Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt

 What does Trump’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine mean for the Western Hemisphere?

As a reminder, the Western Hemisphere includes all countries in the Americas, spanning from Greenland and Canada in the north to Argentina and Chile in the south.

According to the Monroe Doctrine, established in the first half of the 19^th century, no external power was permitted to intervene in the Americas, which were deemed the exclusive domain of the United States. This policy specifically targeted European colonial powers and their territories in the Americas, which the United States sought to challenge and possess. In return for European powers’ exclusion, Monroe committed to refraining from intervening in European affairs.

In 2025–2026, Trump asserted that any strategic, economic, or technological presence of a rival power, particularly China, in the Western Hemisphere poses a direct threat to US security and must be prevented or dismantled. He views the Western Hemisphere as the United States’ vital security zone, where no external power should rival American influence. This represents a doctrine of active exclusion rather than mere non-interference.

The NSS 2025 states:

“We will deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets, in our Hemisphere. This “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine is a common-sense and potent restoration of American power and priorities, consistent with American security interests.” (NSS 2025, p. 15)

Further, still on the subject of the Americas, the document becomes quite explicit:

“The choice all countries should face is whether they want to live in an American-led world of sovereign countries and free economies or in a parallel one in which they are influenced by countries on the other side of the world.” (NSS 2025, p. 18)

If we decode the previous quote, the real message is: “All countries are faced with the following choice: accept US political and economic domination or face harsh economic retaliation and likely direct military aggression.”

 Is the United States under military threat?

In the same document, the Trump administration outlined the advantageous position of the United States as follows:

“An enviable geography with abundant natural resources, no competing powers physically dominant in our Hemisphere, borders at no risk of military invasion, and other great powers separated by vast oceans”NSS 2025, p. 6

According to this assessment, the United States does not face any serious military threats. However, Trump continues to use the pretext of alleged threats to justify actions that are difficult to defend—specifically, Washington’s ongoing attacks on its neighbours. US aggression towards its neighbours in the Americas is a persistent issue (refer to the following article on the long and ongoing series of aggressions carried out by the United States in the Western Hemisphere). Nevertheless, the current moment might be one of the few instances when a US president has so openly and brutally articulated his desire for total domination, asserting his right to employ force whenever he deems it necessary to achieve what he believes to be in the best interests of the American people.

The Trump administration constantly invokes threats to justify its brutal and human rights-violating policies, both domestically and internationally, in the Western Hemisphere:

1. It portrays the influx of migrants as a significant invasion, necessitating the deployment of the military and other repressive state apparatuses, such as ICE, both within and beyond the borders of the United States.
2. Drug trafficking is framed as a consequence of external intervention, disregarding the significant role that domestic factors play within the United States. Trump asserts that the battle against drug trafficking legitimises extrajudicial executions, assaults on sovereign states, and kidnappings.
3. The issue pertains to partial foreign control, primarily by the Chinese, over resources that the United States considers strategically important. In Trump’s view, this justifies the direct takeover of territories considered threatened, whether Venezuela, the Panama Canal or Greenland.

 In the national defence document published on January 23, 2026, what was new with regard to the Western Hemisphere? And what is the practical reality of Trump’s policy in the hemisphere?

In the national defence strategy document published on January 23, 2026 (NDS 2026) by the Ministry of War, the Pentagon explicitly threatens other countries in the Western Hemisphere [1] with operations such as the one carried out on January 3, 2026, against Venezuela:

“ We will guarantee U.S. military and commercial access to key terrain, especially the Panama Canal, Gulf of America, and Greenland. We will provide President Trump with credible military options to use against narco-terrorists wherever they may be. We will engage in good faith with our neighbors, from Canada to our partners in Central and South America, but we will ensure that they respect and do their part to defend our shared interests. And where they do not, we will stand ready to take focused, decisive action that concretely advances U.S. interests. This is the Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, and America’s military stands ready to enforce it with speed, power, and precision, as the world saw in Operation ABSOLUTE RESOLVE.” (Absolute Resolve is the name of the large-scale military operation conducted by the US military against Venezuela on 3 January 2026.) Source: NDS 2026, published on 23/01/2026, p. 3.

A few pages further on, the Pentagon writes:

“Nicolas Maduro, for instance, thought that he could poison Americans with impunity. Operation ABSOLUTE RESOLVE taught him otherwise—and all narco-terrorists should take note.” Source: NDS 2026 , published 23/01/2026, p. 9.

