WASHINGTON D.C. – The international political landscape has been rocked by the leak of a classified document outlining an extraordinary and radical new foreign policy strategy from the Trump Administration. Trump’s plan, dubbed the “Revolutionary Alliance,” reportedly seeks to dismantle the post-World War II global architecture—including institutions like the G7 and, controversially, the NATO alliance—to establish a new “Core 5” council of major world powers.

The paper, which looks and reads like a high-level administration strategy document (although the White House has not commented), calls for a deep reset of American foreign policy. It urges the United States to move away from large, treaty-based alliances built after the Second World War. In their place, it proposes a tighter, deal-focused system built around five central principles, which it calls the “Core 5”.

Promethean Action’s Worldview

Promethean Action is not an official arm of the White House, but analysts have long linked its ideas to the current administration. Commentators often describe the group’s outlook as “neo-sovereigntist”. It strongly backs absolute national independence and treats open-ended mutual defence treaties as a dangerous limit on national choice.

The Core 5 plan is framed as a break from both old alliances and classic isolationism. It argues that the United States should pull back from conflicts where its direct interests are not clearly involved. By doing so, it seeks to lower the risk of mistakes or local clashes growing into a global war.

The authors put forward a blunt claim: the very alliance systems created to stop world wars now increase that danger. By tying many states together, they say, regional disputes can turn into international crises when obligations are triggered.

The Five Pillars Of The “Core 5” Strategy

The leaked document rests on a set of major policy changes. Together, they aim to build a new balance of power based on clear, bilateral deals instead of wide, shared commitments. The five pillars are:

1. Sovereignty-First Security Accords (S-FSA)
   The paper calls for a full review, and possible cancellation, of current defence treaties, including NATO’s Article 5 and key Pacific agreements. In their place, the United States would sign time-limited, strictly reciprocal bilateral accords. Support under an S-FSA would be conditional and transactional. Two factors would shape any American military help: the partner’s direct financial contribution and its clear alignment with U.S. national interests. The approach treats security as a paid-for service and openly rejects the idea of automatic, collective defence.
2. The “Expeditious Stability” Doctrine
   This doctrine offers a new way to handle wars such as the conflict in Eastern Europe. Instead of insisting on a full return to pre-war borders, it calls for a rapid halt to fighting and a quick peace deal, even if the weaker side must surrender territory. The main goal is to freeze conflicts and keep them from spiralling into clashes between nuclear powers. VORNews analysts argue that this may reflect President Trump’s still-unclear plan for a fast end to the war in Ukraine.
3. The New Technological Sphere (NTS) Coalition
   The Core 5 plan proposes a tight club of states that would work together to secure and dominate advanced technologies like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and high-end manufacturing. The framework names the United States, Israel, Japan, the United Kingdom, and India as the founding members of this “inner circle”. This coalition would apply tough export controls to rivals and create a technology barrier aimed at keeping long-term Western superiority. It would also limit the bargaining power of competitors such as China.
4. The “Trump Corollary” To The Monroe Doctrine
   Echoing signals in the official National Security Strategy, the Promethean Action paper sets out what it calls a “Trump Corollary”. This policy claims absolute U.S. primacy in the Western Hemisphere. It expects all countries in the region to shape their security, trade, and border policies in line with U.S. interests. The document also warns that any hostile outside move into the hemisphere, economic or military, will trigger a firm unilateral American response. Supporters see this as a bid to lock in supply chains and energy flows, so that turmoil abroad cannot easily threaten the U.S. home front.
5. The “Managed De-Leveraging” Initiative
   The fifth pillar is an ambitious economic project. It calls for a planned, multi-year effort to reduce U.S. economic dependence on major rivals, with a strong focus on China. Rather than rely on tariffs alone, it urges Washington to actively shift key manufacturing and pharmaceutical production back to the United States or to trusted S-FSA partners. The document claims that deep economic ties, once praised as a force for peace, now act as tools of pressure. It argues that real national security needs economic separation, so that hostile states cannot disrupt or control American industry.

Global Response: Fear, Doubt, And New Openings

The leak has caused deep concern among long-standing allies. European governments, already under pressure from Washington to boost their own defence spending, are likely to see the Sovereignty-First Security Accords as a direct blow to NATO’s 75-year-old foundation. The basic message is clear: the era of open-ended U.S. guarantees to collective defence is coming to an end.

