The Geopolitical Context of 1823 and the Initial Intentions
The Monroe Doctrine emerged amid the particularly tense geopolitical context of the post-Napoleonic era, when European powers—notably the Holy Alliance formed by Russia, Prussia, and Austria—sought to restore absolutist monarchies across the American continent, which had just experienced a wave of independence movements. James Monroe, who had been President of the United States since 1817, and his Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, conceived this doctrine as a defensive measure aimed at protecting the young Latin American republics against any attempt at European colonial reconquest. The famous passage from Monroe’s message stating that the American continent, having attained and maintained its free and independent status, could no longer be considered subject to future colonization by any European power was fundamentally a declaration of collective self-determination, although it also reflected the United States’ growing desire to exercise regional hegemony. At the time, the United States lacked both the military power and the economic influence necessary to enforce this doctrine by force, which explains why it remained largely symbolic for several decades.
It is crucial to understand that the original Monroe Doctrine was not a call for American interventionism but rather an affirmation of the territorial integrity of the nations of the American continent in the face of European imperialism. Monroe himself was a veteran of the American Revolutionary War who sincerely believed in republican principles and the self-determination of peoples, although his vision was inevitably limited by the prejudices and interests of his time. The doctrine was formulated at a time when the United States was still an emerging power, seeking to protect itself from European rivalries while gradually asserting its own sphere of influence. Historians generally agree that Monroe would never have imagined that his doctrine would one day be used to justify direct U.S. military interventions against sovereign Latin American governments, as is the case today with the Donroe Doctrine. The original intention was to protect the region from foreign interference, not to serve as a justification for even more direct and aggressive U.S. interference.
When one rereads the original texts of the Monroe Doctrine from 1823, one is struck by the radical difference between James Monroe’s moderate and defensive tone and Donald Trump’s conquering aggressiveness. Monroe wrote in carefully crafted diplomatic language, taking care not to unnecessarily provoke the European powers while firmly asserting American principles. Trump, on the other hand, seems to take a malicious pleasure in creating tensions, provoking his adversaries, and turning every speech into a direct challenge. What fills me with despair is seeing how complex and nuanced historical concepts can be distorted and oversimplified to serve contemporary political agendas that are entirely foreign to their original context. The Monroe Doctrine was the product of an era when the United States positioned itself as an anti-imperialist power in opposition to Europe. Today, in the form of the Donroe Doctrine, it has become the tool of a new type of American imperialism that does not call itself by that name. How can we accept that history is being rewritten and exploited in this way without the slightest respect for historical truth?
The Evolution of the Doctrine from the 19th to the 20th Century
The transformation of the Monroe Doctrine from a defensive principle into an interventionist tool occurred gradually throughout the 19th century, as American power expanded economically and militarily. As early as the 1840s, under the presidency of James K. Polk, the doctrine was invoked to justify the United States’ territorial expansion westward and southward, notably during the annexation of Texas and the Mexican-American War, which led to the acquisition of vast territories including California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. This initial phase of expansion set a precedent whereby U.S. interests could take precedence over the sovereignty of neighboring nations—a precedent that would be amplified over time. The construction of the Panama Canal in the early years of the 20th century marked another crucial milestone in the doctrine’s evolution, illustrating how the United States could use its economic and military power to control strategic infrastructure in Latin America.
However, it was truly with the Roosevelt Corollary of 1904 that the Monroe Doctrine became an explicit instrument of U.S. interventionism. Theodore Roosevelt, president from 1901 to 1909, declared that “chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere, the United States’ adherence to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States—however reluctantly—in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to exercise an international police power.” This corollary provided a moral justification for U.S. interventions, which were presented as civilizing missions rather than acts of imperialism. Between 1904 and 1934, the United States effectively exercised this role as an international police force, intervening militarily in several Latin American countries to protect U.S. economic interests, suppress revolutionary movements, or ensure the repayment of debts. This period, known as “dollar diplomacy,” profoundly shaped relations between the United States and Latin America, creating a legacy of mistrust and resentment that persists to this day.
I cannot help but draw a parallel between the Roosevelt Corollary of 1904 and the Donroe Doctrine of 2026. In both cases, moralizing language is used to justify what is fundamentally a projection of raw power. Roosevelt spoke of civilizing failing societies; Trump speaks of restoring democracy and justice. But deep down, what is the real objective? In both cases, it is about controlling the resources, markets, and strategic routes of the Western Hemisphere. What terrifies me is that Trump doesn’t even have Roosevelt’s intellectual subtlety to attempt to justify his actions with a semblance of moral theory. He simply says: we’re going to do it because we can, because we’re the strongest, and because it will be highly profitable for American companies. There is a brutality to this honesty that leaves me speechless. At least Roosevelt had the tact to pretend that it was a heavy moral burden he was reluctantly shouldering. Trump embraces interventionism with frightening candor, as if there were no moral, legal, or political constraints that could limit American action.
