Imagine you’re back in 1823. The War of 1812 remains a vivid memory. Europe’s great powers are seeking to regain influence across the globe. In that year, President James Monroe addressed Congress and articulated a simple principle: no European monarch should attempt to recolonize or dominate the nations of the Americas. Europe stay out, and the United States will stay out of your squabbles in Europe.
That was the seed of what became known as the Monroe Doctrine. It was a firm warning that the Western Hemisphere was not open territory for European empires.
Vital resource for this article:
America 250: Presidential Message on the Anniversary of the Monroe Doctrine The White House
Read more from political Historian and her concerns: Lindsay M. Chervinsky at imperfectunion.substack.com
Fast forward two hundred years and the doctrine is now being dusted off and repurposed with all the fervor of an old general called back into service. But this time, it isn’t just about keeping distant European powers at bay. It is about reasserting U.S. dominance in the entire hemisphere, and right now it is tied to some of the most dramatic foreign policy moves in recent American history.
What the Monroe Doctrine Really Was
In its original form, the Monroe Doctrine was a defensive posture. President Monroe’s message was straightforward: European powers should not meddle in the affairs of newly independent nations in the Americas, nor seek to recolonize them. That stance was as much about protecting those young republics as it was about marking U.S. influence in the hemisphere.
Over time, this policy evolved. In the early 1900s, President Theodore Roosevelt added what came to be called the Roosevelt Corollary: if European meddling was “dangerous,” then the United States might have to step in as an “international police power” to prevent problems before they arose. As a result, a regional doctrine that began as a warning became a justification for intervention.
That shift laid a blueprint for much of America’s growing engagement in Latin America throughout the 20th century. Some of that engagement was controversial, as Chervinsky notes, who argues that it was almost outright destructive, as nations learned that “protection” or “stability” sometimes meant American troops or political engineering, according to critics of the actions taken under the doctrine.
Why It Matters
Monroe’s simple warning mattered because it helped define an entire hemisphere’s geopolitical boundaries for generations. It said that the Americas were a sphere in which external powers should not interfere. It helped push European empires out of Latin America and aligned much of the region, for better or for worse, under a U.S. security umbrella.
But it also, as critics pointed out, established an uneasy relationship with neighboring countries by implying that, after Europe, the U.S. would be the dominant influence in its own region. Throughout the 20th century, that kind of influence ranged from constructive partnerships to heavy-handed interventions. Today, we are again witnessing that doctrine put to use, and it is being twisted in novel ways.
Trump’s Monroe Doctrine 2.0
Under President Donald Trump, the Monroe Doctrine has not just been referenced. It has been reasserted as a central thread in U.S. foreign policy. Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy explicitly calls for reviving and enforcing the doctrine to “restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere.”
That policy statement even coins a new term: the Trump Corollary, built on the idea that the United States must deny influence and access in the region to non-hemispheric competitors and secure its own strategic interests.
In practical terms, this doctrine behind Trump’s foreign policy has translated into extraordinary action. On January 3rd, 2026, U.S. forces carried out a dramatic military operation in Venezuela, capturing President Nicolás Maduro and his wife and flying them to the United States to face federal charges. The administration then announced plans for continued American governance and control of Venezuelan resources, particularly its oil fields. Those moves represent one of the most aggressive U.S. military interventions in Latin America in decades.
Trump also signaled that Cuba might be next in line for heightened U.S. focus, suggesting a potential broadening of this hemisphere-first strategy, as reported by Reuters.
Why Trump Is Reasserting It Now
There are a few reasons behind this 21st-century resurrection of a 19th-century doctrine. First, attention has shifted dramatically toward controlling influence in the Americas rather than in distant theaters. The Trump administration views threats not just from Europe but from nations like China and Russia, and now Islamic Republic allies trying to extend their reach into the Western Hemisphere. This policy frames such influence as incompatible with U.S. interests and hemispheric security, Dan Levin reported for San.
Second, Trump, according to the White House statement on the Monroe Doctrine, has tied the doctrine to classic America First priorities, combating drugs, illegal immigration, and criminal networks that the administration claims are destabilized by weak governments in neighboring countries. In this view, making Latin America a priority is not merely a matter of defense but of homeland protection. Leadership a counter to narratives of decline or retreat. It transforms a historical doctrine from a defensive boundary marker into a proactive mandate for U.S. control and influence.
The Controversy
Consider what Marxists will say:
American First proponents will need to be vigilant. Critics argue that this renaissance of the Monroe Doctrine by Trump amounts to neo-imperialism and dangerously escalates tensions in a region that has long struggled for autonomous development. Some see it as a recipe for more conflict rather than cooperation. Others counter that standing firm protects U.S. interests and stabilizes volatile neighbors.
What cannot be denied is that the Monroe Doctrine, born of a young republic wary of European empires, has morphed into a 21st-century tool of power projection and that in Trump’s hands, it is no longer a polite warning but a roadmap for action.
Whether that’s wise or reckless depends on where you sit.
As an investigative Journalist and border war expert, Ben Bergquam reminds us that how you see President Trump’s actions is all about your point of view:
See our coverage of President Trump’s Jan 3 actions: