President Trump unveiled his National Security Strategy (NSS) on Monday, and though onlookers had held their breath out of fear that the document would reflect the President’s blustery rhetoric, what emerged was actually a surprisingly staid set of organizing principles to guide U.S. foreign policy. Presidents use the NSS as a document to articulate a grand strategy for an administration’s term—a framework by which specific policies will be developed—so there was no small amount of trepidation leading up to this release. But this latest installment of the NSS has been characterized as “shockingly normal,” and has been welcomed by foreign policy experts as a largely balanced strategy that could serve the Trump administration well if enacted. There were especially encouraging signs in the section on energy, which ratcheted down the administration’s often inflammatory tone.
Although the energy part of the report is provocatively titled “Embracing Energy Dominance,” a closer read reveals a surprisingly reasonable vision of energy policy, grounded in a self-consistent case for why economic strength and energy security underpin national security. The NSS energy strategy aims to support allies and partners, encourages North American energy cooperation, and tempers the definition of energy dominance suggested elsewhere, asserting that such dominance arises from “America’s central position in the global energy system as a leading producer, consumer and innovator.”
Many elements of the NSS energy strategy do not break with the energy policies articulated by the Trump administration to date. For example, the strategy calls for reducing regulatory barriers to energy production, streamlining approvals for new oil and gas infrastructure, and expanding energy exports. Where the NSS differs from previous policy statements, however, is in the way that it couches its goals in a nuanced understanding of global geopolitics. For example, it says that expanding energy exports “helps our allies and partners diversify their energy sources,” a clear departure from prior Trump administration rhetoric that exports can be used to “dominate” other countries. The NSS also sets out the laudable goal of protecting global energy infrastructure from both physical and cyber threats.
Predictably, the NSS does not identify climate change as a threat to national security, reversing the precedent set by the Obama administration’s 2015 strategy. The only mention of climate change in the NSS implies that climate policies around the world form an “anti-growth energy agenda that is detrimental to U.S. economic and energy interests.” The failure to acknowledge climate change as a threat to national security is in direct conflict with the U.S. military’s heightened focus on addressing the clear threats posed by climate change. The NSS even breaks with Congress, which earlier this month passed its latest National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) containing provisions requiring the Department of Defense to evaluate the risks climate change poses to military activities and installations.
It’s somewhat surprising, then, that “environmental stewardship” is a recurring motif in the NSS energy strategy. The section calls for ensuring such stewardship even while reducing regulations on the energy sector. It also implicitly acknowledges the importance of reducing climate-warming emissions, claiming, “The United States will remain a global leader in reducing traditional pollution, as well as greenhouse gases.” Finally, the document aims to realize environmental benefits through developing “innovative and efficient energy technologies.”
The problem is that the reasonably written NSS energy section directly contradicts Trump’s policies thus far. For example, the NSS celebrates the integration of the North American energy system, positing that “vibrant cross-border energy trade and investment are vital for a robust and resilient U.S. economy and energy market,” and that the administration is committed to “unlock the enormous potential of our shared region.” However, to date President Trump’s approach toward North American cooperation has been far less constructive, characterized by attacks on the U.S.-Mexico trade relationship and threats to “terminate” NAFTA.
In a strange move for an administration that has prioritized withdrawing from global humanitarian leadership, the NSS makes achieving universal access to energy a priority action. Though Energy Secretary Rick Perry has argued for the importance of increasing electricity access, especially when generated by fossil fuels, the Trump administration has never made this a prominent policy priority. Power Africa, the landmark energy access initiative launched by President Obama, which has proven effective at expanding electricity services in sub-Saharan Africa, only narrowly avoided being cut in the Trump administration’s proposed budget. Its modest funding remains threatened by Trump’s disdain for soft power instruments like foreign aid.
The NSS also contains strong language about supporting innovation and funding technical research, particularly at the National Laboratories, to “further America’s technological edge in energy.” The administration’s technology priorities include next generation nuclear, battery, and carbon-capture technologies, though renewable technologies are conspicuously absent. However, this promotion of innovation and research diverges sharply from actual Trump policies, including a proposed budget which suggested zeroing out funding for Mission Innovation, an international effort to invest in clean energy innovation, and eliminating ARPA-E, the Department of Energy program which funds the development of cutting-edge energy technologies.
The energy section of the NSS is a restrained document that champions international cooperation and environmental stewardship, but reconciling that with reality produces a tangled mess of contradictions. The administration’s wholesale abandonment of policies that protect the environment from greenhouse gases, hazardous waste, air and groundwater pollution and destruction of habitat are entirely incongruent with its claims of “stewardship.” The emphasis in the NSS of supporting universal energy access and innovation research as top priorities is in almost direct opposition with broader administration policies that have slashed funding for foreign aid. The continued hostility of the administration towards free trade clashes with the goal of building a “vibrant cross-border energy trade.” And the administration’s likely decision in 2018 to relax fuel economy standards for the U.S. vehicle fleet would make the U.S. less, not more, energy dominant by increasing domestic demand for oil, exposing the U.S. economy to volatile oil markets, and reducing U.S. exports.
The divergence between the words of the administration and the actions of the security and foreign policy officials has been described as a “kabuki dance”, and the NSS brings that clear tension to center stage. The NSS was written by respected national security policy professionals and vetted through an extensive interagency process, and the result was a set of largely sensible guidelines. By contrast, many of the policy initiatives that the Trump administration has pursued to date have resulted from impulsive and improvised decisions by officials comparatively lacking in experience and expertise, or by the President’s own tweets (the Kremlin apparently sees said tweets as official statements). Thus far, the administration’s record suggests that the latter officials tend to have the upper hand in shaping actual policy initiatives.
In any administration, the value of an NSS is to provide a window into how the executive branch views its security strategy, and to convey overarching goals rather than offering a prescriptive policy doctrine. It is reassuring that the NSS does not embrace some of the more extreme policies espoused by members of the Trump administration, and perhaps most importantly by the President himself. From an administration that has repeatedly advocated for isolationist views, this emphasis on American leadership strengthening an inclusive global energy system is welcome. But the question remains: is it credible?
Unfortunately, the administration’s chaotic energy policy so far does not align with the principles set forward in the NSS, and there is little reason to expect greater coherence moving forward. If anything, the NSS energy section is yet another example of the schism in the Trump administration between hotheaded elements keen to upend policies pursued by previous administrations and seasoned professionals intent on implementing deliberate and responsible processes. To the extent that we see smart, reasoned energy policy emerge under the Trump administration, it’s likely to happen in spite—not because—of the President himself.