Why the Monroe Doctrine Refuses to Die — And What Trump’s Venezuela Move Reveals

When U.S. President “Donald Trump” invoked the Monroe Doctrine after ordering military action against Venezuela and capturing its President “Nicolás Maduro”, many historians were left bewildered. Among them was Jay Sexton, Professor of History at the University of Missouri, who had once described the doctrine as a “dead letter”. Two centuries after its birth, a doctrine meant to keep European empires out of the Americas has resurfaced — not as a shield against colonialism, but as a justification for unilateral U.S. power.

What exactly is the Monroe Doctrine?

The Monroe Doctrine traces its origins to December 2, 1823, when President “James Monroe” addressed the U.S. Congress amid fears that European powers might attempt to reassert control over newly independent Latin American states.

At its core, the doctrine rested on two principles. First, European powers should not pursue further colonisation in the Western Hemisphere. Second, they should not interfere in the political affairs of the Americas. In return, the United States pledged not to intervene in European conflicts. The Western Hemisphere, Monroe declared, was no longer open to Old World imperial ambitions.

The geopolitical anxieties that shaped the doctrine

The doctrine emerged from a world dominated by European empires. Spain, Britain, France, and Portugal controlled vast overseas territories, and although Britain had lost its American colonies after the 1783 Treaty of Paris, its global power was expanding. As Sexton notes, by the early 19th century Britain had tightened its grip over India, expanded in Canada and Australasia, and strengthened its naval and commercial reach across Asia and Latin America.

For the young United States, oceans were seen as natural boundaries separating republican “New World” societies from monarchical “Old World” powers. The Monroe Doctrine gave formal expression to this worldview, asserting a moral and strategic divide between hemispheres.

From anti-colonial warning to imperial instrument

Although often remembered as an anti-colonial statement, the Monroe Doctrine was deliberately vague. It did not mandate action, nor did it explicitly commit the U.S. to defending Latin American states. This ambiguity proved decisive. As American power grew — particularly after the Spanish-American War of 1898 — the doctrine’s meaning fractured.

Historians identify two broad interpretations. One viewed the doctrine as legitimising U.S. hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. The other emphasised inter-American cooperation and shared republican values. In practice, the former steadily gained ground.

The turning point came in 1904, when President “Theodore Roosevelt” added what became known as the Roosevelt Corollary. This reinterpreted the doctrine to justify U.S. intervention in Latin American countries deemed unstable or irresponsible — ostensibly to prevent European involvement, but effectively turning Washington into the region’s policeman.

Venezuela and the myth-making of American power

Ironically, Venezuela played a role in cementing the doctrine’s mythic status even before the 20th century. During the 1895–96 boundary dispute between Venezuela and British Guiana, President Grover Cleveland invoked the Monroe Doctrine to pressure Britain into arbitration. The episode convinced U.S. leaders that the doctrine had elevated America to a “practically sovereign” position in the hemisphere.

Over time, this mythology hardened. By the early 20th century, the doctrine was treated as a sacred text of U.S. foreign policy — proof that American restraint and resolve had preserved national security and hemispheric order.

Why Trump’s invocation marks a dangerous shift

What makes Trump’s use of the doctrine unusual is the absence of any external, non-American threat. As historians like Alex Bryne argue, Venezuela posed no European or extra-hemispheric challenge. Instead, the doctrine was invoked to override Venezuelan sovereignty purely on U.S. national interest grounds.

This move resembles not Monroe’s original warning, but Roosevelt’s corollary — stripped even of its original pretext. Bryne describes this as a “Trump Corollary”, where U.S. intervention no longer requires an external justification. The doctrine, long associated with imperial practice, is now invoked without disguise.

A doctrine that means everything — and nothing

The Monroe Doctrine’s greatest flaw is its elasticity. Over two centuries, it has been used to justify isolationism, hemispheric solidarity, regime change, and outright intervention. Anti-colonialism and imperial ambition have coexisted uneasily within it.

This ambiguity once gave it political utility. Today, it undermines U.S. credibility. As Sexton asks pointedly, how can Washington oppose Russian actions in Ukraine or Chinese actions in Hong Kong while asserting its own sphere of influence in Latin America?

Global echoes and forgotten ironies

The doctrine’s appeal once extended far beyond the Americas. Indian nationalist “Bal Gangadhar Tilak” famously called for a “Monroe Doctrine for India”, arguing that colonial powers should withdraw and allow self-rule. The appeal reflected the hopes of colonised peoples — even if it overlooked the doctrine’s imperial uses in Latin America.

Why its revival signals a return to spheres of influence

For Sexton, the doctrine’s revival signals a reversion to an older global order based on spheres of influence rather than rules. Such thinking, he warns, risks regional instability, intensified great-power rivalry, and domestic political backlash within the U.S. itself.

As “Henry Kissinger” once observed, few presidential statements have shaped world history as profoundly as Monroe’s words in 1823. Two centuries on, the Monroe Doctrine endures not because it is coherent, but because its vagueness allows it to be endlessly repurposed — often in ways its authors may never have intended.