Curated foreign policy and national security news for professionals.
Good morning,
Welcome back to another Monday morning edition of The Intel Brief. Let’s begin.
Reporting Period: December 4-8, 2025
Bottom-Line Up Front:
1. On November 6, the Whie House published a new National Security Strategy. The strategy is being widely interpreted as pragmatic with some revision to the historic trends of U.S. foreign policy.
2. In early December 2025, U.S. officials reportedly informed European allies that they must take over most of NATO’s conventional defense duties or risk seeing a reduced U.S. role in alliance coordination. The demand reflects Washington’s dissatisfaction with Europe’s domestic and security policies, as well as the American security focus moving to the Pacific and South America.
3. On December 4, the Moldovan government announced it is drafting a new reintegration plan for Transnistria in coordination with Western partners. According to officials, the move follows the collapse of older multilateral negotiation formats and reflects renewed urgency as Moldova advances toward EU integration.
White House Publishes New National Security Strategy
Summary
On November 6, the White House published a new National Security Strategy. The strategy is being widely interpreted as pragmatic with some revision to the historic trends of U.S. foreign policy.
Findings
Background: On November 6, The Intel Brief reported that the Trump administration would likely publish a National Security Strategy (NSS) before 2026 (The Intel Brief).
The NSS is the document from which military, defense, economic, and informational strategies are derived (The Intel Brief).2025 National Security Strategy: Late on December 4, the White House released a new National Security Strategy (White House). The NSS lays out America’s new foreign policy concept by first explaining previous failures, Trump’s “corrective measures,” what U.S. interests are, and what means we have to achieve our interests (White House).
The strategy is broken down into three sections: Principles, Priorities, and Regions (White House).
“President Trump’s foreign policy is pragmatic without being “pragmatist,” realistic without being “realist,” principled without being “idealistic,” muscular without being “hawkish,” and restrained without being “dovish.” It is not grounded in traditional, political ideology. It is motivated above all by what works for America—or, in two words, “America First.””
Principles: The guiding principles behind the Trump administration’s NSS are being defined as pragmatic and revisionist (CSIS). The principles:
Peace Through Strength: The underlying theme of Trump’s foreign policy is essentially a 21st Century rebranding of Roosevelt’s “Big Stick Diplomacy,” whereby we ensure our interests and peace through strong deterrence and seizing positive-sum opportunities.
Predisposition for Non-Intervention: Citing the intentions of the Founding Fathers and our nation’s diverse and varied interests, the NSS proposes intervention in foreign affairs when it is justifiable (White House).
“Flexible Realism”: Pursuing policy and partnerships that are realistic and favorable to the United States. Other details of the NSS suggest that this concept will be employed through bilateralism.
Primacy of Nations: The NSS proposes that the United States support the nation-state as the “fundamental political unit” in international relations (White House). The U.S. will favor the interests of nation-states over “sovereignty-sapping incursions of the most intrusive transnational organizations, and for reforming those institutions” in pursuit of nation-state primacy and American interests (White House). Other details of the NSS suggest the U.S. may use this position to pressure institutions like the EU, NATO, or the UN, for example.
Sovereignty and Respect: The U.S. “will unapologetically protect our own sovereignty. This includes preventing its erosion by transnational and international organizations, attempts by foreign powers or entities to censor our discourse or curtail our citizens’ free speech rights, lobbying and influence operations that seek to steer our policies or involve us in foreign conflicts, and the cynical manipulation of our immigration system to build up voting blocs loyal to foreign interests within our country” (White House).
Balance of Power: The U.S. will work with allies and partners to manage regional balances of power so that no single nation can be dominant enough to threaten American interests (White House).
Pro-American Worker: The U.S. will undergo economic reform to ensure a prosperous economy that is not concentrated by industry or geography (White House).
Fairness: The U.S. will no longer entertain partnerships or norms that Washington perceives as “free-riding, trade imbalances, predatory economic practices, and other impositions on our nation’s historic goodwill” (White House).
Competency and Merit: The NSS rejects race-based ideologies and favoritism, as well as using the sentiment of meritocracy to open America and our economy to global talent (White House).
Priorities: The Trump administration’s priorities are to end mass migration, enforce immigration law and borders, protect civil liberties granted by the Constitution, engage in “burden-shifting” with current partners, pursue further peace deals and terms abroad, balance trade, secure supply chains, reindustrialize, grow the defense industrial base, and achieve energy dominance (White House).
Regions: The NSS breaks American strategy into geographic regions, in this order: The Western Hemisphere, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (White House).
Reactions: Trump’s NSS has drawn sharp criticism as well as some praise. For example, CSIS views the NSS as a major ideological shift and short-sighted (CSIS). The think-tank also views the NSS as a shock to Europe, particularly the European Union and NATO (CSIS).
CSIS criticizes the NSS as “chastising” Europe for losing its European identity, and that amidst historic political, economic, security, and immigration crises, Europe is “vibrant, evolving, and largely-pretty happy” despite a historic rise in far-right politics across Europe (CSIS).
CSIS views the NSS priorities and rhetoric as soft on the promotion of democracy and democratic values (CSIS).
The Atlantic Council published feedback from 15 of its experts, but generally views the NSS as a return to past principles while the U.S. tries to identify “creative solutions to new problems” (Atlantic Council). Their feedback suggests that the NSS does well to address some issues of globalism, but falls short on policies that worked and promoted democracy and other Western values (Atlantic Council).