Section 3: The Monroe Doctrine in the Modern Era
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_639511598-optimized-madmax-mjzmc0up.jpeg)
Academic and Political Criticism of the Doctrine
In the decades following World War II, the Monroe Doctrine came under increasing criticism from scholars, diplomats, and political leaders around the world. Academic critics have highlighted how the doctrine was used to justify interventions that contributed to political, economic, and social instability in many Latin American countries. Scholars of international relations have demonstrated how the doctrine reflected and reinforced a paternalistic view of Latin America, which was seen as an American preserve rather than a community of equal, sovereign nations. Human rights organizations have documented the devastating human consequences of numerous interventions justified by the Monroe Doctrine, including CIA-backed military coups in Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973, and Argentina in 1976, which led to decades of brutal dictatorships and massive human rights violations.
On the diplomatic front, criticism of the Monroe Doctrine has intensified as Latin American nations have asserted their sovereignty and developed relations with other world powers. In 2013, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry officially announced the end of the Monroe era during a speech at the Organization of American States, stating that “the relationship that we seek and that we have worked hard to foster is not about the United States declaring what is right or wrong for others to do. “It’s about the United States working with our partners as equals to pursue common interests.” This statement represented a formal acknowledgment that the Monroe Doctrine had become an obstacle to modern relations among the Americas, and that the United States needed to abandon its paternalistic approach in favor of partnerships based on mutual respect and sovereign equality. Kerry emphasized that the Monroe era was over and that the United States sought to build relationships based on respect for democratic principles, human rights, and the rule of law in the Western Hemisphere.
When John Kerry announced the end of the Monroe Doctrine era in 2013, I felt a genuine sense of hope. Finally, I thought to myself, the United States was acknowledging that its historical approach to Latin America was fundamentally flawed and that it was time to build relationships based on mutual respect rather than domination. That statement seemed to mark the end of a long chapter of interventionism and manipulation that had caused so much suffering in the region. I had naively thought that this historic acknowledgment would mark a lasting turning point in inter-American relations. How could I have known that less than fifteen years later, Trump would resurrect the worst version of this doctrine in an even more aggressive and narcissistic form? What despairs me the most is the ease with which the Trump administration was able to erase decades of diplomatic progress in just a few months. Kerry had apologized on behalf of American history; Trump is repeating that history without the slightest hesitation, as if the lessons of the past held no significance.
Attempts to Move Beyond the Doctrine
The period between the end of the Cold War and Trump’s rise to power in 2025 was marked by concerted efforts to move beyond the legacy of the Monroe Doctrine and build a new architecture of inter-American relations based on multilateralism and cooperation. The Obama administration, in particular, sought to reset relations with Cuba, normalizing diplomatic ties after more than five decades of hostility, and engaged in serious negotiations with Venezuela in an attempt to resolve the political and economic crisis in that country. The Alliance for Progress initiative launched by John F. Kennedy in the 1960s, though criticized for its limitations, represented an attempt to promote economic and social development in Latin America rather than simply maintaining U.S. hegemony. These initiatives reflected a growing recognition that the challenges facing the Western Hemisphere could not be resolved through unilateral domination but required genuine regional collaboration.
Regional organizations such as the Organization of American States, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, and the Union of South American Nations have all worked to develop frameworks for cooperation that enabled countries in the region to engage with the United States and other global powers on an equal footing. These efforts have yielded tangible results, including the creation of conflict-resolution mechanisms, the promotion of fair trade, and the development of cooperation programs in the areas of security, sustainable development, and human rights. The multilateral approach seemed to be gradually replacing the unilateralism characteristic of the Monroe era, paving the way for a future in which the nations of the Americas could determine their own destinies without excessive external interference. The emerging consensus among experts and diplomats was that the Monroe Doctrine, as a conceptual framework for inter-American relations, was definitively outdated and belonged to another century.
There is something particularly disheartening about seeing how decades of diplomatic progress can be undone in a matter of months by a single leader determined to systematically dismantle the existing international order. I had closely followed the Obama administration’s efforts to reset relations with Cuba and engage in constructive dialogue with Venezuela. Of course, these initiatives were not perfect and did not solve all the problems, but they represented a significant paradigm shift. They recognized that the United States could no longer impose its will through force or threats, but had to engage in respectful dialogue with sovereign nations. Trump threw all of that out the window without even thinking twice. He chose to return to the darkest era of American interventionism, as if the lessons of the past fifty years had never existed. What terrifies me is thinking about how long it will take to rebuild what has been destroyed in such a short time—and whether it will even be possible after the damage caused by this Donroe doctrine.
Section 4: Venezuela as the First Test Case for the Monroe Doctrine
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_358806653-optimized-madmax-mjzmc3y0.jpeg)
The Alleged Legal Justification for the Intervention
The Trump administration has portrayed the intervention in Venezuela as a legitimate law enforcement operation aimed at capturing a leader accused of serious crimes against the United States. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that Maduro had been charged with conspiracy to commit acts of narco-terrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices against the United States. These charges, based on FBI and DEA investigations that allegedly established links between the Maduro government and Colombian and Mexican drug cartels, are being presented as an international legal justification for military intervention. The administration has insisted that the operation was not a war but an international law enforcement action, although the capture of a sitting head of state in his own country by foreign military forces is unprecedented in modern history and raises serious legal questions.
