The Monroe Doctrine in the Modern World

By Ben Pope — February 16, 2026

Introduction

On December 5, 2025, President Donald Trump released the annual National Security Strategy (NSS) announcing a shift in recent foreign policy and a reassertion of the Monroe Doctrine as the framework for United States interests and security in the Western Hemisphere. One month later, the President of Venezuela, Nicholas Maduro, was captured and extradited to the United States in an exercise that lasted just two hours. Proponents of this action cite the harsh conditions under which Maduro subjected the Venezuelan people for many years and broad support within the country for a change in leadership. Critics cite a violation of the Congressional War Powers authorization for such a military action and express fears of further incursions across the hemisphere. With an increase in naval activity in the Caribbean, and territorial threats from Panama to Greenland, how does the Monroe Doctrine fit into the modern world and can it supersede national sovereignty?

Origins

The Monroe Doctrine is not a set of laws or legal doctrine, but rather a broad declaration of military strategy. Prompted by 19th century Russian territorial gains in the northwest of the continent and decades of instability in Spain and Portugal, it states that European powers will no longer be allowed to meddle in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere. Though it would not stop ongoing disputes and territorial holdings, the U.S. would protect the recently established states in the hemisphere and prevent further colonization. However, when announced by President James Monroe in 1823, U.S. naval forces were not nearly capable of such a broad defense commitment and the strategy was largely overlooked for some time.

It was not until 1845 and then again in 1848, under the expansionist ideals of President James K. Polk, that the Monroe Doctrine began to be taken more seriously. Under his administration, he extended its application to that of Manifest Destiny, now not only protecting sovereign states but also defending potential territorial gains by the United States such as Oregon, California, and the Yucatan Peninsula. Now applying the Monroe Doctrine to offensive actions in the Americas would mark a stark shift in its use and continue to influence its reach in years to come.

The Roosevelt Corollary

In 1902, The United Kingdom, France, and Germany established a naval blockade off the coast of South America in order to intimidate Venezuela into repaying its debts. The United States, under President Theodore Roosevelt, responded swiftly by deploying a large naval fleet to the blockade in a show of U.S. military might. Roosevelt acknowledged the fiscal mismanagement by Venezuela and therefore set up a “receivership” system; sending advisors to Venezuela and other Latin American countries to effectively become their chief financial director. This was done with the goal of avoiding conflicts with European powers and assisting Latin American allies,

In doing so President Theodore Roosevelt announced his “Roosevelt Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine which stated that in extreme cases of mismanagement and decline, the United States had the power and responsibility to intervene in the internal affairs of Latin American countries. He continued that such wrongdoing must be consistent and extreme and intervention should be for the betterment of the people of that country, while finally adding that we must focus on our country above all else and only become involved with another when absolutely necessary.

The Trump Corollary

President Trump’s recent NSS announcement of his “Trump Corollary” adds a contemporary interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine continuing American military interventionism by further extending authorization to be in the explicit protection and interests of U.S. citizens. It states plans to increase Coast Guard and Naval presence in order to limit the flows of illicit drugs and cartels while expanding access to strategically important locations. This signals a shift from reactionism to proactive enforcement and has brought up legal debates about Executive power under Article II of the Constitution and state sovereignty.

A Legal Debate

Historically, the legal ambiguity stems from it not being a law at all but rather a unilateral declaration. The Monroe Doctrine lacks multilateral consent meaning there are no formal agreements with other countries and it possesses no legal authority in international courts. It is a declaration of foreign policy intentions, does not grant the president any additional “emergency powers”, and still requires the president to seek Congressional approval before any military actions under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

Not immune to worldwide opposition, international tribunals have at times characterized the Monroe Doctrine as a violation of international law and state sovereignty but have failed to produce full practical effectiveness. In the landmark case Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Judgment, 1986 I.C.J. 14 (June 27), the International Court of Justice ruled that the United States involvement with paramilitary groups in Nicaragua was a violation of both the United Nations (U.N.) and Organization of American States (O.A.S.) charters of non-intervention and state sovereignty. The United States ignored the ruling and blocked enforcement by the U.N. Security council showing that although unlawful, there is little ability to enforce punishment.

This Nicaragua v. United States (1986) ruling shows that even the highest court in the world can announce legal violations and still fail to enforce punishment. With the updated “Trump Corollary” to include the protection of U.S. citizens against illicit drugs and cartel activities, this new interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine aims to justify circumventing legal norms, bypassing the United States Congress and international treaties. As was done in 1986, as long as the U.S. has the power to veto U.N. enforcement of international law violations, the Monroe Doctrine will continue to influence U.S. foreign policy and the future of the Western Hemisphere.

Bibliography

  • U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1.
  • U.S. Capture of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro: Considerations for Congress, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IN12618 (Jan. 12, 2026).
  • James Monroe, Seventh Annual Message to Congress (Dec. 2, 1823), reprinted in 41 Annals of Cong. 12 (1823).
  • Theodore Roosevelt, Fourth Annual Message to Congress (Dec. 6, 1904), reprinted in 39 Cong. Rec. 19 (1904).
  • The White House, National Security Strategy of the United States of America (Dec. 5, 2025).
  • Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Judgment, 1986 I.C.J. 14 (June 27).
  • U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 11.
  • War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1548.