From Trump to Ukraine: The Discursive Adaptation of Extended Nuclear Deterrence in a Changing Geopolitical Landscape

Extended Nuclear Deterrence (END) has long been regarded as a cornerstone of NATO’s security policy, premised on its assumed effectiveness in deterring military challengers. However, the period between 2016 and 2023 brought significant changes to the international security landscape, including President Donald Trump’s unconventional approach to U.S. foreign policy and the war in Ukraine. Both have simultaneously challenged and reinvigorated traditional narratives surrounding END. While existing scholarship has predominantly attributed END’s persistence to materialistic interests, this study explores how its continued existence relies on its discursive construction as an indispensable and effective deterrent threat, deeply intertwined with U.S. national identity. Through a Critical Discourse Analysis of U.S. political rhetoric in during Trump’s presidency and the early stages of the war in Ukraine, this study examines how US policymakers contested and reinforced END as a necessary deterrent in response to changing geopolitical realities. Under Trump, END was repositioned within a transactional framework, often framed as both a burden and a strategic imperative for U.S. allies. Simultaneously, the war in Ukraine reinvigorated END’s relevance by framing Russia as an existential threat to the "free world," echoing Cold War-era discourses. This study argues that the endurance of END lies not only in its materialistic underpinnings but also in its ability to adapt to and integrate emerging discourse. By linking END to powerful pre-existing discourses—such as those about U.S. global leadership and the moral imperative to protect democracy—policymakers secured its place within the broader strategic framework of NATO security. Moreover, the research highlights how these discursive practices marginalized critiques of END’s effectiveness, framing dissent as antithetical to U.S. and NATO unity during crises. This study contributes to understanding how END’s interdiscursive connections with national identity and hegemonic security discourses enable its persistence despite shifting political contexts and strategic challenges. By examining how END’s meaning has been challenged and reconstructed in light of Trump’s foreign policy and the war in Ukraine, this paper underscores the role of discourses in shaping and sustaining global security strategies amidst changing international dynamics.