Highlights:
-
A draft National Security Strategy circulating in Washington reportedly outlines a new “C5” forum
-
The proposed group would bring together the US, China, Russia, India, and Japan
-
The framework points to a major shift away from traditional Europe-focused alliances
-
The White House denies any such alternative strategy exists
- Advertisement - -
Analysts say the idea reflects President Trump’s transactional great-power diplomacy
A contentious foreign-policy idea circulating in Washington proposes forming a “Core 5” forum linking the United States with China, Russia, India, and Japan. The concept, first reported by Defense One, appears in what sources describe as an unpublished, longer version of the National Security Strategy. The White House maintains that no such document exists.
The idea has gained attention across policy circles in Washington because it represents a significant departure from longstanding US geopolitical structures. If advanced, the C5 would gather five of the world’s largest nations, each with populations exceeding 100 million and central roles in global politics. Early drafts suggest the forum would host leader-level summits on major issues, including Middle East security and possible steps toward normalizing relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia.
How Washington’s C5 Proposal Diverges From the G7
The C5 outline marks a clear break from the G7, which has long been the central venue for coordination among Western economies. Analysts across Washington say the proposal aligns with President Donald Trump’s view of global power, one that relies less on ideology and more on direct engagement with major states, even when those states are competitors.
This shift reflects a broader move inside Washington to reconsider alliance structures that have defined US foreign policy for decades. A former Trump administration official, speaking anonymously, said the idea is “not completely shocking,” noting that during Trump’s first term there were internal debates over whether existing bodies like the G-structures or the UN Security Council could address current geopolitical realities.
National-security specialists argue that the proposal fits Trump’s emphasis on personal diplomacy with powerful leaders and his willingness to accept competing spheres of influence. The absence of any European nation in the C5 has alarmed policymakers in Europe, who worry that Washington may be sidelining traditional allies while accommodating Russian interests.
Experts in Washington Offer Mixed Assessments
Reactions among foreign-policy experts in Washington are divided. Torrey Taussig, a former NSC official under President Biden, said the plan reinforces the view that the US sees Russia—not Europe—as the key force shaping continental security. Other analysts, such as former Senate aide Michael Sobolik, argue that the C5 marks a stark reversal from Trump’s confrontational stance toward China earlier in his presidency.
Hints of new power configurations have already surfaced in Washington. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth previously described Trump’s meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping as a historic “G2,” prompting pushback from lawmakers who criticized the framing as overly accommodating to Beijing.
Washington’s C5 Debate Emerges Amid Europe Tensions and Ukraine Negotiations
The C5 discussion is unfolding while Washington presses European governments to support a negotiated settlement to the war in Ukraine. Trump has suggested a plan that would grant Moscow full control of the Donbas region, a proposal Ukraine rejects. European officials are divided, with some frustrated by Trump’s shifting strategies and others—such as UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper—saying Washington remains committed to current peace talks.
EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius has accused the US of weakening European unity, pointing to National Security Strategy language that warns of “civilizational erasure.”
Foreign-Policy Moves Adding Pressure in Washington
The C5 proposal comes as Washington manages a series of other national-security decisions. These include Trump’s approval of Nvidia’s sale of advanced AI chips to China, the US seizure of an oil tanker linked to Venezuela, and ongoing disputes between Congress and the White House on refugee policy, defense spending, and the International Criminal Court.
As the idea of a Core 5 forum continues to circulate in Washington, analysts say the discussion reflects a broader reconsideration of foreign-policy priorities. While the administration denies the existence of any alternative strategy draft, the debate underscores how the Trump White House is reassessing traditional alliances and exploring new power alignments.
What remains clear is that policymakers in Washington now face a central question: whether the US should anchor its future strategy in long-standing partnerships or pursue new great-power frameworks that could redefine the global order.
