In the mid-19th century, a cadre of American industrialists—ethnically Anglo but fiercely commercially independent—armed the Russian Empire against Britain during the Crimean War. They operated under a maxim that appears to have resurfaced in the geopolitical calculus of 2025: one can share a bloodline with an ally while simultaneously selling shovels to their adversary.

The 2025 National Security Strategy suggests the Trump Administration has adopted a similar duality. While professing deep civilizational links to Europe (“Anglo by blood”), the administration is executing a ruthless, transactional pivot (“Yankee by Nature”) that effectively commodifies global security.

For Australians, understanding this dichotomy is critical. The following analysis breaks down the parallels between the 1850s industrialists (Webb, Whistler & Winans) and the current strategic outlook from Washington.

Shared Identity and Civilizational Sentiment

While the 19th-century industrialists and the 2025 Trump Administration both acknowledge deep cultural roots in the “Old World,” neither allows this sentiment to dictate political loyalty or strategic obligation.

1850s Industrialists (Webb, Whistler, Winans)

• These men were “Old Stock” Americans of English and Dutch descent, sharing the language, religion, and history of the British Isles.
• Despite this heritage, they felt no allegiance to the British Crown, viewing the Empire not as a cousin to be defended, but as an arrogant hegemon that had burned Washington D.C. only decades prior.

2025 Trump Administration Strategy

• The strategy explicitly professes that the United States is “sentimentally attached to the European continent—and, of course, to Britain and Ireland”.
• It adopts a protective stance over Western identity, stating a desire for Europe to “remain European,” regain its “civilizational self-confidence,” and resist “civilizational erasure”.

Transactionalism and Profit Over Alliance

The most striking parallel lies in the treatment of security and technology not as shared goods, but as commercial assets to be leveraged for national gain, regardless of the impact on traditional allies.

1850s Industrialists (Webb, Whistler, Winans)

• William Webb and his contemporaries sold high-tech naval assets, such as steam frigates, and rail infrastructure directly to Russia—Britain’s enemy—purely for profit and to break British trade monopolies.
• Their motivation was strictly commercial and anti-imperial; they were willing to arm the highest bidder to advance American industrial standing.

2025 Trump Administration Strategy

• The administration declares that the “days of the United States propping up the entire world order like Atlas are over”, signalling an end to automatic security guarantees.
• It introduces the “Hague Commitment,” a non-negotiable demand for NATO allies to spend 5 per cent of GDP on defence, effectively converting the alliance into a fee-for-service arrangement.

Undermining the Established Security Order

Both groups demonstrate a willingness to undermine the strategic objectives of their “kin” if it serves immediate national or commercial interests—a “betrayal” of the unwritten rules of Anglo solidarity.

1850s Industrialists (Webb, Whistler, Winans)

• While the Royal Navy attempted to blockade Russia, American shipbuilders constructed vessels like the General Admiral, designed specifically to break that blockade and challenge British naval supremacy.
• Their actions actively subverted the British war effort, prioritising the health of their order books over the security of the British Empire.

2025 Trump Administration Strategy

• The strategy dismisses European officials’ view of the Ukraine war as “unrealistic,” instead seeking an “expeditious cessation of hostilities” to stabilize global markets, regardless of European security concerns.
• By forcing a settlement to prevent “unintended escalation,” Washington prioritises its own economic stability over the existential threat perceived by its European allies.

Pragmatic Isolationism Regarding Foreign Conflicts

A distinct thread of isolationism runs through both eras, viewing foreign wars not as moral crusades requiring intervention, but as distant troubles that should either be exploited or ignored.

1850s Industrialists (Webb, Whistler, Winans)

• They viewed the Crimean War through an opportunistic lens; it was not a moral struggle between empires, but a market opportunity to export American technology (rail and steam).
• They maintained a profitable neutrality, refusing to let “Old World” quarrels impede American commercial expansion.

2025 Trump Administration Strategy

• The strategy emphasizes a “predisposition to non-interventionism,” asserting that the affairs of other nations are of concern only if they “directly threaten our interests”.
• It warns against being sucked into conflicts central to allies’ interests but “peripheral or irrelevant” to the United States, marking a sharp return to “America First” pragmatism.

The Strategic Risk of Abandonment

Finally, both approaches carry the long-term risk of empowering adversaries that may eventually threaten the very “Anglo” order they claim to cherish—the “grave digger” dynamic.

1850s Industrialists (Webb, Whistler, Winans)

• By building the St. Petersburg–Moscow Railway, American engineers laid the logistical groundwork that eventually allowed the Russian Empire to project power toward British India and the Pacific.
• Their “shovels” essentially dug the grave for British strategic security in Central Asia in the decades that followed.

2025 Trump Administration Strategy

• By demanding Europe “stand on its own feet” and signalling a withdrawal of support if financial terms are not met, the strategy risks leaving a fractured Europe vulnerable to domination by adversarial powers.
• The document implies that if Europe cannot reform its “regulatory suffocation” and defence spending, the US may view it as an unreliable partner, potentially abandoning the continent to its fate.