However, the drug trafficking accusation lacks any evidence and is entirely unfounded.

As we know, Trump did not hesitate to accuse Gustavo Petro, the progressive Colombian president, of also being an illegal drug lord.

According to the Euronews website in October 2025:

“In a social media post, Trump referred to Colombian President Gustavo Petro as ’an illegal drug dealer’ ” (Source: Euronews, https://www.euronews.com/2025/10/19/watch-video-shows-us-military-strike-on-suspected-drug-carrying-submarine-in-caribbean See also Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/trump-calls-colombian-president-a-drug-leader-vows-end-payments-2025-10-19/)

In January 2026, Trump threatened Petro with being next on the list after he militarily attacked Venezuela and kidnapped the Venezuelan president and his wife, holding them hostage. Several media outlets reported his threats.

Emboldened by the success of his military operation and faced with very weak official international protests given the seriousness of his actions against Venezuela, Trump decided to radically step up the policy he had been pursuing against Cuba since his first term in office.

On January 29 January 2026, Trump signed an executive order declaring that the Cuban government posed an ‘unusual and extraordinary’ threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. This decree served as the legal basis for tightening the sanctions already in place, even though they were already causing terrible damage to the Cuban economy and population, which was denounced on multiple occasions in motions and resolutions adopted almost unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly.

Here are the results of the United Nations General Assembly votes on the resolution entitled ‘Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States on Cuba’ for the last three sessions. The trend indicates the United States’ near complete isolation on this issue.

Since the end of January 2026, Trump has been aiming to completely suffocate the island’s economy by totally or almost totally cutting off the supply of fuels essential for energy production. He had already banned oil deliveries and secured Venezuela’s agreement to halt them. And following the decree issued on 29 January 2026, he obtained the agreement of the Mexican authorities to halt deliveries, except perhaps for humanitarian reasons. Europe and Canada have merely protested against Trump’s unilateral measures against Cuba but have not announced any measures to support the island. Russia and China have protested but have not yet announced any oil deliveries. It should be noted that threats of tariffs and other sanctions against countries that supply oil to Cuba are unlikely to embarrass Russia, which has already been under US sanctions since its invasion of Ukraine. It should be remembered, however, that Russia supplies oil, gas, coal, and grain to Israel, the United States’ armed wing in the Middle East, which is responsible for genocide against the Palestinian people. (Read : Éric Toussaint : Why are the BRICS countries not condemning the ongoing genocide in Gaza?).

 How is the use of force mentioned in the document published by the Pentagon on 23 January 2026?

Force is systematically asserted as the means that the military and Trump will use to strengthen the United States’ position in the Americas. The document makes this point very clear. Here are a few passages that speak for themselves:

“As the NSS lays out, the United States will no longer cede access to or influence over key terrain in the Western Hemisphere. DoW will therefore provide the President with credible options to guarantee U.S. military and commercial access to key terrain from the Arctic to South America, especially Greenland, the Gulf of America, and the Panama Canal. We will ensure that the Monroe Doctrine is upheld in our time.”(NDS 2026 p. 16.)

The deliberately bellicose and threatening tone appears throughout the Pentagon document:

“DoW will ensure that the Joint Force always has the ability to conduct devastating strikes and operations against targets anywhere in the world, including directly from the U.S. Homeland, thereby providing the President with second-to-none operational flexibility and agility” Source: NDS 2026, p. 18

“We will restore the warrior ethos. We will refocus the American military on its core, irreplaceable goal of winning the nation’s wars decisively.” Source: NDS 2026, p. 24.

 According to the US Constitution, who has the power to declare war?

Article I (Section 8, Clause 11) of the Constitution of the United States grants Congress the exclusive power to ’declare war’. For its part, the Ministry of War document states that the president has the power to decide on military operations and that to do so, he has the most powerful army in the world at his disposal:

“President Trump in his first term and since reentering office in January 2025 has rebuilt the American military to be the world’s absolute best—its most formidable fighting force.” (Source: Introduction NDS 2026 p. 2)

 

“Under his leadership, the US has the world strongest, most lethal and most capable military, indeed the most powerful military that this world has ever seen” (Source: Introductory letter to NDS 2026)

 

“Only the Department of War can provide that power to ensure that the nation’s interests are defended, and we will unapologetically do so. We will be our nation’s sword and its shield, always ready to be wielded decisively at the President’s direction, in service of his vision for lasting peace through strength. This National Defense Strategy (NDS) shows how.” (Source : NDS 2026 , p. 6)

To circumvent the Constitution, Trump claims that the military attacks he orders are military operations and do not constitute a declaration of war. It should be remembered that Vladimir Putin, for his part, used the same ploy when he declared that the invasion of Ukraine was merely a special operation.