At the same time, some countries may spot advantages. India, for example, is listed as a core player in the NTS Coalition. For New Delhi, that status might offer a way to work more closely with Washington without joining older Western clubs that carry heavy expectations.

Rival powers receive mixed signals from the plan. The “Expeditious Stability” Doctrine hints that the U.S. could accept less-than-perfect peace deals in current conflicts. Yet the hard line in the “Trump Corollary” and the closed nature of the NTS Coalition suggest sharper, more focused competition ahead.

High-Risk Strategy With Unclear Outcomes

The Promethean Action proposal represents a major gamble. By discarding much of the post-war security model, President Trump is staking his foreign policy on a simple idea: a world of firm borders and limited, interest-based alliances is less likely to slide into total war than a world of dense, mutual defence ties.

“The logic is terrifyingly simple,” said Dr Elias Vance, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Strategic Studies, in an interview with VORNews. “If you remove the tripwire, you remove the trigger. The President wants to swap collective defence for clear deterrence, stating that America will only fight for American interests. The danger is that this could open gaps in the system and tempt local aggression, because a joint response is no longer guaranteed.”

The administration has not formally adopted the Core 5 paper, but many of its themes already show up in recent policies and diplomatic talks. If carried out in full, the framework would mark the biggest change in U.S. foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Supporters believe it could bring stable, separate spheres of influence. Critics warn that it might create a harsh world where each state stands alone.

VORNews will keep following the story, tracking both the authenticity of the leak and any steps toward putting this bold, and to some, reckless security vision into practice.

Related News:

Trump Calls European Leaders Weak, Warns Over Mass Migration

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a sharp, combative interview that rattled officials in Brussels and other European capitals, U.S. President Donald Trump launched a sweeping attack on Europe’s political leaders. He called them “weak” and claimed their countries are “decaying” under the pressure of mass migration and hesitant foreign policy.

Speaking with Politico for nearly 45 minutes on December 8, Trump argued that Europe’s handling of immigration and its approach to the war in Ukraine are not simple policy mistakes, but “self-made disasters” that could tear apart the transatlantic alliance.

“They talk, but they don’t produce, and the war just keeps going on and on,” Trump said, raising his voice and waving his hands as he spoke in the Oval Office. The interview, released Tuesday, landed at a tense point in ongoing efforts to halt Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, now grinding through its fourth year.

U.S. negotiators are pushing a controversial peace plan that would require Kyiv to give up some territory to Russia. Many European leaders worry Washington is willing to sacrifice long-term European security in exchange for a fast deal.

Trump brushed off those worries and accused EU governments of letting Ukrainians “fight until they drop” while hiding behind “political correctness” that, in his view, leaves them paralyzed in the face of Moscow.

The comments, blunt even by Trump’s standards, reveal a widening split inside the Western alliance built after World War II.

Just days earlier, the Trump administration rolled out its new National Security Strategy, branded by critics as the “America First Fortress” doctrine. The document warns of what it calls “civilizational erasure” in Europe, blaming large-scale migration and ideological drift.

It calls for the U.S. to pull back from its role as Europe’s main security backstop and instead work more selectively with partners it sees as strong and reliable.

“Ideological divisions are threatening to break our alliances with Europe,” Trump said, hinting at a future in which Washington chooses allies based on perceived toughness rather than long-standing ties.

The reaction in Europe has been angry and anxious. French President Emmanuel Macron has warned of “irreparable damage” to Western unity, while German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has labeled Trump’s approach “short-sighted isolationism.”

Ukraine Under Pressure: Trump’s Warning to Zelenskyy

At the core of Trump’s criticism of Europe is the war in Ukraine, which he says has dragged on because European governments “talk endlessly” but fail to act.

“Europe’s leaders are politically correct to a fault; it makes them weak and ineffective,” he told Politico. He drew a contrast between what he called their “endless chatter” and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s more “decisive” style.

Trump said his administration has circulated a new draft peace plan to Kyiv, claiming Ukrainian negotiators “loved” it. He complained that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has not even read the document.

“It would be nice if he would read it,” Trump said with a dry laugh, before turning serious. In his view, Moscow has the “upper hand” on the battlefield, and Zelenskyy must “play ball” or risk losing American support altogether.

Since Trump’s inauguration in January, the pressure on Kyiv has grown rapidly. U.S. envoys have reportedly given Ukraine only days to respond to terms that include handing over Crimea and parts of the Donbas to Russia in return for loose and uncertain security guarantees.

