For much of our recent history, the Monroe Doctrine sat quietly in textbooks, treated more as a relic of early American diplomacy than a living guide to policy. Yet in recent years, the idea that the Western Hemisphere deserves special attention has resurfaced with fresh urgency. President Donald Trump, a leader fond of attaching his name to ideas and initiatives, has introduced what his administration calls a new corollary to that old doctrine. Though presented as something novel, the concept actually echoes a century-old principle first articulated by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge in 1912.
The Lodge Corollary argued that no external power—whether European or otherwise—should acquire control or influence over strategic assets in the Americas. Trump’s version revisits that same premise, adapting it to a world where threats no longer come solely from Europe but from a broader set of global actors. The administration’s national security blueprint frames the idea as a straightforward restoration of American priorities and hemispheric leadership, rooted in the belief that the region remains strategically vital and should not be subject to influence from powers outside it.
Reviving this framework is not just a rhetorical move. Over the past few decades, the United States has largely stepped back from active engagement in the hemisphere, assuming that economic ties and diplomatic inertia would be enough to preserve stability. That assumption has proven optimistic. China has become the second-largest trading partner of many Latin American nations, building infrastructure, extending loans, and deepening diplomatic influence. Russia, though less economically involved, has developed relationships with several governments and expanded covert activity in places such as Mexico. Even nonstate actors, including transnational militant groups, have found footholds in the region.
In this evolving environment, the Trump administration’s focus on countering outside influence could be seen as a return to an older strategic habit rather than a rupture with tradition. The idea that the Americas should be insulated from competing great-power ambitions dates back to the early nineteenth century, when the geopolitical map of the Western Hemisphere was being reshaped.
At the time, Spain’s colonial empire was collapsing. As new republics emerged across Latin America, European powers watched closely, some considering opportunities to reclaim influence or acquire new territory. Russia added to the tension in 1821 by announcing restrictions on foreign shipping near its Pacific holdings, a move that threatened to extend its reach toward the Americas. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams pushed back, setting the intellectual stage for a broader declaration.
Britain, which had commercial interests in the newly independent Latin American states, preferred a joint Anglo-American declaration discouraging further colonization. The United States, however, chose to go it alone. In 1823, President James Monroe presented a message to Congress stating that the continents of the Americas should no longer be treated as objects for colonization by European powers. At the time, the United States lacked the military strength to enforce such a stance, so it relied heavily on British naval power to deter encroachments.
Reactions from Europe were predictably hostile. Austrian statesmen condemned the declaration as an act of rebellion, while Russia dismissed it with contempt. Yet the combination of diplomatic pressure and British interests caused those powers to step back, and the doctrine gained a quiet but enduring influence.
Over time, the United States grew stronger and gradually took responsibility for enforcing its own hemispheric boundaries. After the Civil War, Washington used diplomatic pressure to push French forces out of Mexico. Early in the twentieth century, it compelled Germany to stand down during a crisis involving Venezuela. That event produced a new corollary, associated with Theodore Roosevelt, which asserted that the United States could intervene in Latin America when local governments were unable to maintain order and thereby threatened regional stability.
Although these doctrines were controversial, they reflected a consistent strategic judgment: the United States believed that stability and autonomy in the Western Hemisphere were essential for its own security. For much of the twentieth century, this stance translated into a combination of military, economic, and diplomatic initiatives designed to prevent external powers from gaining leverage.
But the post–Cold War era brought a different mindset. With the Soviet Union gone and globalization accelerating, Washington assumed that economic integration would naturally align Latin America with the United States. Attention drifted toward Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Meanwhile, other actors quietly stepped in. China invested heavily in trade and infrastructure, offering financing packages that many Latin American governments found attractive. Russia reestablished political ties with countries like Venezuela and Nicaragua, while maintaining longstanding relationships with Cuba. Even militant groups exploited gaps in governance and security to cultivate networks.
Against this backdrop, Trump’s approach appears more like a reversion to earlier doctrines than a radical innovation. His administration highlighted the risk posed by outside powers controlling strategic assets or gaining influence in the hemisphere. That focus was evident in the effort to persuade Panama to withdraw from China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a project Beijing uses to expand economic and geopolitical influence. It also surfaced in pressure campaigns targeting the Maduro government in Venezuela, a regime aligned with China, Russia, and Iran and dependent on external support.
The strategic logic behind these moves is straightforward. When major powers project influence into the Western Hemisphere, they introduce potential threats to U.S. security, from economic leverage to military cooperation and intelligence operations. Maintaining a degree of hemispheric autonomy helps prevent those threats from materializing.
In many ways, the Trump Corollary simply articulates a principle that has shaped U.S. foreign policy for two centuries: the Americas matter, and external powers should not dominate the region. While the world has changed dramatically since Monroe’s time, the underlying concern remains relevant. Strategic competition now involves actors far beyond Europe, but the geographic reality remains the same.
Reengaging with the doctrines of the past does not mean copying them blindly. Modern diplomacy requires cooperation, economic engagement, and respect for sovereignty. Yet it also demands awareness of how outside powers can exploit uncertainty or instability. Reviving the spirit of hemispheric vigilance, even if under a new name, reflects an attempt to recalibrate U.S. strategy to these contemporary conditions.
Trump often presents himself as a break from tradition, but in this case, his policy gestures toward a longstanding American instinct: to keep the Western Hemisphere free from external domination and to remain the leading power within it. Whether this revival will endure beyond his administration remains uncertain, but the debate it has sparked reminds us that the Monroe Doctrine, far from being a museum curiosity, still has a role to play in understanding the geopolitics of our neighborhood.
.jpg)
