For more than two hundred years, the Monroe Doctrine hovered over the Western Hemisphere, sometimes dormant, sometimes alive, but always symbolically powerful. Formulated in 1823 as a warning to European powers to stay out of the Americas, the Doctrine became a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, shaping military interventions and fuelling conflicts across Latin America and the Caribbean. The end of the Cold War abbreviated the larger-than-life overreach of the Doctrine.
While earlier U.S. administrations tiptoed around direct reference to the Monroe Doctrine, the Trump administration not only invoked it but operationalised it in ways not seen in decades. His policies toward Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Mexico, and even small Caribbean nations reflect a determination to reassert American imperialistic stranglehold on Latin America and the Caribbean at a time when China and Russia are deepening their investments and partnerships in the region.
The most dramatic expression of the revival of the Monroe Doctrine has been the Trump administration’s campaign to unseat President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela.
Beyond Venezuela, Trump rolled back the Obama-era detente with Cuba, reinstated travel restrictions, re-tightened U.S embargo on Cuba, and re-designated the country as a state sponsor of terrorism. In Nicaragua, Trump imposed sanctions on President Daniel Ortega’s government amid allegations of authoritarianism and human-rights abuses.
Trump’s approach to Mexico also had undercurrents of the Monroe Doctrine. His fixation on migration and border security, though framed primarily as domestic issues, carried broad regional implications. By threatening tariffs and leveraging economic pressure, the administration effectively compelled Mexico and Central American states to adopt enforcement measures that aligned with Washington’s priorities.
The Caribbean, often overlooked by most U.S. administrations in the past, also found itself pulled into Trump’s revival of Monroe-style geopolitics. As China expanded infrastructure financing through the Belt and Road Initiative, the U.S. State Department under Trump explicitly warned Caribbean governments against “debt-trap diplomacy,” and presented Washington as a better alternative. High-level meetings with leaders of Jamaica, Haiti, the Bahamas, the Dominican Republic, and St. Lucia highlighted Washington’s desire to counter Chinese influence in a region once considered firmly within Washington’s orbit.
Indeed, one of the clearest statements of the Doctrine’s resurrection came from then-National Security Adviser John Bolton who, in 2019, openly declared that: “The Monroe Doctrine is alive and well.” This was not a passing remark but a strategic declaration that Washington was embracing the Doctrine as a guiding framework for 21st-century politics.
Critics argue that Trump’s revival of the Monroe Doctrine is misguided, heavy-handed, and disconnected from the aspirations of Latin American and Caribbean nations. They point to the region’s long but better-forgotten history of U.S. interventions from the Dominican Republic in 1965 to Panama in 1989, and argue that unilateralism fuels domestic resentment and undermine democratic development.
Yet, there are others who maintain that the Doctrine’s revival was inevitable in an age of renewed great-power rivalry. With China now the leading trade partner for several Latin American economies, and Russia expanding its military and diplomatic footprint in the Western Hemisphere, Washington’s retreat was untenable. To this group, Trump merely gave voice, albeit in a confrontational style, to concerns that had been building for years within U.S. strategic circles.
Moreover, Trump’s resurrection of the Monroe Doctrine must be understood in the context of domestic American politics. As Trump continues to shape Republican politics, the Monroe Doctrine’s revival is unlikely to fade soon. Even the presidency of Joe Biden, though stylistically different, maintained elements of Trump’s imperialistic approach, especially in managing Chinese influence and addressing migration. This continuity underscores the deeper reality that the Western Hemisphere remains strategically vital to the United States regardless of the main tenant at the White House.
In truth, the Monroe Doctrine never died; it merely slumbered and Trump’s gung-ho foray into Latin America and the Caribbean just stirred it awake. Whether this revival ultimately stabilises the region or worsens its tensions is not clear; what is clear is that Trump has exhumed the Monroe Doctrine to set the stage for Cold War II.
Magaji <magaji778@gmail.com > writes from Abuja.
