Anyone who has negotiated for a while learns a simple rule: Actions speak louder than words. So, for the third blog in my trilogy on narrative, I’d like to look at how what’s said is often less important than what’s done.
Words are flexible. Actions are costly. And when the two diverge, it usually tells you something important about where real priorities lie.
That tension is clearly visible in the gap between the White House’s latest National Security Strategy and the defence legislation Congress has just passed.
The Strategy’s language on Europe isn’t merely cautious or distant — it’s pointed and critical. It warns of Europe’s potential “civilisational erasure,” portrays the continent as politically and demographically fragile, and suggests the United States should actively encourage internal “resistance” to Europe’s current direction. It also questions long-standing assumptions about NATO and implies that Europe has become more of a strategic burden than a core priority.
If you judged intent purely by those words, you’d assume the U.S. was preparing to disengage.
But then you look at what the system actually does.
Congress has passed a defence bill that reinforces U.S. commitment to European security: sustaining support for Ukraine, strengthening NATO deterrence, maintaining U.S. force posture in Europe, and putting legal and financial weight behind the alliance. At the same time, NATO members have agreed to substantial increases in defence spending, rising toward 5% of GDP by 2035.
So why the mismatch?
Part of the answer is that large systems don’t negotiate with one voice. Strategy documents reflect the preferences and worldview of those drafting them (The President). Legislation reflects a broader set of actors (Congress) — with different incentives, constituencies, and risk assessments. Some stakeholders emphasise signalling, pressure, and leverage. Others prioritise stability, continuity, and cost-avoidance over the long term.
That doesn’t make either side dishonest. It makes the rhetoric incomplete.
For a negotiator, this distinction matters. Statements are often designed to shape expectations or artificially shift the balance of power. Actions — especially those involving money, law, or military commitment — reveal what a system believes it cannot afford to walk away from.
This is why experienced negotiators track behaviour rather than language. When someone says “this is important” but doesn’t mention it again, it may be of less significance than claimed.
The Europe example is simply this principle at scale. However sharp the rhetoric, the commitments tell a different story.
And the lesson holds far beyond geopolitics: when what’s said and what’s done diverge, trust what’s done. That’s where intent lives.