However, many international legal experts have challenged the validity of this justification, pointing out that international law clearly prohibits the use of force against the territorial sovereignty and political integrity of states, except in cases of self-defense or when authorized by a United Nations Security Council resolution. The United Nations Charter, to which the United States is a signatory, explicitly stipulates that members must refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The Trump administration did not obtain any authorization from the Security Council, as Russia and China had indicated that they would veto any resolution justifying the intervention. Consequently, the military operation in Venezuela constitutes a clear violation of international law, even if it is presented as a law enforcement action. Critics have pointed out that if every country were allowed to intervene militarily in another to capture leaders accused of crimes, the world would be plunged into total chaos marked by incessant wars.
When I hear the legal arguments put forward by the Trump administration to justify this intervention, I feel that mix of anger and disbelief one feels when confronted with a brazen lie presented as absolute truth. Yes, Maduro is accused of serious crimes, and yes, there is likely some truth to these accusations. But since when are accusations enough to justify a military invasion of a sovereign country? Doesn’t the United States itself have leaders who have been accused of international crimes? Don’t Chinese, Russian, and Saudi leaders also have controversial international criminal records? If we were to apply Trump’s logic consistently, we’d have wars raging all over the world all the time. What revolts me is the crass hypocrisy of this selective approach. Trump claims to defend international law while violating it in the most flagrant way possible. He uses the language of justice to justify what is fundamentally an act of pure and simple imperialism. And the worst part is that there is a segment of the American public that sincerely believes this fiction, cheering on this “police operation” as if it were an episode of the nation’s favorite crime drama.
Mixed International Reactions
The international reaction to Maduro’s capture and the announcement of the Donroe Doctrine has been deeply divided, reflecting current global geopolitical fault lines. On one hand, some right-wing governments in Latin America—such as Argentina under President Javier Milei and Ecuador under President Daniel Noboa—have hailed the intervention as a victory for freedom and democracy. Milei stated that this was excellent news for the free world, while Noboa called on Venezuelan opposition leaders to retake their country. These positive reactions reflect these governments’ longstanding hostility toward the Maduro regime, which they view as a corrupt dictatorship that stole the 2024 elections. For these governments, the U.S. intervention represents an opportunity to bring about regime change in Caracas without having to commit their own resources or risk negative domestic backlash.
In contrast, the majority of Latin American governments, including regional powers such as Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Chile, have strongly condemned the intervention as an unacceptable violation of international law. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva stated that the United States had crossed an unacceptable line, recalling the worst moments of interference in Latin American politics. Colombian President Gustavo Petro denounced the attack on the sovereignty of Venezuela and Latin America, while Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum condemned the military intervention, explicitly citing the United Nations Charter. China and Russia, two world powers with significant economic ties to Venezuela, also strongly condemned the intervention, with Beijing describing U.S. behavior as hegemonic and Moscow calling it an act of armed aggression. The European Union, for its part, adopted a more nuanced position, calling for respect for international law while emphasizing that Maduro lacked legitimacy.
What strikes me most about the international reactions is how clearly they reveal the geopolitical divisions of the contemporary world. On one side are governments that view the United States as a benevolent protector ready to intervene to defend democracy, even if that means violating national sovereignty. On the other, there are those who see this intervention as a manifestation of a new American imperialism that respects no international rules. What fills me with despair is that this division will only worsen over time, turning Latin America into a new Cold War battleground between the United States and its adversaries. My thoughts are with the Venezuelan civilians caught in the middle of this geopolitical conflict—those who have suffered under the Maduro regime and who may have hoped for change, but not in this way. U.S. intervention will not solve Venezuela’s fundamental problems; it will simply exacerbate them by adding another layer of complexity and instability. And when the United States eventually withdraws—as it inevitably will—it will leave behind a country even more shattered than before.
Section 5: The Economic Implications of the Intervention
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_71343805-optimized-madmax-mjzmc70u.jpeg)
Venezuela’s Oil Reserves as a Key Issue
Venezuela possesses the world’s largest proven oil reserves, estimated at over 300 billion barrels, making it a major geopolitical prize in a world that remains dependent on fossil fuels. However, decades of mismanagement, underinvestment, and international sanctions have reduced Venezuela’s oil production from more than 3 million barrels per day in the 1990s to less than 500,000 barrels per day in 2025, transforming what was once a regional energy powerhouse into an economy in ruins. Venezuela’s oil infrastructure, once a source of national pride, is in an advanced state of disrepair, requiring massive and sustained investment to restore it to its former capacity. It is against this backdrop that Trump announced that major U.S. oil companies would step in to rehabilitate the infrastructure and exploit the reserves, with the explicit implication that the revenues generated would be used to finance the U.S. occupation.
Oil industry experts warn that restoring Venezuelan production will take years, if not decades, and will require investments of tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars. The oil fields in the Orinoco Belt, where most of Venezuela’s reserves are located, present significant technical and environmental challenges, as the oil is extra-heavy and requires advanced technologies to be extracted and refined. Furthermore, the unstable political situation and potential resistance from the local population could create a risky investment environment for U.S. companies. Critics have pointed out parallels with the 2003 invasion of Iraq, when the Bush administration promised that Iraqi oil revenues would fund reconstruction, whereas the reality was massive costs for the American taxpayer and years of instability. Trump has insisted that the occupation of Venezuela will not cost us a penny because it will be funded by the money coming out of the ground—a statement that echoes the Bush administration’s broken promises.
