After reading the new National Security Strategy of the United States of America, recently released by the White House, I thought, “I used to advise US military bases on their sustainability programs. This new strategy seems to be a major change in direction, and it has enormous implications for sustainability and sustainable development work, globally. Perhaps I should analyze this document, as objectively and neutrally as I can, and write about that.” Then I became curious: what would a US-based AI do with that same task? So I uploaded a PDF of the document and typed the following prompt into ChatGPT: “Please analyse this document from a sustainability and sustainable development perspective.” (I always say please when talking with AIs. Just in case.)
Below, I have copied in the result of that request, in full, without any edit or additional comment from me. My intent is not to be “political”. My thought is that people of all political persuasions might find this analysis useful. — Alan
Executive Summary
From a sustainability and sustainable development perspective, this National Security Strategy represents a sharp departure from mainstream global sustainability frameworks, such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Paris Agreement, and contemporary scientific consensus on climate and ecological risks.
The strategy:
- Rejects climate science and climate policy as a core national interest, explicitly opposing “Net Zero” and “climate change ideology.”
- Prioritizes fossil fuel dominance as a strategic goal (oil, gas, coal, nuclear).
- Frames environmental and social issues primarily as economic, migrant, or security threats, not as structural planetary challenges or developmental priorities.
- Emphasizes sovereignty, national resilience, industrial capacity, and resource access, but without incorporating sustainability principles.
- Offers no recognition of biodiversity loss, planetary boundaries, ecosystem services, just transitions, renewable energy, social equity, or multilateral environmental cooperation.
In sustainability terms, the strategy is essentially a resource security and geopolitical competitiveness document, not a sustainable development strategy. It implicitly adopts an extractive, unilateral, 20th-century industrial worldview in a 21st-century risk landscape.
Key Sustainability Findings
1. Climate Change is Treated as a Political Ideology, Not a Risk
The document explicitly states:
- “We reject the disastrous ‘climate change’ and ‘Net Zero’ ideologies…”
There is no reference to climate risks, such as:
- extreme weather
- sea level rise
- climate-driven conflict and migration
- climate impacts on supply chains
- national security climate assessments (which have been standard since 2008)
Implication:
This is contrary to decades of U.S. Department of Defense and intelligence community findings that identify climate change as a major security threat.
From a sustainability perspective, this is a system failure: ignoring a scientifically validated driver of risk in economic, political, and ecological systems.
2. Energy Strategy is 20th-Century Industrial, Not 21st-Century Sustainable
The strategy prioritizes:
- fossil fuel expansion (oil, gas, coal)
- nuclear expansion
- “energy dominance”
- reshoring of fossil fuel supply chains
It does not mention:
- renewable energy
- efficiency
- electrification
- smart grids
- energy demand reduction
- just transition economics
“Restoring American energy dominance (in oil, gas, coal, and nuclear)… is a top strategic priority.”
Implication:
This is a “high-carbon growth” model, incompatible with sustainability science and global climate commitments.
From a sustainable development perspective, it:
- increases long-term vulnerability
- accelerates negative externalities (pollution, emissions, climate migration, ecosystem damage)
- risks technological lock-in
3. Migration is Framed as a Security Threat, Not a Socioeconomic or Environmental Issue
The strategy claims:
- “The era of mass migration is over.”
- “Mass migration has strained domestic resources… increased violence… weakened social cohesion…”
There is no recognition of:
- climate-driven displacement
- drought, desertification, crop failure
- resilience and adaptive development
- global demographic and economic drivers
Implication:
Migration is presented monocausally (as harmful) rather than systemically (as a response to inequality, development failure, climate risks, and conflict). Sustainable development literature sees managed migration as:
- a resilience strategy
- a development accelerator
- an essential adaptation tool
This document sees migration primarily as a security threat to be halted.
4. Resource Extraction and Strategic Materials Overshadow Resource Stewardship
The strategy repeatedly prioritizes:
- “critical minerals”
- “rare earth elements”
- “control of strategic assets”
- “supply chain dominance”
Especially in Latin America and Africa.
There is no discussion of:
- sustainable mining standards
- human rights in extraction
- local community benefits
- circular economy strategies
- materials substitution
- ecological impacts of mining expansion
Implication:
This is a 19th-century resource security model updated for AI and advanced manufacturing. From a sustainability vantage point, it:
- risks governance conflicts
- promotes ecological degradation
- ignores social license to operate
5. Multilateral Environmental Governance Is Rejected
The document repeatedly attacks:
- “transnational organizations”
- “sovereignty-sapping institutions”
- “globalism”
Sustainable development, by contrast, requires:
- cross-border coordination
- global carbon accounting
- shared environmental standards
- international common goods governance
This strategy explicitly favors national unilateralism over:
- Paris Agreement mechanisms
- UN SDG frameworks
- Convention on Biological Diversity collaboration
- International ocean governance
Implication:
It is fundamentally anti-systems governance in a world containing systems problems (climate, oceans, migratory species, pollution).
6. Sustainability Language Is Absent; Industrial Revival Is Central
Keywords present:
- industrial base
- tariffs
- reindustrialization
- energy dominance
- nuclear export
- defense capacity
Keywords absent:
- sustainability
- resilience (beyond national security meaning)
- biodiversity
- environmental justice
- SDGs
- planetary boundaries
- just transition
This is a pure industrial policy document with national security framing.
Analytical Judgement
❌ Alignment with Sustainable Development Principles
Overall alignment: Extremely low.
Not aligned with:
- SDGs (especially 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
- Paris Agreement
- IPCC risk assessments
- UN human mobility frameworks
- global climate security doctrine
Opposed to:
- decarbonization
- multilateral climate cooperation
- ecological stewardship
- climate adaptation and mitigation
Positively engaged only in:
- economic development (but exclusively national and extractive)
- supply chain resilience (but fossil-centric)
- “peace deals” and conflict mediation (but non-developmental)
Strategic Sustainability Risks
If implemented, this policy would likely result in:
Economic
- Carbon lock-in
- Stranded asset risk
- Decreased competitive position in renewable sectors
Geopolitical
- Increased conflict over minerals, water, land
- Fractured global cooperation mechanisms
Ecological
- Accelerated emissions
- Fossil extraction expansion
- Expanded mining footprint in Global South
Social
- Increased forced migration pressures (climate, conflict, resources)
- Reduced space for climate diplomacy and resilience work
Conclusion
From a sustainability and sustainable development perspective, this is:
A national industrial-military strategy framed against the language, science, and institutions of sustainability.
It treats climate and sustainability not as urgent, systemic, planetary risks but as ideological adversaries.
It represents a strategic and conceptual break with:
- 30+ years of U.S. military and intelligence community climate assessments
- 50+ years of international environmental diplomacy
- Every major sustainable development framework currently in use
— Text generated by ChatGPT 5.1 on 6 December 2025
Alan AtKisson 