Does Donald Trump Evoke the Monroe Doctrine?

By Robert P. Matthews

Donald Trump’s recent exercise of political pressure and military force in the zone of the Caribbean has not been seen since the early decades of the 20^th century. Claiming the Western Hemisphere to be America's highest priority, his administration's 2025 National Security Strategy explicitly revives the Monroe Doctrine and labels this “newfound” attention and reaffirmation of regional dominance   a "Trump Corollary” to the doctrine.  

Justifying the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, Trump also cited the Monroe Doctrine and quipped about it being updated to the "Donroe Doctrine". His polices have thus triggered many media references to President James Monroe’s December1823 Message to Congress warning foreign (read European powers) against hemispheric encroachment, and President Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt’s 1904 bellicose corollary to the Monroe Doctrine asserting the US right to use its military force to enforce that principle.  

To the extent Trump's policies reprise any history, they correlate less to the hoary pronouncement of the early nineteenth century than to Roosevelt’s truculent Corollary at the beginning of the twentieth; they also echo US neo-imperialism in the Caribbean area in the several decades that followed. However, neither allusion is entirely relevant owing to both the singular nature of Trump’s personality, behavior and actions abroad and to the changed context today from over a century ago. 

Washington’s unilateral proclamation in 1823 put Europe on notice that the US would view any European attempt to recolonize or intervene militarily in the hemisphere as a hostile act. But during the rest of the century the words of Monroe were largely unenforceable and ignored in major European capitals. In fact, the Monroe Doctrine was repeatedly violated during the nineteenth century by Spain, Britain and France. The doctrine thus appears as too passive and historically impotent a measure to reference Trump’s exploits now.

By end of the nineteenth century US expansion, driven by its  growing economic and military might and a fiery faith in American “Manifest Destiny”, fueled the US war with Spain in 1898. The war and its territorial spoils heralded the arrival of the United States as a major power; the nation’s acquisition of Puerto Rico and the creation of a protectorate over Cuba, among other regional developments, increasingly focused Washington’s gaze on the security of the Caribbean. The new circumstances also argued for a rebirth and updating of the Monroe Doctrine and its validation as dogma. 

Soon political turmoil and corruption among governments in what Washington now deemed its first tier of national security perimeter (a “soft white underbelly”), invited European naval intervention to protect their nationals’ financial and property interests. As the alarm sounded for Washington, the stage was set to renovate the 80 year-old dogma with an aggressive offensive strategy. 

In December of 1904, Roosevelt issued a “corollary” reconstituting Monroe’s diplomatic warning into an imprimatur for US intervention; the US would be justified in deploying as an “international police power” in the hemisphere in defense of the Monroe Doctrine. The era of “Gunboat Diplomacy”, “walking softly but carrying a Big Stick.” had begun, followed by several decades of US military, political and economic interventions in the Caribbean Basin.

Until Washington’s Caribbean imperialism was interrupted by Franklin Roosevelt’s Good Neighbor Policy in the mid-1930s, U.S. forces occupied and controlled the government, politics and finances of a half a dozen  countries in Central America and the Caribbean, four of them-- Cuba, the Dominican Republic Nicaragua, and Honduras-- for  a combined total of over 50 years. 

Trump has picked up where the era of US Caribbean imperialism left off. He has declared war on  Latin American drug cartels, blowing up dozens of boats suspected of drug trafficking and killing the occupants; bullied Colombia and Mexico; threatened to acquire Greenland by force as well as  seemingly preparing to take over Cuba; and, remarkably,  undertook a military operation in January to capture Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and put him on trial in the United States. 

Trump merits some comparison to Roosevelt and his Caribbean policy. Both Trump and Roosevelt swagger across the zone (and in Trump’s case, the world) trumpeting the power and independence of action of the US--- against the decadence of almost every other country. Their bombast and belief in the efficacy of bold, muscular decisions appear to mirror each other.

Roosevelt’s wariness regarding the inherent passivity of the Monroe Doctrine, opting for decisive military action, seems to prefigure Trump’s rejection of diplomacy in favor of intimidation and brute force.  Both presidents radiate an explicit racism—a contempt for non-white peoples, their countries and especially those leaders who irritate them. But here the similarities end. 

Trump’s preposterous narcissism, his unrelenting focus on dominating other people or nations to benefit himself, his insistence on unconditional surrender or deals that he can mendaciously market as his triumphal brand contrast with the sober, statesmanlike nationalism of Roosevelt. Trump’s international leadership time and again features trumpeting his diplomatic success, losing interest, moving to the next spectacle and neither explaining nor resolving the details. 

Historical comparisons aside, the fact is that Trump's foreign policy, like his presidency and his personality, is sui generis.  In international affairs there is usually less than meets the eye, and his hemispheric policy and diplomacy to date is  more a posture than a strategy. The vaunted operations in the Caribbean are more a bloody display of force than any impediment to drug trafficking, protection of national security or economic gain-- and are certainly not conducted to advance democracy. 

Finally, the Caribbean today is a much-changed territory from the eras of Monroe and Roosevelt. While the US is the primary economic partner in Latin America, its economic stake is under pressure from Chinese infrastructure and intelligence investments. Unlike in the twentieth century, China is also notably increasing its financial and economic footprint in South America, overtaking the US as the primary trading partner and major investor in the important countries of Brazil, Peru, Chile Argentina. And the trend lines in this century indicate that the US will continue to lose share in Latin America in its strategic competition with China. Today, China is much more of a threat to US hegemony in Latin America than European intervention, ever was in an earlier era. 

Thus, even if Trump handled foreign policy with the skill and intelligence of Teddy Roosevelt, the worldview of the current US president still harks back to an era that is gone-- and gone for a reason. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt recognized that in the long run the US needed these countries on our side as World War II loomed, and by the time that war was over it was clear that creating a multilateral world of consensus, strong allies and durable coalitions is the best way to ensure peace and stability. Trump, speaking loudly and carrying a superpower’s big stick is an anachronism and the US will be the worst for it.

About the Author

Robert P. Matthews, retired professor Latin American Studies, New York University.

Join our Newsletter

This article is included in the 25th edition of our newsletter. To receive the next issue in your email, click here.