There is a bitter irony in the way Trump presents the intervention in Venezuela as an undertaking that will cost American taxpayers nothing. Venezuelan oil is presented as a treasure that will pay for everything, as if a country’s natural resources could simply be seized without any human or moral consequences. I think of the Venezuelan oil workers who have seen their industry destroyed by years of corruption and incompetence, who perhaps hoped that their country might one day regain its prosperity. Instead, they are watching their national heritage being handed over to foreign companies as a reward for a military invasion. What repulses me is this purely transactional view of natural resources, as if oil had no value beyond the profits it can generate for American companies. Trump speaks of oil as if it were merely a consumer good, forgetting that this resource belongs to the Venezuelan people and should be used for their benefit, not to finance a foreign military occupation.
The Implications for Global Energy Markets
U.S. intervention in Venezuela and the announcement that U.S. oil companies would take control of the national oil industry have potentially major implications for global energy markets. The United States has already become the world’s leading oil producer thanks to the shale oil revolution, and adding Venezuelan reserves to its sphere of influence would further consolidate its dominance over the global energy market. Oil industry analysts predict that if Venezuelan production were restored to its historic levels of 3 million barrels per day, it could put downward pressure on global oil prices, with implications for the budgets of other producers such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Nigeria. This prospect is of particular concern to OPEC members, who have long viewed Venezuela as a potential ally in their efforts to stabilize global prices.
However, the short-term effects of the intervention are likely to be increased volatility in global oil markets, as investors react to the political and geopolitical uncertainty created by the military operation. In fact, oil prices surged by more than 15% in the days following the announcement of Maduro’s capture, reflecting concerns about the stability of global energy supplies. Countries dependent on oil imports, particularly in Asia and Europe, fear that the U.S. intervention signals a return to a more aggressive energy policy that could affect their own supplies. China, in particular—the world’s largest oil importer—has expressed serious concerns about the security of its energy supplies and has called for stability in global energy markets. Experts warn that if U.S. intervention in Venezuela were to lead to a significant reorientation of oil trade flows, it could have long-term implications for the architecture of global energy markets.
I look at the oil price charts with a sense of vertigo, wondering how many human lives will be affected by these fluctuations of just a few percent on international markets. For Trump and his allies in the oil industry, Venezuela is nothing more than a strategic game, a territory to be conquered on the grand chessboard of global energy power. But for the millions of people in developing countries who depend on oil imports, these price changes can mean the difference between having enough to eat and going hungry, between having access to healthcare and being denied it. What fills me with despair is the total disconnect between the decisions made by political leaders and their real-world consequences on the lives of ordinary people. Trump talks about energy dominance as if it were a video game where all it takes is the push of a button to control a new resource. He seems completely blind to the complex chains of interdependence that link global economies, and to the inevitable collateral damage of this imperialist approach. And when everything goes wrong—as it inevitably will—it will be the most vulnerable populations who will pay the price.
Section 6: The Threat to World Peace
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_558435556780-optimized-madmax-mjzmca42.jpeg)
The Risk of Escalation with China and Russia
U.S. intervention in Venezuela poses a direct challenge to the interests of China and Russia, two global powers that have developed significant economic and political ties with the Maduro government in recent years. China has become the leading buyer of Venezuelan oil and has granted massive loans to the government in Caracas in exchange for access to the country’s natural resources, estimated at more than $60 billion. Russia, for its part, has provided military and political support to the Maduro regime, notably through the oil company Rosneft, which has invested heavily in Venezuela’s oil sector. Moscow has also sent military advisers and equipment to Venezuela, although the exact nature and extent of this support are the subject of debate among experts. For Beijing and Moscow, U.S. intervention represents not only a direct threat to their economic investments but also a dangerous precedent under which the United States can intervene militarily in countries where China and Russia have strategic interests.
Geopolitical analysts warn that U.S. intervention in Venezuela could prompt China and Russia to adopt similar stances within their own spheres of influence—particularly regarding Taiwan for China and Ukraine for Russia. China considers Taiwan a breakaway province and has never ruled out the use of force to reintegrate it, while Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and supports separatists in eastern Ukraine. If the United States can intervene militarily in Venezuela to protect its strategic interests, China and Russia could invoke a similar rationale to justify interventions in Taiwan or Ukraine. This prospect is of particular concern to European and Asian diplomats, who fear an increase in regional conflicts and a fragmentation of the international order. The Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy document explicitly states that the United States will deny non-hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to possess or control strategic assets in the region—a statement that is directly interpreted as a warning to China and Russia.
When I hear Trump speak of China and Russia as non-hemispheric competitors that must be prevented from deploying forces in the region, I shudder at the implications of this logic. It seems we are returning to an era of clearly delineated spheres of influence, where each great power claims the exclusive right to control its own backyard. What terrifies me is how easily this logic can lead to direct conflicts between the great powers. Could China decide that the United States has become too present in East Asia and that it must intervene to protect its interests? Could Russia view NATO’s expansion as a direct threat justifying preemptive military intervention? Trump seems to be playing an extremely dangerous game with world peace, as if he believed the United States could impose its will anywhere in the world without consequences. I have this grim feeling that we are heading toward a new Cold War—or worse, toward a direct conflict between the major powers, the consequences of which would be catastrophic for all of humanity.