With the results of the military aggression carried out on January 3, 2026, against Venezuela, Trump seems convinced that he will now be able to do it without sending large numbers of troops to the field, unlike his predecessors in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, to name but three examples. He is convinced that he will be able to carry out brutal and highly destructive short-term operations each time, which will allow him to avoid a vote in Congress. The future will tell if he is wrong.

 What is Trump’s position on Greenland?

After stating that he wanted to take Greenland, including by military means, and provoking a relatively strong reaction from European governments and the European Commission for the first time, Trump toned down his claims and declared in Davos on 21 January 2026 that he wanted the United States to be able to buy the entire territory. The two documents analysed do not contain any specific details about Trump’s strategy regarding this European colony in the Western Hemisphere, but it is clear that they pave the way for unilateral decisions by Trump in the name of national security and defence strategies.

 What can be done about Trump’s blockade of Cuba?

1. We must mobilise to put pressure on governments to send oil and other products to Cuba. It is important to actively participate in mobilisations in as many countries as possible.
2. The three main countries that are best placed to send oil and other products (while successfully facing possible reprisals from Trump) and where mobilisations can take place freely are Mexico, Brazil and Spain.
3. It is also essential that a powerful movement rejecting the blockade and Trump’s imperialist policy develops in the United States. We urgently need massive actions in solidarity with the Cuban people, both in the United States and around the world.

 A landmark gathering in the resistance against the rise of neo-fascism and imperialist aggressions, wherever they may come from:

The International Anti-Fascist and Anti-Imperialist Conference, held in Porto Alegre from March 26 to 29, 2026, is a major event that will mark a turning point in the resistance to the various forms of aggression affecting people across the globe.

For more information:: https://antifas2026.org/en/

It is vital to sign the international appeal to strengthen anti-fascist and anti-imperialist action. To sign the call, click here.

 Summary–conclusion

An examination of the NSS 2025 and the NDS 2026 reveals that the Trump administration’s policy toward the Western Hemisphere is not limited to a deterrent posture; it establishes a doctrinal framework for permanent intervention. By claiming the right to prevent any extra-hemispheric strategic presence and explicitly reserving the option of ‘targeted and decisive actions’ against neighbouring governments, Washington is transforming the Americas into an area of conditional sovereignty.

The ‘Trump corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine signifies a notable evolution in its explicit nature, particularly regarding the emphasis placed on military intervention. In contrast to previous administrations that often preferred economic, diplomatic, or clandestine approaches—such as destabilisation, training, and financing of mercenaries and unacknowledged assassinations—the NSS 2025 and NDS 2026 explicitly endorse the use of armed force as a conventional means of managing regional affairs. The military operation against Venezuela in January 2026, along with the public threats directed at other nations like Cuba, Colombia, Mexico, and Brazil, exemplifies this inclination toward strategic intimidation.

Beyond the Latin American case, this doctrine is part of a broader project: industrial relocation to the United States, coercive security for vital natural resources, and the ideological polarisation of the international system around a binary choice—alignment with Washington or marginalisation. The Western Hemisphere is becoming a laboratory for an openly imperialist policy, where the sovereignty of states is subordinated to their compliance with US strategic interests.

Ultimately, the doctrinal radicalisation observed in the 2025-2026 texts does not stem from an objective situation of imminent military threat — as evidenced by the United States’ own geographical assessment — but from a political desire to consolidate a contested hegemony.

The phrase “peace through strength", as invoked by the Trump administration, seems to function less as a defensive principle and more as an assertion of a renewed project of domination in response to purported threats.

The evolution of US policy in the Americas serves as a significant indicator of the ongoing shift towards a renewed emphasis on military force and its practical application. This approach is increasingly becoming a primary argument, supplementing other measures such as sanctions, customs tariffs, and various protectionist policies designed to encourage the relocation of industrial production back to the United States.