It’s a statement to send a shiver down the spines of those who believe in national sovereignty, a rules-based order, and who oppose strongman politics. A post on X by the US State Department that in just four words shows the threat the Trump administration poses to international peace and security.
Under a black and white image of a grim-looking President Donald Trump, in all-caps, are the words “THIS IS OUR HEMISPHERE”. After the United States’ dead-of-night seizure of Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro from his home in Caracas, it was a doubling-down over the “doctrine” that the US can do as it pleases across the Americas and Atlantic (as far north as Greenland).
It’s a bald, bold, unnuanced statement in line with Trump’s public statements on foreign affairs. The post was made the same day Trump said “We’re going to have to do something” about Mexico and that a US military operation against Colombia “sounds good”. He reiterated his belief that America “needs” to control Greenland, adding “We’ll worry about Greenland in about two months”.
The statements are short and simplistic and leave many thinking it must be more of Trump’s bluster. It’s tempting to see the removal of a dictator as a net positive for the world, and leave it at that.
But the bombing of Venezuelan boats last year and this abduction of Maduro shows a more worrying agenda hiding in plain sight.
The Trump administration is making a raw statement of power that claims authority over dozens of independent nations; a statement of one nation’s will that ignores the will of others. Trump himself has been open in his statements, that the Maduro raid was as much about oil and US power as it was about drugs. He said, “under our new national security strategy, American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again”.
One of Trump’s closest advisors, Stephen Miller, appearing on CNN, expanded on this ‘framing’ of the Maduro seizure and MAGA foreign policy.
“We’re a superpower. And under President Trump, we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower,” Miller said.
Some in Latin America say this is nothing new. They have heard similar language before from both Republican and Democratic administrations and grieved the resulting loss of life and sovereignty. The US has used its own national security and political interests to justify coups, invasions, and regime changes in central and South America for more than a century. Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Cuba, Panama… the list goes on. The Monroe Doctrine and the Truman Doctrine have spelled out where the US sees its interests abroad and have often been used (some would say misused or twisted) to justify US military and covert actions.
But there is something different about the Trump doctrine being played out before our eyes. There is something new here that we overlook at our peril.
The Monroe Doctrine was, at least in part, a statement against European power-grabs and colonisation in South and Central America. Yes, it is an ‘America First’ statement and took a paternalistic view of America’s neighbours. But it was also a warning to the old world that the new world was operating under different rules; that countries could not be oppressed or controlled by bigger and more powerful nations on the other side of the Atlantic. Similarly, while the Truman Doctrine was used to justify hostile action against Communism, it was also a stand against authoritarian regimes and a commitment “to support free peoples”.
More recently, the two Bush presidents used US military action abroad in ways that clearly put US national interests – in part based on oil and commerce – ahead of all else. We all know the massive loss of life and diplomatic chaos that came from the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, but they too were a combination of power-grab and principle. Bush Sr was responding to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait and said it was America’s duty to “check that aggression”. He spoke of a “new world order… freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace”. But he acknowledged the mixed motives: “to defend civilized values around the world and maintain our economic strength at home”. Bush Jr justified his action military action in Iraq after the 9/11 attacks as a mission “to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger” and create a “united, stable and free country”.
The Trump Doctrine, as it emerges from the actions of this administration, does not lean on values of global peace and order. It uses an unbridled language of power. It does not seek international cooperation. It does not stand against authoritarian regimes as a point of principle. Instead, it is the authoritarian regime. Miller could not have been clearer, speaking on CNN.
“We live in a world in which you can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else,” he said. “But we live in a world, in the real world … that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.”
Read that again and let is sink in. It may be tempting to say ‘at least he’s being honest’. But think about that statement for a moment in the light of America’s actions in Venezuela. This is different.
Bush Sr spoke of both economic interests and civilised values. The latter constrained the former. There was some limit to the exercise of superpower strength. A moral element. This White House says simply, the US is a superpower and superpowers need no morals or limits. The Trump Doctrine justifies the use of power for power’s sake. Might is right.
Why does that matter to those of us living in New Zealand, far from the Western Hemisphere? Two main reasons. First, it endorses Strongman politics. It says to other authoritarian leaders that the US no longer feels the need to constrain its power or use the principles of democracy and peace to underpin its foreign policy. Indeed, the Trump Doctrine looks increasingly like the Putin and Xi doctrines - that might is right and big powers should be left to do as they please when it comes to neighbouring countries. As I say, this marks a different path from even the most hawkish of previous US presidents. Crucially, it says to Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping that the US does not have any problem in principle with invading neighbouring countries or ignoring national sovereignty. If the US can act without restraint in Venezuela because “the world is governed by force”, then Russia and China can do the same in Ukraine and Taiwan. The statement “This is our hemisphere” implies a world divided up between global powers. Which leads to the second point. Under Presidents Obama and Biden the US spoke of a pivot to the Pacific and a protection of democratic values in the Indo-Pacific region. It was a foreign policy often practised more in word than in deed, but it put the Chinese Community Party (CCP) on notice. Trump seems to be showing little interest in our region, which will likely embolden China and its own strongman leader in the South China Sea, Taiwan Strait, and even the South Pacific. That, in turn, raises serious questions about the stability of trade, aid, and democracy in our region, as well as the respect of national sovereignty.
The outline of a new doctrine of US foreign policy was being pencilled in through 2025. It looks now as though Trump intends to colour that in more fully ahead of the mid-term elections late in 2026 and we should be in little doubt – that doctrine is about unbridled power. Which means a less stable world in the next six months at least and some tough decisions for leaders around the world, including those here at home.