What is the Monroe Doctrine? The 200-year-old US policy Trump cited to justify Maduro’s capture

When US President Donald Trump invoked the Monroe Doctrine to defend the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, he resurrected one of the oldest — and most controversial — ideas in American foreign policy. First articulated in 1823, the doctrine has repeatedly been reinterpreted to justify US dominance in the Western Hemisphere, shaping interventions from Mexico to Cuba, and now, Venezuela.

What is the Monroe Doctrine?

The Monroe Doctrine was articulated in 1823 by “James Monroe” during his annual address to the US Congress. At its core, it warned European powers against further colonisation or political interference in the Western Hemisphere.

In return, the United States pledged that it would not involve itself in European wars or internal affairs. At the time, many Latin American nations had just gained independence from Spain and Portugal, and the doctrine aimed to deter Europe from reclaiming influence — while simultaneously asserting the US as the dominant power in the Americas.

Though initially more aspirational than enforceable, the Monroe Doctrine became a cornerstone of US foreign policy as American power grew.

How the doctrine evolved from warning to weapon

For much of the 19th century, European powers largely ignored the doctrine. Its first real test came in the 1860s, when France installed Emperor Maximilian in Mexico. After the US Civil War ended, Washington pressured Paris to withdraw — an early assertion of Monroe’s principles.

The doctrine’s meaning expanded dramatically in 1904 under President “Theodore Roosevelt”, who introduced the Roosevelt Corollary. This asserted that the US had the right to intervene in Latin American countries deemed unstable or unable to manage their affairs — effectively transforming the doctrine from a shield against Europe into a justification for US intervention.

This logic was used to support Panama’s secession from Colombia, secure the Panama Canal Zone, and justify repeated US military actions across the Caribbean and Central America.

The Cold War and anti-communist reinterpretations

During the Cold War, the Monroe Doctrine was reframed as a tool to block communist influence in the Americas. It underpinned Washington’s demand that Soviet missiles be withdrawn from Cuba during the 1962 crisis and justified US actions against leftist governments, including the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.

In this period, the doctrine became less about European interference and more about preserving US ideological and strategic dominance — often at the cost of regional sovereignty and democratic processes.

Why Venezuela has long been central to Monroe Doctrine debates

Historians note that Venezuela has frequently featured in Monroe Doctrine-related confrontations. Its internal instability, strategic resources, and ties with US rivals have repeatedly drawn American attention.

Under “Nicolas Maduro”, Venezuela deepened relations with adversaries of Washington, including China and Russia. Trump cited this alignment — along with alleged drug trafficking and security threats — as evidence that Caracas had violated what he called “core principles of American foreign policy” dating back more than two centuries.

Trump’s ‘corollary’ and the revival of hemispheric dominance

By referencing the Monroe Doctrine while defending Maduro’s arrest, “Donald Trump” followed a familiar historical pattern. US presidents have often cloaked new strategic agendas in old doctrines to lend them legitimacy.

Trump went a step further, jokingly dubbing his interpretation the “Don-roe Doctrine.” His administration’s national security strategy explicitly refers to a “Trump Corollary” aimed at restoring American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere, including expanded military operations in the Caribbean and Pacific to combat narcotics, migration and rival powers’ influence.

The strategy openly frames US dominance in the region as non-negotiable — a sharper, more unilateral articulation than many previous administrations.

Why the doctrine remains deeply controversial

Critics argue that repeated invocations of the Monroe Doctrine have undermined democracy and sovereignty in Latin America while serving US commercial and strategic interests. Scholars point out that interventions justified under its banner have often produced instability, resentment and long-term political damage.

Trump’s reference has revived these debates, especially as his administration suggests Washington could “run” Venezuela during a political transition — a claim that appears to contradict both international law and America’s stated opposition to “forever wars.”

Two centuries on, the Monroe Doctrine remains less a fixed policy than a flexible instrument — repeatedly reshaped to fit the priorities of whoever occupies the White House, and now once again at the centre of global scrutiny.