The Threat to the Rules-Based International Order
U.S. intervention in Venezuela without the authorization of the United Nations Security Council represents a direct challenge to the rules-based international order that has developed since the end of World War II. This order, though far from perfect, has provided a framework for resolving international conflicts, promoting cooperation, and limiting the use of force in relations between states. The United Nations Charter, signed in 1945, is the cornerstone of this order, establishing the fundamental principle that states must refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. By intervening militarily in Venezuela without the authorization of the Security Council, the United States has violated this fundamental principle, setting a dangerous precedent whereby military force can be used unilaterally to achieve political objectives.
Diplomats and experts in international relations warn that this precedent could have devastating consequences for international stability, encouraging other powers to resort to force to resolve their disputes with their neighbors. The European Union’s ambassador to the United Nations stated that the intervention undermines the fundamental principles of international law and sends a troubling message to the world’s smaller states. Countries such as Indonesia, South Africa, and Mexico have all issued statements expressing deep concern over the violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and calling for respect for international law. The United Nations Secretary-General called for restraint and emphasized that the use of force can only be justified strictly within the framework of international law—a statement clearly directed against U.S. action. Experts fear that the intervention in Venezuela may mark the beginning of an era of international destabilization in which every major power feels free to intervene militarily wherever its interests are threatened.
My thoughts go out to all the small nations of the world that are watching what is happening in Venezuela with dread. For decades, they believed that the rules-based international order would protect them from the arbitrary actions of the great powers. Today, they see the world’s greatest power openly violating these rules without any apparent consequences. What message does this send to small, vulnerable states? That national sovereignty is only worth something if you are strong enough to defend it? That the great powers can do whatever they want while others must obey the rules? What fills me with despair is the loss of trust in international institutions that has resulted from this intervention. The United Nations was supposed to be the impartial arbiter of international conflicts, but it has proven powerless in the face of unilateral action by the United States. How can we hope to resolve complex global challenges such as climate change, pandemics, or nuclear proliferation if the major powers do not respect the fundamental rules of international law?
Section 7: The Question of Democratic Legitimacy
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_410436161-optimized-madmax-mjzmcd7b.jpeg)
The Controversial 2024 Election in Venezuela
The 2024 Venezuelan presidential election was the subject of intense controversy, both nationally and internationally, with allegations of widespread fraud from the opposition and numerous foreign governments. The government officially declared Nicolás Maduro the winner with 52% of the vote, while the opposition, led by María Corina Machado, claimed that its candidate, Edmundo González Urrutia, had received approximately 70% of the vote. International election observation organizations such as the European Union and the Organization of American States stated that the elections did not meet international standards of freedom and fairness, citing irregularities in the voting process, the exclusion of opposition candidates, and government control of the media. The Trump administration used these allegations of election fraud as further justification for intervention, asserting that Maduro lacked democratic legitimacy and that the United States had a duty to support the will of the Venezuelan people.
However, many experts on electoral politics have pointed out that the 2024 Venezuelan elections, while imperfect, were not fundamentally different from many elections in other countries around the world, including some U.S. allies. The allegations of fraud were never independently verified by credible third parties, and conflicting reports from various observer organizations created considerable confusion as to what actually happened during the election. The Venezuelan opposition itself was divided on the issue of participating in the elections, with some groups calling for a boycott and others contesting the results after the fact. Critics of U.S. intervention have emphasized that even if the elections were not perfectly free and fair, this did not give the United States the right to intervene militarily to change the regime—a fundamental violation of the principle of self-determination of peoples enshrined in the United Nations Charter.
I have deeply mixed feelings about the question of Maduro’s democratic legitimacy. On the one hand, it is clear that his government has committed serious human rights violations and has undermined Venezuela’s democratic institutions. The allegations of electoral fraud are plausible given the history of his regime. But on the other hand, am I really willing to accept that the United States should become the global arbiter of democracy, deciding which governments are legitimate and which are not? Who gave Washington the right to act as judge and jury in the internal affairs of other nations? And if a future U.S. government itself is accused of electoral fraud—as happened in 2020—would China or Russia have the right to intervene to restore democracy? This logic leads to a world where the very notion of national sovereignty loses all meaning. Venezuelans should be the ones to decide their political future, even if that means choosing leaders whose methods or policies we disapprove of.
The Democratic Alternative Within Venezuela
Despite government repression and internal divisions, the Venezuelan opposition has maintained a significant political presence and has continued to organize protests and acts of resistance against the Maduro regime. María Corina Machado, an opposition leader and recipient of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for her nonviolent efforts in support of democracy, has become an iconic figure of the Venezuelan resistance. However, Trump has publicly rejected the idea of working with Machado, stating that she lacks the domestic support or respect necessary to lead Venezuela. This statement surprised many international observers who viewed Machado as the main credible democratic alternative to Maduro and as the likely choice of a majority of Venezuelans if free and fair elections were held.
Trump’s refusal to support Machado raises serious questions about the true intentions behind U.S. intervention and about Venezuela’s political future. If the United States does not intend to support the existing democratic opposition, whom do they plan to put in place of Maduro? Some analysts have suggested that the Trump administration might seek to install a pro-American puppet government composed of business-friendly technocrats, rather than allowing for a genuine democratic process. Others have speculated that the United States might seek to divide Venezuela, perhaps by encouraging separatist movements in resource-rich regions such as the state of Zulia or the Paraguaná Peninsula. Venezuelan opposition leaders have expressed concern about these scenarios, insisting that any transition process must be led by the Venezuelans themselves and reflect the genuine will of the Venezuelan people.
