The Monroe and Donroe doctrine

The Monroe Doctrine was articulated in President James Monroe’s seventh annual message to Congress on December 2, 1823. The European powers, according to Monroe, were obligated to respect the Western Hemisphere as the United States’ sphere of interest.

President James Monroe’s 1823 annual message to Congress contained the Monroe Doctrine, which warned European powers not to interfere in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere.

Understandably, the United States has always taken a particular interest in its closest neighbors – the nations of the Western Hemisphere. Equally understandably, expressions of this concern have not always been favorably regarded by other American nations.

The Monroe Doctrine is the best known U.S. policy toward the Western Hemisphere. Buried in a routine annual message delivered to Congress by President James Monroe in December 1823, the doctrine warns European nations that the United States would not tolerate further colonization or puppet monarchs. The doctrine was conceived to meet major concerns of the moment, but it soon became a watchword of U.S. policy in the Western Hemisphere.

The Monroe Doctrine was invoked in 1865 when the U.S. government exerted diplomatic and military pressure in support of the Mexican President Benito Juárez. This support enabled Juárez to lead a successful revolt against the Emperor Maximilian, who had been placed on the throne by the French government.

Almost 40 years later, in 1904, European creditors of a number of Latin American countries threatened armed intervention to collect debts. President Theodore Roosevelt promptly proclaimed the right of the United States to exercise an “international police power” to curb such “chronic wrongdoing,” in his so-called Roosevelt Corollary (or extension) to the Monroe Doctrine. 

While the Monroe Doctrine’s message was designed to keep European powers out of the Western Hemisphere, Roosevelt would strengthen its meaning to justify sending the United States into other countries of the Western Hemisphere. As a result, U.S. Marines were sent into Santo Domingo in 1904, Nicaragua in 1911, and Haiti in 1915, ostensibly to keep the Europeans out. Other Latin American nations viewed these interventions with misgiving, and relations between the “great Colossus of the North” and its southern neighbors remained strained for many years.

In 1962, the Monroe Doctrine was invoked symbolically when the Soviet Union began to build missile-launching sites in Cuba. With the support of the Organization of American States, President John F. Kennedy threw a naval and air quarantine around the island. After several tense days, the Soviet Union agreed to withdraw the missiles and dismantle the sites. Subsequently, the United States dismantled several of its obsolete air and missile bases in Turkey.

National Archives. “Monroe Doctrine (1823).” National Archives, The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, 10 May 2022, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/monroe-doctrine. Accessed 1 March 2026.

The “Donroe Doctrine” (Venezuela & Latin America)

The capture of Nicolás Maduro in January 2026 is seen as the most aggressive application of the Monroe Doctrine in a century.

• The “Pro” View: Proponents argue this was a masterstroke of “kinetic diplomacy”—a swift, low-casualty operation that removed a dictator, disrupted Russian/Chinese influence in the West, and potentially stabilized a major oil producer.
• The “Con” View: Critics, including the EU and several Latin American nations (Mexico, Brazil), view it as a “predatory” violation of international law. They argue that using domestic drug indictments to justify invading a sovereign state sets a dangerous precedent that rivals like Russia or China could use to justify their own territorial ambitions.

2. Operation Epic Fury (Iran)

The current strikes against Iran (launched late February 2026) are far more controversial than the Venezuela raid.

• Strategic Risk: Analysts are divided on whether this will actually lead to a “regime change” or simply a “forever war” with a country three times the size of Iraq. The primary concern is “strategic vertigo”—if the Iranian state collapses, the resulting power vacuum could destabilize the entire Middle East, potentially leading to a massive refugee crisis that Europe is already bracing for.
• Economic Impact: The risk of a prolonged conflict is already putting upward pressure on global energy prices, which could counteract the administration’s domestic economic goals.

3. Greenland and the “51st State” Rhetoric (Iceland/Canada)

The “demands” for Greenland and the rhetoric regarding Canada highlight a shift toward treating allies as “subsidiaries.”

• Iceland/Greenland: Most experts view the Greenland “demand” as a negotiation tactic to secure Arctic dominance. By threatening Denmark with tariffs, Trump forced a “concept of a deal” that grants the U.S. massive security concessions in the Arctic without a literal land purchase.
• Canada: The “51st State” comments are generally interpreted as “economic bullying.” By framing Canada as a security liability, the administration has successfully extracted major concessions on border enforcement and trade, though at the cost of turning Canadian public opinion sharply against the U.S.

4. The MAGA Doctrine: “Transactionalism”

Overall, the MAGA campaign’s international policy is no longer “isolationist”—it is unilateralist.

• The Shift: The U.S. is withdrawing from multilateral “rules” (like the WHO or the 66 organizations exited in January) to deal with countries one-on-one, where U.S. leverage is highest.
• The Verdict: Whether this is “genius” or “reckless” depends on the outcome. If these moves lead to a stabilized Venezuela and a neutralized Iran without a global recession, it will be hailed as a new era of American dominance. If they lead to prolonged insurgencies and a broken global trade system, it could mark the end of the U.S.-led world order.