A new doctrine. Without a very sophisticated philosophical and intellectual apparatus, without a large team (beyond Marco Rubio) behind, with decades of experience in foreign policy and a unified vision, as happened with the recently deceased Dick Cheney and the neocons who defined the course of United States during the Presidency of George W. Bush. But with a program that advances at record speed and paves the way as it goes.
On December 2, 1823, in a speech that would become one of the most important for international relations in the 19th century, President James Monroe articulated before the U.S. Congress the fundamental axes of a new doctrine in foreign policy, revolutionary in every sense. Monroe, reviewing the world situation and explaining how Washington had already sent ambassadors to the main neighbors of Latin America, emphasized that "in the wars of the European powers, in matters concerning them, we have never participated, nor is it our policy to do so," and that "only when our rights are violated or seriously threatened do we become indignant or prepare for our defense." But he warned: "With the events in this hemisphere, we are, by necessity, more directly linked, for reasons that are evident to every enlightened and impartial observer."
It was not just a complaint. The United States, in its first significant warning to the world, just a few decades after gaining independence, announced that "in the interest of frankness and the friendly relations that exist between the United States and said powers, we must declare that we consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as a threat to our peace and security (...) we could not view any intervention by any European power with the purpose of oppressing them or controlling their destiny in any other way, but as a hostile manifestation towards the United States."
The Monroe Doctrine, summarized as "America for the Americans", has marked relations since then, especially from 1898 onwards. In 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt's "corollary" stated that the United States had the right to "supervise" the hemisphere in response to "flagrant cases of [...] misconduct or impotence" and due to the "responsibility to preserve order and protect lives and property." That is why everything south of the border with Mexico was during the 20th century "the backyard." The White House did not hesitate to use force, directly and indirectly, to support or overthrow governments, if not openly intervene, with overthrows, invasions, or sanctions. The era of the United Fruit Company, conspiracies, and perhaps coups, of "our sons of bitches," as they spoke in the White House about Noriega, seems to be back.
Some call it Monroe 2.0. Others, in Washington, speak of Donroe, a mix between Donald and Monroe. The three main concepts of the former -spheres of influence, non-colonization, and non-intervention- were designed to define "a clear break between the New World and the autocratic realm of Europe." Those of the Donroe are still to be written, but they start from a feeling and a vision: that the main threats to the United States are not found in distant regions or come from foreign powers, but are at home, in the form of drugs, immigration, and a "lunatic left". And their "moral duty," paraphrasing what inspired Monroe and Roosevelt, is to combat them by all means.
In this case, closing borders, mobilizing troops, or tariffs on everyone "for the privilege of trading with the United States." Also, diplomatic support for small but necessary pawns (Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago); pressure on the lukewarm, like Panama, to abruptly withdraw from China's Belt and Road Initiative. Economic agreements with allies and brute force against enemies, in the name of something more than national security. Killing dozens and dozens of people in drone attacks, allegedly in international waters, rewriting on the fly the legal order and rules of engagement.
"The United States has paid more attention to the Western Hemisphere in nine months than many previous administrations of both parties since the Cold War; however, in the region, some now regret having obtained what they wished for. This shift in focus arises from the concern that the United States has prioritized projecting power and controlling critical global points for too long over attending to its 'shared neighborhood,' allowing China to expand its influence in Latin America and the Caribbean and facilitating that criminal organizations and unprecedented migratory flows directly threaten U.S. security. The Trump Administration appears to be adopting a 'Monroe Doctrine 2.0' approach to the Western Hemisphere. These efforts may yield some short-term results, but are likely to create a greater distance between Washington and the region over time, to the benefit of U.S. rivals," warn Christopher Hernandez-Roy and Juliana Rubio, from the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
Although he has not brought his portrait to the Oval Office, as he did with Andrew Jackson, Trump venerates the Monroe Doctrine and believes that the Western Hemisphere is the traditional sphere of influence of the United States. In September 2018, before the UN General Assembly, he stated: "Since the presidency of Monroe, the official policy of our country has been to reject foreign interference in this hemisphere and in our own affairs." And from the first day of his second term, one of the main axes has been to consolidate control in all aspects: philosophical, ideological, diplomatic, economic, and migratory. Nullifying the famous words of John Kerry, Secretary of State under Barack Obama, in 2013, when he proclaimed that "the era of the Monroe Doctrine is history."
