A Roadmap to Independence

The most powerful nation in history has spent the last three decades outsourcing its strength. Factories have been shuttered, energy dependence was reinstated, domestic bureaucracies have continued to grow, and bad trade deals were signed with rivals—all moves that have weakened America’s sovereignty. The Trump Administration is reversing this decline not only through rhetoric but also through action (which, admittedly, can be confusing at times).

The common thread weaved through President Trump’s current efforts is self-reliance. It’s evident in the concessions the Trump Administration is seeking from partners and adversaries alike. The administration’s “Liberation Day” reciprocal tariffs illustrate this tone. Unlike the soft diplomacy of the past, President Trump is seeking to rebalance trade and renew focus on American industry, while forcing better terms for America by using access to our markets as common leverage. While confounding critics who are accustomed to diplomatic platitudes and bureaucratic stagnation, this signals a return to American independence.

The stakes are existential. A nation that outsources critical resources, indebts itself to adversaries, and cedes technological leadership is a vassal state in waiting. The past few decades offer a sobering tally of missteps. Though well-intentioned, globalization has hollowed out American manufacturing, and supply chains that are vital to our nation’s survival were exported abroad. Today, America’s position is weak. But the path forward is clear: a national strategy rooted in self-reliance across every domain—resources, trade, debt, innovation, energy, and military readiness.

Securing the Essentials

Wars are often decided before the first shot. Victory hinges on supply chains, not just soldiers. China’s dominance in rare earth minerals, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and manufacturing infrastructure exposes a glaring vulnerability. If conflict erupted tomorrow, how long could America’s military-industrial complex function with supply lines tethered to Beijing? The answer is not reassuring.

Building up our national defense, which is often narrowly conceived as military might, is in truth a broader project of self-reliance: economic control, technological dominance, and the ability to secure a way of life without bending to external coercion.

Toward that end, creating a National Strategic Materials Reserve that stockpiles microchips, rare earths, and industrial components sufficient for a world war-level catastrophe is long overdue. This isn’t a luxury or a contingency plan—it’s the difference between standing tall as a sovereign nation and groveling at the feet of a rival who’s already hoarding the means to our survival. Without it, we’re simply preparing for our own surrender. Laws must mandate the onshoring production of essential goods, backed by incentives that penalize offshoring. The Trump Administration’s tariff threats have already spurred some reshoring, but the effort must intensify. A superpower cannot afford to beg for the tools of its own defense.

Trade mishandled is a blueprint for collapse. Dependence on adversaries for strategic goods—whether steel, tech, or medicine—is a self-inflicted wound.

Tariffs, subsidies, and reshoring incentives are acts of national security. Critics decry the disruption—but disruption to the existing order is long overdue and necessary. Trump’s trade policies, often dismissed as populist bluster, are aimed at a higher prize: control over America’s economic fate. This is about breaking the chains of dependence that bind us to hostile powers. Tariffs are the administration’s battering ram, wielded to secure the resources that keep America free, ensuring that no foreign capital can choke off our steel, our chips, or our medicine in a crisis. The squealing from affected industries and foreign capitals only underscores the stakes. 

Contrast this with Europe’s reliance on Russian gas, a dependency that invites coercion while its leaders preach moral superiority. The United States must not follow suit. Trade agreements should favor American interests unequivocally, ensuring that strategic commodities remain under domestic command. Anything less is strategic folly.

No nation can secure its future by borrowing from those it may one day confront in battle. China holds over $850 billion in U.S. debt—a financial sword of Damocles. This leverage must be dismantled. Foreign debt is not an accounting quirk but a weapon. The U.S. should stop investing in our adversaries, redirect spending to prioritize self-sufficiency, and ban hostile nations from purchasing strategic assets like farmland near military bases—a trend that security experts rightly find alarming. Several states have acted; federal resolve must follow.