When Trump dismissed María Corina Machado as lacking the necessary support to lead Venezuela, I felt a wave of dismay. Machado has risked her life to defend democracy in her country; she has survived assassination attempts; she has been imprisoned and tortured; and she has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her courage. For Trump, this heroism doesn’t count; all that matters is his own subjective assessment of the support she enjoys. What revolts me is the arrogance of an American leader who believes he can judge which Venezuelans are legitimate and which are not, without having experienced even a single day of the reality of this people’s lives. Trump claims to want to restore democracy in Venezuela, yet he rejects the country’s leading democratic figure. Is this really about democracy, or simply the search for a compliant government that will serve American interests? I fear terribly that it is the latter, and that the Venezuelan people will go from one dictatorship to another—this time under American domination.
Section 8: Historical Lessons from Interventionism
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_265506859-optimized-madmax-mjzmcgaf.jpeg)
Historical Precedents: Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan
U.S. intervention in Venezuela must be analyzed in light of historical precedents for foreign military interventions, notably the 1989 invasion of Panama to depose General Manuel Noriega, the 2003 invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, and the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan following the September 11 attacks. Each of these interventions was justified at the time by specific moral and legal arguments, but each also led to unintended and often devastating consequences. The invasion of Panama, while successful in capturing Noriega and bringing him to trial in the United States, caused thousands of civilian deaths and left Panama deeply traumatized. The invasion of Iraq, based on false or exaggerated claims of weapons of mass destruction, led to years of instability, the rise of the Islamic State, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
The invasion of Afghanistan, though justified by the need to dismantle al-Qaeda after the September 11 attacks, turned into a twenty-year occupation that claimed the lives of more than 2,400 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of Afghans, with an uncertain final outcome following the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. troops in 2021. In each of these cases, the United States entered these countries with optimistic plans to establish stable, pro-American governments, but underestimated the complexity of local societies and the resistance to foreign occupation. The case of Panama is particularly relevant to Venezuela because it was also an intervention aimed at capturing a head of state accused of drug trafficking. However, unlike in Panama, where Noriega was relatively isolated and hated by the population, Maduro still enjoys some support within the armed forces and among segments of the population, which could make a U.S. occupation much more difficult and protracted.
I am thinking of the lessons we should have learned from these past interventions, but which we seem doomed to relearn with each new generation. Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan: in each case, the United States entered with confidence, convinced that it could reshape a foreign society in its own image. In each case, they underestimated local resistance, cultural complexity, and the unintended consequences of their actions. And in each case, the final outcome fell far short of the initial objectives. Why should we think Venezuela will be any different? Trump seems to believe he can avoid the mistakes of the past simply because he is, in his own view, smarter and more capable than his predecessors. This arrogance is terrifying. History does not forgive those who refuse to learn from it, and the lessons of U.S. interventionism are clear and painful. Every intervention creates new problems while rarely solving the ones it claimed to address. Venezuela will be no exception.
The Human and Economic Costs of Occupation
Historical U.S. military occupations have entailed massive human and economic costs, both for the occupied countries and for the United States itself. In Iraq, the direct costs of the war and occupation have exceeded $2 trillion according to some estimates, not counting indirect costs such as veterans’ care and interest on the war debt. In Afghanistan, the United States has spent approximately $825 billion over twenty years of occupation, without succeeding in establishing a stable government capable of surviving the U.S. withdrawal. On a human level, these occupations have caused hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, millions of displaced people, and intergenerational trauma that continues to affect these societies years after the fighting ended. American veterans of these wars continue to suffer from high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder, homelessness, and suicide.
Experts warn that an occupation of Venezuela could be even more costly and complicated than previous interventions, given the country’s size, its population of over 28 million, its challenging geography, and the presence of both pro-government and opposition armed groups. The direct costs of a prolonged occupation could easily reach hundreds of billions of dollars, even though Trump has insisted that the occupation will not cost a penny because it would be funded by Venezuela’s oil resources. The human costs could be even more devastating, with potential civilian casualties resulting from fighting, food and medicine shortages caused by economic upheaval, and political reprisals. International humanitarian organizations have already expressed concern about the situation of Venezuelan civilians, estimating that millions of people could be displaced by the fighting and that Venezuela’s already failing healthcare system could collapse completely under the pressure of the occupation.
When I hear Trump say that the occupation of Venezuela will cost American taxpayers nothing, I feel this cold anger rising within me. Nothing? Absolutely nothing? What about the thousands of Venezuelans who will die from bombings, fighting, hunger, and disease? Don’t their lives count in this equation? And what about the thousands of American soldiers who will return with broken bodies and shattered minds? Doesn’t their suffering count either? Trump seems to view military occupations as simple financial transactions, where inputs and outputs can be easily calculated and where profits always outweigh losses. But the reality of military occupations is far darker and more complex. They destroy lives, families, and entire communities. They leave scars that last for generations. And contrary to what Trump claims, the costs are always paid in the end—either by American taxpayers, by local populations, or by both.
