I guess this is a mood board? Seems apt. I probably would have just said all “vibes” and no “substance.”

Here's the newly released NSS:
www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u...

This piece from the Diplomat is interesting: thediplomat.com/2025/09/if-t...

From the Chosun Daily: www.chosun.com/english/worl...

Here's a piece from the Atlantic Council: www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-at...

This from the Financial Times (FT): www.ft.com/content/27e8...

Here are some excellent articles: www.politico.com/news/2025/12...

One last point: Africa barely gets a mention in the NSS, consisting of 210 words on the final half-page. It reads as exploitative and one-sided and a lost opportunity in key areas, such as public health, economic development, and security. /TheEnd

Lastly, the belief that a "cessation of hostilities in Ukraine" will resolve everything seems startlingly naive. There are a lot of assumptions made in this report about strategic stability with little discussion on how this stability is achieved. /11

The portrayal of the US as Europe's savior is an odd turn of phrase. Europe clearly has a different set of interests and goals in seeing the conflict resolved, and Europe is right to be annoyed by their lack of participation in the "peace process." /10

There's a puzzling discussion of "core rights and liberties" with a particular focus on "the rights of free speech" among others that "must never be infringed." Writing in the NSS is not the same as practicing it - what does infringement look like? /9

Section IV has been cited by many others, the idea that US foreign policy should be pragmatic, realistic, principled, muscular, and restrained, but what does this look like in practice? Are the strikes against the "drug boats" in the Caribbean and Pacific "restrained" and "principled"? /8

I'm amused but also curious about the invocations of "soft power." How can there be "unmatched 'soft power' and cultural influence" with the rhetoric that frequently emerges toward immigrations, refugees, and asylum seekers? /7

It is difficult to conceive this when there isn't much investment (yet) in education. How can the US be "advanced and innovative" without education investment or even gainful employment? And "healthy children" without protection from dangerous disease seem difficult to understand, as well. /6

What puzzles me about Section II is that the wanting of "gainfully employed citizenry", "unrivaled 'soft power'", "innovative" with a nod to an educated (presumably?) workforce. /5

The authors of this report really love to say "We want..." which appears nearly 40 times in the report (Section II). I don't think any of the "wants" are new or novel - they seem like things that any administration would want, and the list is pragmatic. /4