Untangling this web is a Herculean task: slashing foreign investment risks tanking revenue, alienating allies, and spooking markets—all while Beijing exploits the chaos. Still, the problem will only get worse the longer it’s ignored. Markets currently aligned to unfettered globalism can’t help but react negatively, but there’s a bigger picture that’s essential, and the Trump Administration gets it.

The administration should start targeted restrictions and cap adversarial ownership of U.S. bonds at a shrinking percentage, say 5% annually, while offering tax breaks to domestic investors who step in. The dip in the market will encourage this as a matter of course as investors run from unpredictability toward the relative stability of bonds. Pair that with a phased repatriation of critical industries, funded by defunding the litany of wasteful programs identified by DOGE through the congressional rescission process. It’s messy, costly, and slow—but dependence is costlier. The potential upside if we have the will and pain tolerance to endure short-term hardship is huge. The downside is nothing short of existential.

Spending trillions on wasteful programs while indebting future generations to foreign creditors is national suicide. Redirecting funds from bureaucratic bloat (say, student loan bailouts) to reindustrialization and military modernization would fortify America’s backbone. Issuing tax credits for domestic production and penalties for outsourcing to rivals like China could accelerate the shift. Trump’s China policies reflect this logic, even if the broader political class remains mired in short-term thinking.

Independence Means Innovation

A superpower that trails in innovation is a superpower on borrowed time. America must reclaim its role as the global hub of business, technology, and industry. Tax incentives and government-backed investment in AI, cyber warfare, and next-gen manufacturing are essential.

Intellectual property theft—China’s economic warfare playbook—demands a harder line: trade restrictions, asset freezes, and market bans for offenders like Huawei or ByteDance. Espionage, whether through hacking or programs like China’s Thousand Talents Plan, should trigger asset seizures and retaliatory tariffs. Power is economic as much as military; leadership in both is non-negotiable.

The next war won’t be won with bullets alone but also with cyber attacks, AI, and autonomous systems. A national initiative on the scale of the Manhattan Project is needed to secure the high ground in AI and cyber warfare. Energy grids must be hardened against cyber threats, physical attacks, and EMP threats. Quantum computing, space warfare, and AI-driven logistics must become American domains. The White House’s engagement with industry leaders hints at progress, but Congress must match the urgency. Technological supremacy is not optional—it is a necessary prerequisite for battlefield supremacy.

Energy security is national security. Reliance on OPEC, Russia, or China for oil and power is strategic surrender. Expanding domestic oil, gas, and nuclear capacity—while innovating in next-gen energy—would make America an exporter, not a supplicant. Russia’s war in Ukraine exposed the folly of energy dependence; the U.S. must not ignore the lesson.

Energy independence is a necessity. Under Trump’s first term, America hit net energy exporter status by 2020, pumping 13 million barrels of oil daily, slashing OPEC’s grip, and staring down Russia’s gas leverage with LNG exports. Biden reversed course, canceling the Keystone XL pipeline, choking permits, and begging Saudi Arabia for oil as production dipped below 11 million barrels by 2022. The result? Gas prices spiked, and our enemies smirked.

Reclaiming independence means doubling down on the Trump energy playbook: fast-tracking drilling leases on federal lands—30% of U.S. oil is untapped—while slashing red tape for small modular nuclear reactors, which could power grids by 2030. Pair that with tax credits for LNG export terminals to flood markets, and Putin’s energy blackmail is capped at the knees.

American Might, Unshackled

Military strength remains the bedrock of sovereignty. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has rightly prioritized readiness over red tape—a shift long overdue after years of Pentagon bloat. Wartime production must be self-sufficient and free of foreign chokeholds. A military that can’t make its own bullets or repair its own ships is a paper tiger. Though the FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act topped $895 billion in spending, it largely fails to address the coming disaster.

Consider the Navy’s shipbuilding woes: 40% of critical components come from overseas, and delays in Virginia-class submarines trace back to supply chains snagged in Asia. A positive initiative so far is Secretary Hegseth’s moves to onshore production, like reviving steel forging for armor and stockpiling munitions before the next fight, not during it.