"This is the 'Trump Corollary' in action. What began as a promise to end American commitments abroad has turned into the most assertive projection of American power since the Cold War. America First now means 'America Everywhere': a doctrine that disguises expansion with the rhetoric of withdrawal. Before completing his first year in office, Trump has redesigned the map of American authority, replacing the appearance of collaboration with a resolute assertion of command. The method is simple: threaten allies, attack adversaries, and act before anyone can object. No coalition-building. No multilateral consensus. No apologies. American will is enough. The rest is compliance," notes Sebastian Contin Trillo-Figueroa, an expert in geopolitical analysis at the University of Hong Kong.
Donald Trump's White House is rewriting the rules of the continent in a way unseen since the 1950s, after the United States overthrew at least 41 governments in Latin America between 1898 and 1994, according to calculations by historian John Coatsworth of Columbia University. Now, it resurrects the ghost with direct interference and intervention: using drones to bomb boats; authorizing the CIA to conduct covert operations against the regime of Nicolás Maduro; and empowering the State or Justice Departments to punish Brazilian judges for judging his friend Jair Bolsonaro or for pressuring major U.S. tech companies. "We take the security of our hemisphere very seriously," recently responded Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth when asked why there were already 10,000 U.S. troops in the Caribbean.
In his inaugural speech on January 20, Trump cited President McKinley, who led the war against Spain in 1898, for "enriching our country enormously through tariffs and his talent." And he used the example of the Panama Canal as a symbol of what he considered an international framework that has been negative for Americans. "We have been greatly harmed by this foolish gift that should never have been made, and Panama has not kept its promise. Above all, my message to Americans today is that the time has come for us to act once again with the courage, vigor, and vitality of the greatest civilization in history (...) America will be considered a nation on the rise again: one that increases its wealth, expands its territory, builds its cities, raises its expectations, and carries its flag to new and beautiful horizons."
Trump, who came to power leading the MAGA movement criticizing distant wars and wasteful spending abroad, went even further: "We will pursue our Manifest Destiny to the stars (...) Ambition is the essence of a great nation, and right now, our nation is more ambitious than any other." And this has been evident in the Middle East, putting on the table the option of staying in Gaza first, or more recently, toying with the idea of sending troops to Nigeria to save Christians.
While aid to Israel or bombing Iran has generated rejection among the ranks of the MAGA universe, the deployment in the American continent is receiving applause. "I am thrilled that we are finally using military force in our own hemisphere against those who would harm U.S. territory," activist and Trump's friend Charlie Kirk said on his podcast in early September, days before being killed. "This is much more sellable to the America First supporting base than proposals for the Middle East (...) The concept of Monroe 2.0 did not exist, and now people say, 'Yes, definitely, I agree. I love it,'" agrees the alt-right guru, Steve Bannon. "If I were Maduro, I would go to Russia or China right now. His days are numbered. Something is going to happen, internally or externally (...) America will take care of the southern hemisphere. We will ensure there is freedom and democracy," Republican Senator Rick Scott said this week on the program 60 Minutes.
"Coercing the autocratic regime of Maduro is just one part of a broader campaign to reaffirm U.S. hemispheric hegemony, a campaign that has historical roots and solid strategic logic. However, it is also fraught with unanswered questions and significant risks," warns Hal Brands of the American Enterprise Institute. "Trump should be cautious about what he asks for. Perhaps the United States can achieve Maduro's removal and a peaceful transition to democracy. Or perhaps chaos will ensue, even a civil war, destabilizing a crucial region (...) Coercive tactics may grab headlines, but strengthening cooperation is vital for the America First policy to become a reality and for the Western Hemisphere to solidify as a bastion in an increasingly fragmented world."
These days, Washington is unsure whether Trump will attack Venezuela or not. The incentives are clear, with the opposition led by María Corina Machado seemingly in agreement. And history shows that in the White House, the fog of war is a tradition. "Of course, Trump would not be the first president to cover a retreat from a major problem by attacking a minor one. Ronald Reagan attacked the small island of Grenada after U.S. Marines died in Beirut in 1983. When analyzing the global threat landscape, it seems to me that Trump has his priorities backwards," said David Ignatius, one of the most followed columnists in the capital, these days.