Section 9: The Venezuelan Resistance and the Future Outlook
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_871234764-optimized-madmax-mjzmcjd9.jpeg)
The Response of the Venezuelan Government and Armed Forces
Maduro’s capture has plunged the Venezuelan government into a major institutional crisis, but the structures of the state and the armed forces have not disappeared as a result. Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, appointed interim president by the Venezuelan Supreme Court, immediately condemned what she called a kidnapping and asserted that Maduro remained the sole president of Venezuela. The Venezuelan armed forces, which have long been a pillar of the Maduro regime, appear divided in their loyalty. Some elements, particularly in the air force and navy, may be in favor of a political transition, while others, notably in the National Guard and special forces, remain loyal to the regime. The Trump administration has claimed that the Venezuelan armed forces were neutralized during the operation, but conflicting reports suggest that the military situation remains fluid and potentially unstable.
Loyalist paramilitary groups, often called colectivos, which have served as a repressive force for the Maduro regime, could pose a significant threat to U.S. occupation forces. These groups, armed and funded by the government, have extensive experience in urban guerrilla warfare and could wage insurgency campaigns against U.S. forces, turning the occupation of Venezuela into a protracted and bloody war. Furthermore, there is a risk of ethnic and regional fragmentation, as certain groups may take advantage of the chaos to demand greater autonomy. Federal states such as Zulia, Táchira, and Amazonas—which have distinct regional identities and significant resources—could seek to exploit the situation to gain more autonomy or even independence, which could lead to a full-scale civil war. Regional diplomats fear that Venezuela’s instability could spread to neighboring countries, particularly Colombia, Brazil, and the Caribbean, creating a major regional crisis.
My thoughts are with the Venezuelan soldiers and police officers who now find themselves in an impossible situation. On the one hand, they have sworn allegiance to the constitution and the military. On the other, their president has been captured by a foreign power and their country is under occupation. What are they to do? Obey the orders of the interim government, which is calling on them to resist the occupation? Or surrender to U.S. forces and risk being accused of treason? And what about the colectivos—those paramilitary groups that have terrorized working-class neighborhoods for years—will they now become heroes of the national resistance in the eyes of some? The situation is so complex and fraught with moral dilemmas that it is difficult to know which path would be the right one to take. What fills me with despair is that no matter what choice Venezuelans make, they will be the ones to pay the price. Policy makers in Washington, Caracas, Moscow, and Beijing can continue to play their grand geopolitical game, but it is the ordinary people on the ground who will suffer the consequences.
The Perspective of the Venezuelan Civilian Population
The Venezuelan civilian population, which has already suffered immensely for years from economic crisis, hyperinflation, and shortages, now faces a new and devastating ordeal: the military occupation of their country by a foreign power. Venezuelans’ reactions to the U.S. intervention are deeply divided, reflecting the political and social rifts already present in society. Some, particularly among the political opposition and the urban middle classes, have welcomed the news with relief and hope, seeing Maduro’s capture as an opportunity to end the dictatorship and restore democracy. Celebrations broke out in some neighborhoods of Caracas and other cities, where people took to the streets to express their joy at the fall of the leader they blame for their suffering.
However, other segments of the population, particularly among the working class and loyal Chavistas, reacted with anger and distrust, viewing the U.S. intervention as imperialist aggression and a violation of national sovereignty. For these Venezuelans, even though they may criticize certain aspects of the Maduro regime, the capture of the elected president by a foreign power is unacceptable and evokes the dark chapters of Latin American history in which the United States supported military dictatorships. Human rights organizations have expressed deep concern for the safety of Venezuelan civilians, fearing that fighting between U.S. forces and loyalist resistance fighters could result in massive civilian casualties. Furthermore, the already critical humanitarian situation in Venezuela could worsen considerably due to supply chain disruptions caused by the occupation, exacerbating shortages of food, medicine, and other essential goods.
When I see images of Venezuelans celebrating in the streets, I feel this complex mix of understanding and bewilderment. I understand their relief after years of suffering under a brutal and incompetent regime. I understand their hope that this intervention might bring about positive change. But I can’t help but wonder if they truly understand what they’re celebrating. Do they sincerely believe that the United States has come to liberate their country? Have they forgotten the history of U.S. interventionism in Latin America? And when the Americans leave—as they inevitably will—what will remain of Venezuela? A country in ruins, divided, traumatized, and even more dependent on foreign powers than before. What breaks my heart is the thought that these people’s sincere hopes will likely be betrayed once again, as they have been so often in the tragic history of this magnificently beautiful yet constantly troubled region.
Section 10: Implications for U.S.-Latin American Relations
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_274889956-optimized-madmax-mjzmcmgi.jpeg)
The Return of the Specter of U.S. Interventionism
The intervention in Venezuela marks the explicit return of U.S. interventionism in Latin America after several decades of relative restraint. Since the end of the drug wars in Central America in the 1980s and 1990s, the United States had largely avoided direct military interventions in the region, generally contenting itself with applying economic and diplomatic pressure rather than military force. The 1989 invasion of Panama to oust Manuel Noriega was the last major example of direct U.S. military intervention in Latin America. The announcement of the Donroe Doctrine and the occupation of Venezuela therefore represent a radical shift in the U.S. approach, signaling a return to a more aggressive policy of regional domination through military force.