We must look at how defense dollars are best spent to address the broadest possible spectrum of future threats. Elite special forces and asymmetric capabilities, proven decisive in recent conflicts, deserve expansion. The SEALs and Delta Force didn’t win battles in Afghanistan with trillion-dollar jets—they did it with adaptability and precision. They are uniquely positioned to engage and embed with our allies as well, enhancing interoperability and coordination long before the next conflict erupts. Doubling their ranks and training budgets would cost a fraction of a single F-35—and yield tenfold the impact.

Industry and defense experts alike have long lamented the challenges created by the defense acquisition bureaucracy’s “colors of money” structure and the “use it or lose it” budgetary environment it has helped create. Critically, it chokes innovation and the development of rapidly fielded programs here at home and favors the “easy button” of buying foreign components rather than trying to navigate the minefield of DoD’s research and development avenues. 

Under President Trump, the Department of Defense is moving to address this problem. The president announced this week he would seek $1 trillion for defense, which is on top of the $50 billion he has ordered Secretary Hegseth to cut from existing programs. It doesn’t take much imagination to speculate that this reflects the president’s stated priorities of modernization and lethality, border security, and perhaps, most ambitiously, missile defense. President Trump’s proposed “Golden Dome” program will be a leap forward in integrated missile and hypersonic weapons defense for the homeland, and the plan to increase spending signals the administration’s seriousness about getting it done.

Next-gen force projection, including space-based systems, should focus on lethality and ubiquitous, integrated assets, not bloated budgets. Low-cost satellite swarms for surveillance and targeting must be prioritized over gold-plated boondoggles. Ukraine’s drone ingenuity—$500 quadcopters shredding $20 million tanks—and the Taliban’s resilience remind us that effect, not cost, wins wars; a $6 trillion Middle East quagmire taught us that lesson. A military obsessed with quotas over combat effectiveness is a military primed to lose. Hegseth’s vow to ditch DEI checklists for a war-fighting focus is about survival. The enemy doesn’t care about our diversity stats—they care about our kill rate.

A Stark Choice

Though foreign threats loom large, the gravest danger festers in Washington. Bureaucrats and politicians have spent decades eroding America’s independence not through treason but a slow drip of corruption, waste, and shortsightedness. Factories shuttered by onerous regulations, energy independence traded for donor profits, and critical industries ceded to rivals all bear the fingerprints of a government for sale. Accountability is a mirage; consequences for the corrupt are rare.

Trump’s second term and his cabinet picks offer hope, but the entrenched status quo resists. This isn’t mere incompetence—it’s a heist in broad daylight. Self-serving mandarins and elected grifters have turned the federal leviathan into their personal piggy bank, peddling influence to the highest bidder while the nation bleeds strength.

This internal rot has the potential to be even more lethal than an external foe, because it renders every tariff, stockpile, and troop deployment moot if the profits are siphoned off by career crooks in DC. A nation cannot be self-reliant if its leaders auction off its future or pick the winners in business based on who they can extort the most money from among the donor class.

The DOGE team’s waste-hunting is a start—but it’s a drop in a swamp of self-dealing where both parties play ball. Rooting out waste, fraud, and bloat must transcend party lines. Without a reckoning—real jail time for the thieves and legislation that formalizes DOGE’s findings and exercises Congress’ authority to return dollars to the Treasury—every call for independence is hollow. America’s resources and will are intact, but its government must align with the mission: it must be able to assert control over its own destiny.

A secure America controls its resources, dominates its trade, sheds its debts, leads in innovation, and wields unmatched military power. The Trump Administration’s moves—disruptive, unvarnished, and often maligned—point toward this vision. Without a fundamental reordering within major areas of U.S. policy, we risk becoming a superpower in name only, or worse, a nation whose next chapter is written by others.

The choice is stark: reclaim independence or fade into dependence. History suggests the former is still within reach if our will endures.

The post A Roadmap to Independence appeared first on The American Mind.