Why This Matters
This NSS offers a significant insight into the Trump administration’s ideology that is guiding its decisionmaking and rhetoric.
By elevating sovereignty, non-intervention, and nation-state primacy, the strategy suggests that Washington intends to be more selective about where it spends influence and military effort, and will be far more transactional with partners who depend on U.S. guarantees. This will likely be an administration that engages in frequent and intense bilateralism.
The most friction is likely to come from Europe, which has already undergone a reshaping of its expectations of the United States (some rightly and some wrongly). This NSS has called out Europe’s development path, and even brings into question the future viability of the EU and Europe’s reliability as an American ally.
Regardless of how faithful the Trump admin will be in shaping policy in line with this NSS, the document is historically significant and marks a stark shift in foreign policy precedent.
Exclusive Report Claims U.S. Expects Europe To Takeover NATO’s Conventional Capabilities
Summary
In early December 2025, U.S. officials reportedly informed European allies that they must take over most of NATO’s conventional defense duties or risk seeing a reduced U.S. role in alliance coordination. The demand reflects Washington’s dissatisfaction with Europe’s domestic and security policies, as well as the American security focus moving to the Pacific and South America.
Findings
Report: On December 6, Reuters reported that U.S. officials secretly told European counterparts that Washington expects NATO member states to take a leading role in the alliance by 2027 (Reuters).
Scope: The Pentagon reportedly wants European counterparts to overtake “the majority of NATO’s conventional defence capabilities” including non-nuclear assets, missile defense, and intelligence collection (Reuters, First Post). Washington reportedly indicated that if European NATO members fail to meet the requirement by the 2027 deadline, the United States may reduce its participation in NATO planning, coordination, and operational capacities (Reuters, First Post).
Why This Matters
This is an interesting report, especially given the timing of the release of the new National Security Strategy. No one is surprised by this, however.
What we should be surprised by is much of Europe’s hesitancy, which is primarily because Europe views the timeline (not the demand) as unrealistic. Europe is facing recruitment issues, funding shortfalls, production backlogs, logistical challenges, and inadequate ISR capabilities.
Europe is clearly working towards this, and has indeed asked this of its own members. It is the core of the ReARM Europe initiative, and is reflected by NATO member pledges to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP. Even Germany, on December 5, approved plans to expand the size of the Bundeswehr to upwards of 270,000 personnel by 2035 (CNN).
However, the United States should avoid interpreting Europe’s slow pace as justification for disengagement. Washington should retain its leading role to ensure alliance cohesion, develop operational experience, and demonstrate American military might. By maintaining a robust forward presence, particularly deploying assets less relevant to expeditionary warfare, such as heavy armor and legacy artillery, the U.S. can anchor deterrence in Europe while freeing its high-end forces for the Pacific. Together, these dynamics will determine whether NATO emerges stronger and more balanced or becomes strategically fragmented at a time when adversaries are actively probing its resolve.
Moldova Drafting Reintegration Plan With Transnistria
Summary
On December 4, the Moldovan government announced it is drafting a new reintegration plan for Transnistria in coordination with Western partners. According to officials, the move follows the collapse of older multilateral negotiation formats and reflects renewed urgency as Moldova advances toward EU integration.
Findings
Background: Moldova and Transnistria split after the Soviet Union’s collapse, when the mostly Russian-speaking region on the east bank of the Dniester rejected Moldova’s push toward Romanian identity and independence. A brief but violent conflict in 1992 ended with Transnistria functioning as a de facto separatist state backed politically and militarily by Russia, including the continued presence of Russian troops. Since then, Moldova has remained internationally recognized as sovereign over the region, but the conflict has stayed “frozen,” with Chişinău seeking reintegration and Moscow using Transnistria as leverage in Eastern Europe.
Announcement: On December 3, Moldova’s Deputy Prime Minister for Reintegration confirmed that his country is working with the U.S. and EU to develop reintegration plans with Transnistria (Euromaidan Press).
Failed Diplomacy: Moldova’s Deputy Prime Minister for Reintegration stated that the long-standing “5+2” negotiation format (involving Moldova, Transnistria, the OSCE, Russia, Ukraine, and other observers) is now defunct, citing the current war between Russia and Ukraine as a barrier (News Minimalist). As a result, Moldova and Transnistria are working directly with Western partners on a path towards reintegration.
Execution: Given the plan’s confidential details, the question of how reintegration may occur is still uncertain. In January 2025, the Moldovan government stated that the withdrawal of Russian troops from Transnistria is essential to begin reintegration, and that international peacekeepers can take their place (European Pravda). In November 2025, the Moldovan Foreign Minister Mihai Popsoi stated that reintegration should be peaceful and based on regional and EU economic integration (Moldpres). This implies that reintegration could occur at the same time as EU accession for both nations.
Why This Matters
There will be a lot to think of as this continues to develop, and as Moldova approaches EU accession (it has a target year of 2028). But the biggest question right now is even if both countries want to join the EU, and both countries want reunification, would Russian troops leave?
A scenario like that could rapidly descend into civil unrest, violence and proxy conflict (much like eastern Ukraine), and eventually another war on European soil.
End Brief
That concludes this brief.
Thank you for reading!
— Nick
This publication is an Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) product and does not contain Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) or Classified Information.