Many European leaders fear such a deal would only encourage Putin to test NATO’s eastern flank next. They worry it would signal that changing borders by force is again acceptable in Europe.

On Tuesday, Trump pushed the pressure campaign even further. He renewed his demand that Ukraine hold elections despite the ongoing war.

Zelenskyy’s formal term ended in May 2024 under martial law, and the decision to postpone national elections has stirred corruption scandals and intense political debate inside Ukraine.

Trump has seized on those tensions. “He’s a dictator without elections,” the president said, repeating criticism he first voiced during a tense Oval Office meeting with Zelenskyy in January.

Speaking to reporters in Kyiv on Wednesday, Zelenskyy tried to balance reassurance and resistance. “I’m ready for elections, in 60 to 90 days, if our allies guarantee security,” he said. He added that voting under heavy Russian missile and drone attacks would be dangerous and hard to manage.

Behind the scenes, sources in Kyiv say the constant demands are wearing down Ukraine’s leadership. Officials worry that if Washington pulls back, Europe’s support alone will not be enough to hold the line.

European governments have tried to carve out a role in the talks led by the U.S. Diplomats in Paris and Berlin have worked on backchannel contacts with both Kyiv and Moscow in an effort to slow the process and protect what they see as Europe’s long-term security interests.

Trump views those efforts as unhelpful interference. He argues that European leaders prefer endless debate to hard choices and favors what he calls a “quick resolution.”

An EU diplomat, speaking anonymously, summarized the mood in Brussels in blunt terms. “We’re being sidelined in our own backyard,” the diplomat said.

Migration “Disaster”: Trump Says Europe’s Borders Are Breaking It

Trump did not limit his criticism to Ukraine. He reserved some of his strongest language for Europe’s approach to migration and border control, painting a grim picture of societies coming apart under the strain.

“What they’re doing with immigration is a disaster,” he said, his tone hardening as he described what he sees as out-of-control borders and “woke ideologies” in key European capitals.

According to Trump, if current policies continue, “many countries in Europe will not be viable countries any longer.” He pointed to Britain, France, Germany, Poland, and Sweden as examples of nations facing deep problems, and said cities like Paris and London have “deteriorated” because of large inflows of migrants.

He singled out London’s Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, calling him a “horrible, vicious, disgusting” symbol of what he views as failed leadership.

Khan quickly responded, saying Trump is “obsessed” with him and arguing that Americans are “flocking” to London because of the city’s diversity and energy.

Behind the harsh rhetoric, Trump’s arguments tap into a wider debate inside Europe about the scale and effects of migration. Over the last decade, the continent has seen a large increase in arrivals from Syria, Afghanistan, Africa, and the Middle East.

The 2015 to 2016 refugee crisis opened the door to millions, and many routes have remained active since. In the past ten years, around 29 million immigrants, both legal and illegal, have arrived in Europe. Governments have struggled to expand housing, schools, hospitals, and welfare systems fast enough to keep up.

In 2023 alone, about 4.5 million people entered Europe. Authorities reported that irregular crossings fell 22 percent this year, but still totaled more than one million.

The financial cost is steep. A major Dutch study found that non-Western immigration cost the Netherlands about €17 billion per year from 1995 to 2019. If current patterns continue, the study projects that the total to climb to €50 billion annually.

Germany spends roughly €60 billion each year on programs for migrants. These include housing, language classes, education, and social support. On top of that, around 45 percent of unemployment benefits go to non-citizens, adding another €20 billion to the yearly bill.

France and Austria report similar pressures. Both pay for integration contracts that include language training, job support, and housing aid. Yet more than half of Afghan migrants remain unemployed 18 months after entering these programs, according to government figures.

For Trump’s supporters, these numbers strengthen his claim that Europe’s open-door policies have weakened its economies and strained its social fabric. For his critics, the remarks ignore the role migrants play in filling labor gaps, supporting aging societies, and contributing to cultural life.

What is clear is that Trump’s comments have thrown fuel on already heated debates in Europe over borders, identity, and security. They have also deepened worries that the old model of transatlantic cooperation is under strain at a moment when Europe faces both a grinding war on its doorstep and a prolonged political fight over who can come, who can stay, and who pays the price.

Related News:

Trump Ready to Walk on Ukraine Over Corruption and Deadlocked Talks

DOHA, QATAR – At the 2025 Doha Forum, U.S. commentator Tucker Carlson sat down with Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani for a rare, blunt conversation about Middle East politics, the Gaza war, and the surprising role of Donald Trump.

