Trump Hails Capture of Maduro as Modern Monroe Doctrine, Brands It the ‘Donroe Document’

President Trump characterized the U.S. operation to seize Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro as a bold update to the 1823 Monroe Doctrine—the declaration by President James Monroe that warned European powers against interfering in Latin America.

“The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we’ve superseded it by a lot, by a real lot. They now call it the Donroe document,” Trump said at a news conference, playfully rebranding the historic policy with his own name.

He added: “American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again.”

Weeks earlier, the White House had lent intellectual weight to the same concept in its new national security strategy, which introduced a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. The document explicitly authorizes U.S. intervention in Latin America to seize strategic assets, combat crime, or curb migration—one of Trump’s key domestic priorities.

Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, with China as its primary partner. Trump justified the operation by citing alleged drug smuggling via small boats from Venezuela and direct involvement by Maduro himself.

Global Parallels

The United States is not alone in asserting influence over neighboring countries.

Russia’s Vladimir Putin launched the 2022 invasion of Ukraine after challenging the country’s historical legitimacy and vowing to remove its elected president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

China has repeatedly declined to rule out the use of force to take control of democratic, self-governing Taiwan and has provoked U.S. allies with expansive claims in the South China Sea.

The Venezuela operation occurred just days after China conducted large-scale military exercises simulating a blockade of Taiwan—exercises prompted by a major U.S. arms sale to the island. Hours before Maduro’s capture, a Chinese envoy met with him in Caracas.

Declining U.S. Primacy Raises Concerns

The intervention is also drawing scrutiny from allies unsettled by Trump’s recent threats to acquire strategic resources.

Trump recently appointed an envoy tasked with pursuing the acquisition of Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory, and has repeatedly threatened to retake control of the Panama Canal.

Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, a think tank advocating U.S. restraint, said she had previously dismissed Trump’s Greenland remarks as bluster.

“Now I’m not so sure,” she said. “It wouldn’t be that hard for the U.S. to put a couple hundred or a couple thousand troops inside of Greenland, and it’s not clear to me who could do anything about it.”

The Venezuela operation, she added, “does raise this question that if the U.S. can declare a leader illegitimate, go and remove him and then run the country, why can’t other countries?”

Kavanagh noted that while the U.S. has a long history of unilateral interventions—including the 2003 Iraq invasion—the relative power balance has shifted dramatically.

Back then, she said, “it wasn’t a matter of setting a precedent for other countries, because they just couldn’t aspire to that level of military power and the U.S. could stop basically anyone who tried. But that’s not true anymore.”

Mixed Signals on Russia and China

For decades, the United States firmly opposed Russian and Chinese expansionism. Under Trump, however, Washington’s messaging has grown less consistent.

The new national security strategy emphasizes priorities closer to home and says relatively little about Russia or China, prompting some analysts to interpret it as tacit acceptance of Moscow’s and Beijing’s regional spheres of influence.

Trump has spoken positively about China and downplayed the likelihood of a Taiwan invasion. Before taking office, he suggested Taiwan should pay more for U.S. protection.

On Ukraine, he has predicted Russian victory and urged Kyiv to make territorial concessions.

At minimum, the Venezuela operation signals a tougher U.S. posture throughout Latin America, according to Alexander Gray, an Atlantic Council scholar who served on Trump’s first National Security Council.

“I think it’s very clear that there will no longer be a level of tolerance for the type of even lower-level Chinese, Russian and Iranian influence that we’ve seen over the last couple of decades,” Gray said.