After the publication of the National Security Strategy by the Trump Administration, Agenda Pública decided to meet with Bjorn Beam, an American geopolitical and technological strategist based in Madrid who works at Arcano Partners and has more than a decade of experience in the U.S. intelligence community, including his service as an officer of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and a member of the presidential daily briefing team.
It should be noted that Beam is a longtime friend of the author of this article. Although we do not agree on everything, he is one of the most competent geopolitical analysts there are and a fundamentally honest person, whose analyses are grounded in a rare combination of knowledge, optimism and goodwill.
Beam has briefed senior government officials on global threats, emerging technologies and crisis developments, and has led operations to address some of the world’s most complex security challenges. Currently, he advises NATO partners, European institutions and multinational companies on geopolitical risk and the strategic implications of artificial intelligence.
The United States National Security Strategy
According to Beam, “the National Security Strategy is effectively a formalization of priorities as doctrine. So it takes what policymakers see and turns it into the vision they want to execute at the national level, at the economic level, in intelligence, with all the force of the United States Government, to position itself, to understand what risks it should exploit and how it can position itself more effectively with its partners and against its enemies in the world”.
“The National Security Strategy is a formalization of priorities as doctrine. So it takes what policymakers see and turns it into the vision they want to execute”
The consultant went on to say that the document “is very much in line with what [the Trump Administration] has been saying all this time“. He characterized it as a “formalization of what they were saying; we are moving from alliance politics to power management”.
In essence, this shift in U.S. policy, as described in the National Security Strategy, “does not focus so much on maintaining alliances as on managing exposure, handling risk and how the United States can position itself in a long-term posture based on the Administration’s objectives and doctrines… It represents a key change compared with earlier documents, which had not exposed it so openly”.
According to Beam, “it breaks with the traditional doctrine of previous National Security Strategy documents and signifies a shift, specifically when we look at our alliances here in Europe, a change from an alliance to something more variable, a responsibility. And regarding Latin America, it is a shift toward the Monroe Doctrine of creating a buffer zone for U.S. dominance in the region”.
Regarding China, Beam noted that the document “uses a different rhetoric to focus on them [China] as economic competitors, rather than direct hostile competitors“. It is a notable shift compared with the rhetoric about China during the first term of President Trump.
“We are witnessing the global militarization of trade routes”
The conversation with the intelligence expert turned to the confrontation between the United States and Venezuela, and he noted that in Europe, particularly in Spain, “there is a bit of surprise, confusion and disbelief“. He continued by saying that if the conflict between the United States and Venezuela were to intensify, beyond the attacks on ships currently taking place, it would lead to “higher insurance costs, increased transit costs and greater risk when navigating those waters [Caribbean] for any type of commercial vessel”.
Beam went on: “We have Chinese naval forces doing something very similar to [the United States], Chinese naval forces [in the South China Sea], except that instead of attacking drug-smuggling ships, they are positioning themselves around the Philippines, around Vietnam and, of course, around Taiwan“.
According to the strategist, “we are witnessing a global militarization of trade routes on a scale not seen in this decade or this century”.
On Ukraine, the European Union and European security
“This is an opportunity for Europe to take its security seriously,” Beam told Agenda Pública. He went on to say that he is “seeing an interesting degree of enthusiasm coming from the venture capital realm… [and that] this is an opportunity to build national industries”.
However, he added that, rather than focusing on European Union countries, some investors’ interest is centered on Ukraine. “Startups from Ukraine, Israel and the United States attract great interest, and very few European startups are drawing such interest,” Beam asserted.
“When you lift the EU layer, you quickly reach the nationalist will of each country,” “Europe is not capable or willing to manufacture fully [in defense] for a variety of reasons… which I find worrying,” the expert explained. He added: “We continue to see internal struggles within a European Union that is not a union. It is not united”.
“When you lift the EU layer, you quickly reach the nationalist will of each country. Regardless of the rise of left- or right-wing politics in Europe, there are always things that revert to national politics,” he noted.
On the European economy and the impact of U.S. tariffs
The former CIA officer summarized Europe’s situation by saying: “Europe has outsourced its energy security to Russia, its defense spending to the United States, and its manufacturing capacity to China“.
“I think we are starting to see the impact of tariffs, and regardless of whether there is a shift in U.S. policy or not, we should anticipate higher trade costs“, Beam told Agenda Pública.
“Tariffs are counterproductive for the United States, as they push Europe toward China”
“I think tariffs are counterproductive for the United States, as they push Europe toward China. This raises questions for European companies,” according to Beam. “Where are they seeking investments? Where are they seeking to build new factories? Where is the market they think will be easiest to reach, regardless of the complexities of selling products in China and the lack of intellectual property protection that entails?”, the analyst asked.
However, as he explained, tariff pressures and the war in Ukraine are bringing Europe together. The more hardened things become on both fronts, the more progress European Union countries attempt to make, he said.
About Spain
“Spain has shown resilience in weathering the economic and geopolitical storms of the U.S. tariffs for various reasons,” Beam noted. He went on to say that the country should “maintain that growth in the era of artificial intelligence” and that it is necessary to “rethink business models that treat infrastructure security as a risk and a key responsibility that all companies should focus on”.
In essence, Beam observed that Spain remains protected from the headwinds of the global economy thanks to its membership in the European Union. He also noted that the country remains an attractive destination in its own right for foreign direct investment.
About China
“For many European economies, Chinese participation offers scale, speed and capital at a time when national capacity faces rising costs and political limits,” he explained to this outlet.
“At the same time, Beijing approaches Europe with a long-term perspective that links trade, technology and market presence into a coherent national strategy. The interaction between these two perspectives increasingly defines the relationship,” Beam stated.
“Since China’s growth depends more on exports in a context of weak domestic demand, European markets absorb capacity in the automotive, battery, renewables and advanced manufacturing sectors, creating ties that go beyond individual transactions,” he reiterated.
About Gaza
“One of the principal obstacles to a resolution of the conflict lies in the lack of agreement on when the conflict actually began,” he began. “For some, it starts with the recent attacks. For others, it goes back decades or generations,” he continued explaining.
“Each starting point has its own moral logic and prescribes a different solution,” he added. For Beam, “these opposing historical realities shape diplomacy, security planning and public expectations in ways that resist convergence”.
“The United States continues to press for shared responsibility in any postwar agreement, while Europe emphasizes humanitarian support and adherence to political principles,” Beam analyzed the peace prospects. “There is a governance and security gap between these positions that remains hard to close. Until actors agree on responsibility and narrative, the conflict is likely to continue being defined by management more than resolution, shaped by resistance more than by agreement,” Beam concluded.
If you would like to read more of Beam’s analyses, check his Substack, Beam Intel.
