. Meanwhile, the national debt is $34 trillion. This doesn’t help working families. Instead, it supports the defense industry. This industry spent more than $83 million on lobbying last year alone.

Allies see this as hypocritical. They perceive a “rules for thee, not for me” attitude. We criticize regional dominance while claiming to be better than others. This weakens moral authority. It makes partners hesitant to get involved in conflicts that are more about political gain than shared security.

This isn’t just a theory; it’s happening right now. Japan and Australia have said no to joining anti-hegemonic coalitions because they think the strategy is too early and too ### THE STARK CONTRAST

The 2025 NSS inverts the Roosevelt Rule’s wisdom by:

  1. Prioritizing foreign confrontation over domestic investment
  2. Deepening divisions through exclusive processes
  3. Alienating allies with demands rather than attracting them through leadership
  4. Depleting military resources while neglecting their economic foundation

Roosevelt would view this as strategic insanity. His rule reminds us: you can’t fix the world until you fix your own house. Security begins on Main Street, not in foreign capitals.

We must demand a strategy that actually serves American interests—starting with economic security, strong communities, and common purpose.

THE FUNDAMENTAL CONTRADICTION

The strategy’s core contradiction lies in the use of “America First” rhetoric to justify a “World Policeman” role. Meanwhile, pressing domestic needs are neglected despite a $34 trillion national debt. This doesn’t serve working families; it serves a defense industry that spent over $83 million on lobbying last year alone.

Allies recognize this hypocrisy. They see a “rules for thee, not for me” approach where we condemn regional dominance while asserting our own. This erodes moral authority. It makes partners wary of being dragged into conflicts that serve domestic political agendas. These agendas often do not align with shared security interests.

This isn’t theoretical—it’s happening now. Japan and Australia have refused to join anti-hegemonic coalitions, dismissing the strategy as premature and overly confrontational. ASEAN meetings have concluded without joint declarations supporting the Philippines in the South China Sea despite U.S. pressure. These nations value stability and economic ties, preferring diplomacy and autonomy over forced choices between powers.

They recognize a strategy that benefits defense contractors while heightening their own risks.

THE IMPERATIVE: UNITY AS STRATEGIC PREREQUISITE

We must confront this fundamental truth before debating airplanes carriers versus diplomacy. A nation that is not united can’t be secure. Thus, the primary aim of any National Security Strategy must be forging renewed common purpose and national unity. This isn’t one goal among many—it is the essential precondition for achieving all others. You can’t project strength abroad from a position of weakness and division at home.

A document drafted in secret by political elites that ignores our fractured national identity isn’t just flawed—it’s actively dangerous. It deepens the very vulnerabilities it claims to tackle.

A legitimate strategy would emerge from national conversation, not backroom dealings. It would champion the civic ideals that still unite us—liberty, equality, justice, and the rule of law. It would call for a new era of national service to rebuild community bonds and shared sacrifice. It would explicitly focus on investments that help all Americans. These investments would bridge our divides, because they form the true bedrock of long-term security.

Security isn’t just about the weapons we hold; it’s about the collective will that wields them. That will must be united and purposeful.

Without this common purpose, no strategy—yet well-funded or aggressively pursued—can ultimately succeed. With it, no external threat can ultimately prevail.

Regaining our national unity isn’t just part of the strategy. It is the strategy. Everything else is commentary.

The 2025 NSS answers the question “Whose America?” with disappointing clarity: it serves an insular elite rather than the American people. If we embrace the Roosevelt Rule, we can return to a vision of security. This vision begins with strengthening our communities. It also involves empowering our citizens and rediscovering our common purpose.

That is what putting America first truly requires.

Tom Raquer is a retired United States Air Force Southeast Asia Foreign Area Officer. Tom held long and short term assignments in Thailand, Vietnam, Korea, The Philippines, Indonesia, and East Timor.

NationalSecurity #PublicPolicy #AmericaFirst #Democracy #Transparency #ForeignPolicy #Accountability #USPolitics #EconomicSecurity #Community #MainStreet #ThePeople #RooseveltRule #FDRLegacy

Want to Learn More?

Comments

Leave a Reply The Essential American Citizen Thanks you!