@Roy Rashke I'm of the opinion that the nuclear infrastructure ought to be modernized, as I understand that much of it hasn't been overhauled since the eighties or so. The Space Force, I think, will be remembered more fondly than most people think; space has always been militarized, and that will continue. The rockets that brought Neil Armstrong to the moon were ultimately descendants of the German rockets that were used in an attempt to level London.

Having read Pillar III, what really strikes me is how realist (in an IR sense) the language is. There's a lot about balance of power and how that is an inherent part of international relations, which again seems very much in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt. This administration makes no bones, again, about a fact that has been true since 1945: the United States is the global hegemon and it has every intention of remaining there. To once more paraphrase Kissinger, this is the current administration wanting to be the world system.

Upon reading pillar two, this is what strikes me: "That economic system continues to serve our interests, but it must be reformed to help American workers prosper, protect our innovation, and reflect the principles upon which that system was founded." This discusses a conception of international institutions that is very explicit about how aforementioned institutions exist fundamentally to help the United States at the expense of other countries. For example, the time when the US had the most use for the United Nations was during the times that organization served as a way of legitimizing American military action against its geopolitical rivals in World War II and then in Korea. I'm reminded of a Henry Kissinger quote: "Empires have no interest in operating within an international system; they aspire to be the international system. Empires have no need for a balance of power. That is how the United States has conducted its foreign policy in the Americas, and China through most of its history in Asia."

Upon reading these pages, the first observation is that this is a publicly-readable document. Coming from a government, it is inherently a work of propaganda designed to make you believe a certain conception of the world and should be treated as such. Secondly, it (as I have stated in a different comment) makes very explicit something that has been true since 1945: that the United States will never willingly accept a relationship with the wider world that is dictated by people outside of Washington. Previous administrations, from Truman to Obama, have couched this in the liberal language pioneered by the Wilson administration, whereas Trump's rhetoric - and indeed his conception of American foreign policy - bears much more similarity to that of Theodore Roosevelt. Here, the administration is justifying the choice of enemies that was made clear earlier - Iran, Jihadist groups, China, etc., and they are the ones that the administration has targeted. This document shows how the entire liberal international world order spearheaded by the US and other Western powers since 1945 has been discredited in the eyes of many; the rhetoric here is a pre-1945 nationalism combined with a willingness to use force.

What do you mean by 'revitalize?' Does that refer to bringing it back to the pre-pandemic world? That economy was never that great, as it was rife with underemployment (which has gotten worse). The pre-recession era? The economic boom and period of social mobility during the 1950s-roughly 2000 or so?

The United States will remain an international institutional leader so long as international institutions serve its interests. The current administration does not view such institutions, particularly the World Health Organization, as being useful to it, especially in regards as to how the latter has been turned into a de facto Chinese propaganda outlet.

@Madi Smith Ever since 1945 the United States has taken up that mantle of deciding who is and is not tyrannical; Trump just makes obvious what has been true since then. To speak in Weberian terms, Trump's language is traditional or charismatic whereas Bush's language is rational-legal.