WASHINGTON — President Trump formally brought back the war on Thursday in a document with a sweeping characterisation of China as an existential threat, while describing Russia as another serious challenge to American “interests and values.”
RESHINGTON — President Donald Trump has declared that he is reviving the Monroe Doctrine this week, sapping any remaining goodwill among Venezuelan leaders toward his administration. The 33-page plan, to be released Thursday by the White House, reveals a “Trump Corollary” that deploys troops, diplomatic power and trade tools toward the Western Hemisphere while urging European allies to spend far more on their own defence, Dec. 7, 2025
A 21st-century Monroe Doctrine, Trump style
The document puts the Western Hemisphere at the top of America’s strategic front yard, and promises to “reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine” by refusing to allow “non-Hemispheric actors access… or control over its citizens, businesses, or government,” including ports, telecom networks and other vital facilities. It ties that doctrine directly to the new push for military operations against suspected drug traffickers in the Caribbean and Pacific regions, where U.S. forces have conducted major naval deployments, including more than 20 kill missions with little boats since early last month, Reuters reports.
Supporters inside the administration say the new Monroe Doctrine simply reflects geographic common sense: that mass migration, narcotics flows, and Chinese and Russian influence should be treated as intricately connected threats, and friendly governments in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean pressured to help police regional chokepoints. Critics say the notion that crackdowns on cartels should be considered an “armed conflict” and linked to a continent-wide doctrine threatens to blur the line between law enforcement and warfare — as well as stir up memories of U.S. interventions long past.
Europe warned of “civilizational erasure”
Europe is the big loser in the document’s global ranking. The strategy warns that sections of the continent face a “stark prospect of civilizational erasure,” blames migration for declining birthrates and “the loss of national identities,” and vows that Washington will “cultivate resistance” in European societies. “We need to stop the dangerous and short sighted decision of NATO expansion,” a Breaking Defense report adds including that the language is part of the same text that also speaks to “strategic stability” talks with Moscow, making it possible for someone to read into these new statements an even stronger signal that America’s attention and resources are increasingly shifting away from the Euro-Atlantic theater.
As one detailed Time magazine account noted, former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt and former French ambassador Gérard Araud suggested the language mirrors that employed by (and partially influenced) European far-right “Great Replacement” rhetoric and risks placing Washington “to the right of the extreme right in Europe.” A briefing from the Council on Foreign Relations says that the new National Security Strategy — which it calls polemic rather than policy — presents statements of “crippling banality” on a level with Norman Podhoretz’s writings, which is saying something. They point out that, in emphasising “Western identity,” the document signals an about-face: for decades, staleness had been built around common democratic values.ck
Long shadow of the first Monroe Doctrine
Initially announced in 1823, the Monroe Doctrine cautioned the European powers to stay out of the Western Hemisphere and eventually rationalised American hegemony in Latin America through interventions, clandestine operations, and economic heft. Historians observe that the doctrine transformed from a defensive warning into a declaration of regional suzerainty and an enduring model for American “spheres of influence” thought throughout the Cold War and beyond.
The concept has gone in and out of style. Former Secretary of State John Kerry said in 2013 that “the era of the Monroe Doctrine is over,” a line deconstructed at the time by an analysis in The Diplomat that argued the statement was an effort to assuage Latin America after years of deeply sour feelings toward U.S. domination. Five years after that, a Foreign Policy report detailed that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson hailed the Monroe Doctrine as “clearly a success,” even as he scolded regional governments for letting Chinese economic influence turn them into countries with “imperial” designs — an early indication of today’s China paranoia in Washington.
What the pivot means for Europe and the Americas
Trump’s new Monroe Doctrine leaves some big questions unanswered. The plan suggests that Europe will be called on to bear much more of NATO’s burden in conventional defence, even as Washington continues to signal its willingness to engage in new “strategic stability” discussions with Moscow—a mix that leaves frontline states still anxious about viewing Russia as an existential threat. Meanwhile, while Latin American governments were unnerved by the deadly U.S. strikes on suspected cartel boats and the possibility of such land operations in countries like Venezuela, they now have a doctrine that explicitly considers their ports, pipelines and telecom networks as key U.S. security assets.
Supporters say that the Monroe Doctrine, updated for modern times, merely reflects geographic fact and compels not just European but also hemispheric allies to do more for their own defence. Opponents caution that Trump’s rhetoric about “civilizational erasure,” combined with a militarised strategy in the hemisphere, could transform a 200-year-old foreign policy doctrine into authorising cultural confrontation abroad and deeper political polarisation at home.
