How Christian Nationalism Is Reframing America’s View of Power and Security

When the Trump administration unveiled its National Security Strategy in December, much of Washington reacted with alarm. Critics across diplomatic and policy circles argued that the document marked a sharp break from the postwar tradition of U.S. leadership rooted in democratic values and multilateral cooperation.

For advocates of Christian nationalism, however, the strategy did not read as a rupture. It read as recognition.

Although the National Security Strategy carries no binding force, it serves as a window into how an administration understands the world. In this case, its assumptions closely mirror a worldview long promoted within Christian nationalist movements — one that blends cultural pessimism, religious identity and a redefinition of moral legitimacy in global affairs. That worldview helped mobilize the political base of Donald Trump and is now echoing through the language of American power.

Europe Recast as a Civilization in Decline

One of the document’s most striking departures is its treatment of Europe. Rather than portraying the continent as a partner bound to the United States by shared democratic commitments, the strategy frames Europe as culturally exhausted and demographically imperiled. Low birth rates, immigration and what the text calls fading “civilizational confidence” are presented as existential risks.

This framing aligns closely with Christian nationalist narratives that view secularism, pluralism and liberal social norms as corrosive forces. In that narrative, Europe’s embrace of diversity is not progress but decay — evidence of a civilization that has lost its spiritual anchor. The implication is clear: a United States that defines itself through Christian heritage should no longer feel obligated to treat such societies as moral equals.

Russia as a Moral Counterweight

Equally revealing is the document’s restrained posture toward Moscow. While largely sidestepping Russia’s war in Ukraine and its domestic repression, the strategy emphasizes the pursuit of “strategic stability” and questions the continued relevance of long-standing alliances such as NATO.

To outside observers, this appears contradictory. Yet within Christian nationalist circles, Russia has been undergoing a reputational rehabilitation for years. Under Vladimir Putin, the Russian state has positioned itself as a defender of traditional gender roles, religious orthodoxy and resistance to LGBTQ rights — themes that resonate deeply with segments of the American Christian right.

The admiration is not new. Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, conservative commentators openly suggested that Moscow had become a spiritual bulwark against Western liberalism. Since then, ideological alignment has only intensified.

Transnational Culture Wars

American Christian organizations have played a direct role in exporting these cultural battles. Groups such as World Congress of Families and similar networks have collaborated with partners in Russia, Eastern Europe, Latin America and Africa to promote what they describe as the “natural family.” Their campaigns oppose LGBTQ protections, reproductive rights and immigration while advancing a vision of society rooted in religious hierarchy and national identity.

These efforts go far beyond theology. They shape political platforms, influence elections, weaken civil society and normalize authoritarian governance. Countries including Russia, Hungary and Brazil under Jair Bolsonaro have all intersected with these movements at various points.

Domestic Impact, Global Consequences

Research suggests that these transnational ties have reshaped attitudes at home. Americans who strongly endorse Christian nationalist beliefs are more likely to express favorable views of Russia and to see Putin as a potential ally, even while acknowledging strategic rivalry. Seen through this lens, the NSS’s muted stance toward Moscow appears less puzzling — and more ideologically coherent.

Since World War II, U.S. foreign policy has been anchored, at least rhetorically, in commitments to human rights, democratic governance and international cooperation. The new strategy openly challenges those assumptions, portraying international institutions as constraints and pluralistic values as liabilities.

This shift is not merely tactical. It is moral. It replaces universal claims about human dignity with a culturally bounded vision of national identity — one that elevates conservative Christian norms above equality and inclusion.

Faith, Power and Moral Responsibility

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, speaking shortly after the strategy’s release, dismissed democracy promotion and what he termed “woke moralizing,” urging a focus on concrete national interests. His remarks reflect a broader Christian nationalist skepticism toward pluralism and rights-based frameworks that defined the postwar order.

Yet Christian history tells a far more complex story. Across denominations, Christians have been central to movements for civil rights, refugee protection, religious freedom and international peace. Faith-based leaders helped build support for the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — institutions now viewed with suspicion by Christian nationalists.

The new National Security Strategy signals a foreign policy increasingly shaped by religious nationalism rather than democratic solidarity. Diversity becomes a threat. Allies become unreliable. Authoritarian states acquire moral legitimacy.

The debate surrounding the strategy is therefore about more than alliances or military priorities. It is about how the United States understands itself — and how it justifies power. When national security is filtered through Christian nationalism, pluralism is reframed as weakness and exclusion is recast as virtue.

For people of faith, the stakes are especially high. Christian traditions have long taught that strength lies in justice, hospitality and care for the vulnerable, not domination or cultural purity. If American power is guided by a vision that confuses faith with exclusion and authority with coercion, the consequences will reach far beyond strategy documents — shaping global perceptions of the United States and redefining the moral obligations Americans hold toward one another and the wider world.