The interview, held in front of a packed audience, focused on the Gaza conflict, Qatar’s disputed role as a mediator with Hamas, and the political shockwave from an Israeli strike on Qatari soil.

Carlson opened by pressing Sheikh Al Thani on the September 9 Israeli airstrike in Doha. The attack targeted Hamas officials but also killed a Qatari serviceman. The Prime Minister called the strike “unprecedented” and “not acceptable.” It also threatened fragile ceasefire talks and hostage negotiations tied to Gaza.

That incident set the stage for the interview’s most revealing point: the role of President Donald Trump in pushing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to formally apologize to Qatar.

The Unthinkable: Trump Pushes Netanyahu to Say Sorry

The fallout from the Israeli strike in Doha marked a major turning point in U.S.-Israel relations. For decades, Washington had backed Israel almost without question, often protecting it from serious public criticism, especially when Arab states were involved. Many observers said that no previous American president had taken the side of an Arab country against Israel in the way Trump did after the Doha attack.

The strike violated the territory of a key U.S. ally that hosts the largest American military base in the region, Al Udeid Air Base. Reports at the time said Netanyahu ordered the operation without telling the Trump White House.

The U.S. administration saw the move as a direct threat to regional stability and to Qatar’s role as the main channel for a Gaza ceasefire.

At a White House meeting, Trump pressed Netanyahu to call Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani and offer a formal apology. According to the official readout, Netanyahu “expressed his deep regret that Israel’s missile strike against Hamas targets in Qatar unintentionally killed a Qatari serviceman,” and “affirmed that Israel will not conduct such an attack again in the future.”

In doing so, Israel admitted it had violated Qatar’s sovereignty.

This episode, in which a U.S. president pushed an Israeli leader to apologize to an Arab government for a military strike, was a sharp break from past practice. It showed that Trump’s foreign policy, for all its controversy, drew a firm “red line” when an ally’s actions risked U.S. interests, especially efforts to calm the Middle East.

Qatar’s Careful Response and Quiet Gratitude

Speaking with Tucker Carlson, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani confirmed the strong intervention from Trump after the strike. Calm and diplomatic as usual, he still made clear how serious the situation had been.

He said President Trump was “very clear from the beginning” after the attack, and that Trump expressed “frustration” and “disappointment” over what Israel had done. The Prime Minister stressed that Trump understood how sensitive Qatar’s mediation role was and saw the strike as a move to “sabotage the relations between Qatar and the United States.”

Sheikh Al Thani’s comments hinted at quiet satisfaction that Qatar’s steady investment in ties with Washington, across different U.S. administrations, had paid off. He framed the apology as a necessary step for Qatar to keep acting as the one trusted mediator in the Gaza talks.

After the apology, Qatar issued a statement that repeated its “refusal to tolerate violations of its sovereignty” while also affirming its “readiness to continue its involvement in efforts to end the war.”

Al Thani avoided bragging about the outcome, but his tone made clear that Trump’s move was a rare diplomatic win for Doha. It helped cement Qatar’s position not only as a major financial player, but as a state whose security and political value the U.S. was willing to protect, even when that meant publicly correcting Israel.

Looking Ahead: A Shifting Regional Picture

The Doha Forum exchange highlighted how tense and fast-changing the regional picture has become. Sheikh Al Thani firmly rejected claims that Qatar funds Hamas. He said Qatar’s engagement with the group over the last decade came at the request of the United States, to help arrange ceasefires and deliver aid.

He also sent a clear message about Gaza’s future: “We are not the ones who are going to write the check to rebuild what others destroy.” Qatar, he said, would keep sending humanitarian relief, but would not pay on its own to rebuild what was destroyed by Israeli military operations. That was a signal that Qatar wants wider international responsibility for Gaza’s reconstruction.

The “Trump apology moment” will likely be studied for years. It shows that even long-standing alliances can shift when power, interests, and timing change. For now, it stands as a rare example of the United States siding so openly with an Arab state over a specific Israeli action. That choice has reset what many in the region expect from Washington.

For a deeper look at the main points from the discussion on U.S. policy in the Middle East, you can watch a recap here: Why Do You Host Hamas? — Tucker Carlson Confronts Qatar’s Prime Minister.

Related News:

New Sanctions on Russia and Their Impact on Global Trade, Markets