The emergence of Trump Doctrine in U.S. policy and what it means for the world
On the Monroe Doctrine’s anniversary, President Donald Trump wrote in an official presidential statement that, “the American people—not foreign nations nor globalist institutions—will always control their own destiny in our hemisphere.” He referred to his statement as the “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, a foreign policy principle established by President James Monroe in 1823 to respond to European infringement on the newly formed countries in the Western Hemisphere. In the past, American leaders have used the doctrine to justify U.S. interference in Latin American affairs, most recently by the Trump administration after the military operation in Venezuela and subsequent capture of President Nicolás Maduro. Trump has repeatedly invoked the Monroe Doctrine to describe his vision for foreign policy but has kept his language vague in a way that left room for interpretation. Flexible policies allow quick, decisive action, and the way Trump claims to prioritize the American people could, in many ways, be effective at giving the country an economic and diplomatic advantage. However, those same qualities remove meaningful limits on his power and allow him to justify actions through vague but reassuring rhetoric. As a whole, the emergence of the Trump doctrine has weakened the United States’ credibility, consistency, and long-term relationships.
The Monroe Doctrine has been used throughout U.S. history to deter the involvement of non-American powers in the “sphere of U.S. interest.” According to the doctrine, that sphere of interest includes all “nations of the Western Hemisphere,” a statement used first to protect the New World after colonial times and later to repeatedly justify U.S. involvement in Latin America. In the early 20th century, President Roosevelt added the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, asserting that the United States had the right to exercise “international police power” to address what he deemed as “chronic wrongdoing” in Latin America. This statement set the stage for repeated U.S. military intervention in the following years: in the Dominican Republic in 1903 and 1904, Nicaragua in 1911, and Haiti in 1915. The interventionist mindset was solidified later during the Cold War with threats such as the Cuban Missile Crisis providing a clear national security justification.
The Monroe Doctrine played an important role in the development of the United States, and there were times when its usage was fully justified and effective at protecting American life. However, former President Barack Obama’s administration declared in 2013 that the era of the Monroe Doctrine was over. Then-Secretary of State John Kerry argued that continued implementation of the outdated policy would only harm prospects and international alliances. His announcement marked a possible turning point in Western Hemisphere relations and was a chance to start rebuilding relationships with countries in Latin America based on mutual respect and responsibility. This, though, did not come to pass.
During Trump’s first time in office, he reversed many of Obama’s policies and declared that he prioritized America’s interests over those of other nations, regardless of whether they were allies or enemies. With that reasoning, he recently pulled the U.S. out of many international organizations and alliances, such as the World Health Organization, the Paris Climate Agreement, UNESCO, and the UN Human Rights Council, and levied tariffs, claiming that standing military and commercial arrangements were not beneficial to the United States. He called his approach one that prioritized “America First,” a term U.S. nationalists have used repeatedly in the past. Trump positions his interventionist and expansionist views within the Monroe Doctrine, most notably referring back to it following the operation in Venezuela. In November, the Trump administration released its national security strategy, which emphasizes the importance of restoring “American preeminence” in the Western Hemisphere and protecting geographical assets by reasserting the Monroe Doctrine. After establishing his own corollary in early December, Trump added, “We’ve superseded [the Monroe Doctrine] by a lot, by a real lot. They now call it the ‘Donroe Doctrine.’”
Without a basis in policy principles, the “Donroe Doctrine” is less of a doctrine and more of a vision. Trump’s former security adviser John Bolton criticized how the doctrine has “no grand conceptual framework” and is rather “whatever suits [Trump] at the moment.” Others have agreed, arguing that the policy is based on Trump’s emotions, public image, and what he personally gains from his actions. He presents his plans as crucial strategic moves necessary to defend national security, but ultimately he only makes those claims to justify unprompted interference in other nations’ affairs.
Analysts have noted that the targeted countries, as well as being “security threats,” have access to an abundance of natural resources such as oil and minerals. In addition to Venezuela, Trump said a military operation targeting Colombia “sounds good,” and repeatedly discussed acquiring Greenland, only recently ruling out the use of force. His policy under the “Donroe Doctrine” allows him to make these suggestions unchecked and back them up with unfounded and exaggerated claims. Intelligence websites such as MarineTraffic show his assertion that Russian and Chinese ships currently occupy Greenland to be inaccurate, and reporters have speculated that obtaining Greenland is more likely a strategic expansionist move motivated by both America’s geopolitical interests and Trump’s desire for a more impressive legacy. When justifying the removal of Venezuelan President Maduro, Trump describes him as a drug trafficker who needed to be removed for the sake of America and the Venezuelan people. He later added that America would help run the country, raising concerns about potential U.S. influence over its oil reserves. Critics argue that his approach to international affairs is inconsiderate of long-term repercussions, jeopardizing both military and economic alliances for short-term gains and public attention. Applying pressure to other countries is not necessarily bad, but because Trump has not set clear boundaries in his policy, other nations and allies are unable to trust his intentions or plans for the future. His current actions set crucial precedents for how he will run the country during his next few years in office, and many are concerned about how far he will go in pursuit of American interests.