This resurgence of U.S. interventionism sent a diplomatic shockwave throughout Latin America, where governments of all political persuasions reacted with deep concern. Even traditionally pro-American governments such as Colombia and Mexico condemned the intervention, fearing it would set a dangerous precedent for the sovereignty of all countries in the region. Regional organizations such as the Organization of American States and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States convened emergency sessions to discuss the crisis but proved divided on the appropriate response. This division reflects the deep-seated tensions within Latin America regarding relations with the United States, between those who see Washington as a potential partner in resolving regional problems and those who view it as a persistent threat to regional sovereignty and autonomy.
There is a profound sadness in the way Latin America seems doomed to relive the same traumas over and over again. The 1970s and 1980s saw U.S.-backed military dictatorships terrorize entire populations. The 1990s saw neoliberal policies imposed by Washington destroy the region’s economies. And now, instead of moving toward a relationship of partnership and mutual respect, we are returning to direct military interventionism. What fills me with despair is that every Latin American generation seems to have to learn the hard way that the United States is not a benevolent friend but a power that defends its own interests above all else. I experienced this through the eyes of my mother, who saw her friends disappear under U.S.-backed dictatorships. And today, I see the same fear in the eyes of my own generation. When will we stop being pawns on the chessboard of the great powers?
Regional Polarization and New Geopolitical Alignments
U.S. intervention in Venezuela is causing major polarization within Latin America, with countries taking a clear stance for or against U.S. action. On one side are right-wing governments that have welcomed the intervention, such as Javier Milei’s Argentina, Daniel Noboa’s Ecuador, and José Raúl Mulino’s Panama. These governments view the United States as a natural ally in their fight against what they consider to be the authoritarian left-wing regimes that have dominated regional politics over the past two decades. On the other hand, there are left-wing and progressive governments—such as Lula’s Brazil, Gustavo Petro’s Colombia, Claudia Sheinbaum’s Mexico, and Gabriel Boric’s Chile—which have strongly condemned the intervention as a violation of international law and a threat to regional sovereignty.
This regional polarization could have long-term consequences for Latin American integration and for regional organizations such as MERCOSUR and the Pacific Alliance. Divisions between pro-American and anti-American countries could make cooperation on important issues such as trade, security, and sustainable development difficult. Furthermore, some countries may seek to strengthen their ties with other global powers, such as China and Russia, in response to what they perceive as a U.S. threat. China has already signed major trade agreements with several Latin American countries and has invested heavily in the region’s infrastructure as part of its Belt and Road Initiative. If U.S. intervention in Venezuela leads to intensified geopolitical competition in Latin America, it could turn the region into a new battleground in the modern Cold War, with potentially devastating consequences for regional stability.
I watch as the map of Latin America splits into two camps, and I feel that dizzying sensation one experiences when history repeats itself. On one side are the governments that believe the United States can be a partner in building a better future. On the other, those who see Washington as the ultimate existential threat to their sovereignty and dignity. This division is not new; it has characterized relations between Latin America and the United States for more than two centuries. But what strikes me today is the intensity of this polarization, the way it seems to be intensifying rather than easing over time. I am thinking of the younger generations in Latin America who are growing up in this divided world, who are learning to view their neighbors not as partners but as potential enemies based on their position within this grand geopolitical alignment. How can we build a future of prosperity and regional peace when we are so deeply divided over our relationship with the power that dominates our continent?
Section 11: Implications for U.S. Domestic Policy
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_365396441-optimized-madmax-mjzmcpjp.jpeg)
Political Divisions Over the Intervention
The intervention in Venezuela has caused significant divisions within American politics, reflecting existing tensions between different factions of the Republican Party and differences with the Democrats. Within the Republican Party, some traditional conservatives have expressed concern about the intervention, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who stated on social media that this is what many in the MAGA movement thought they had voted to end. Were we wrong? This reaction reflects the tension between the isolationist wing of the MAGA movement, which opposes costly foreign interventions, and the interventionist wing, which supports an aggressive foreign policy. Democrats, for their part, have widely condemned the intervention as a violation of international law and a threat to world peace, although some moderates have expressed relief at Maduro’s downfall.
Democratic senators expressed concern over the lack of consultation with Congress prior to the intervention, pointing out that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. Senator Chris Murphy stated that the president cannot simply bomb a sovereign country and kidnap its head of state without congressional authorization, while Senator Elizabeth Warren pointed out that the intervention sets a dangerous precedent that could be used against the United States in the future. Public opinion polls show that Americans are deeply divided over the intervention in Venezuela, with a slight majority expressing support for the action but widespread concerns about the costs and potential consequences. This political division makes it difficult to form a national consensus on the future of the occupation and could complicate efforts to secure long-term funding for military operations and the reconstruction of Venezuela.
I watch the political debates in the United States with the melancholy detachment of someone observing a family tearing itself apart. Republicans are squabbling among themselves over whether intervention in Venezuela aligns with their principles, as if principles could be tailored at will to justify any action. Democrats criticize Trump’s actions but seem unable to propose a coherent alternative. And the American public, as usual, is largely indifferent to the geopolitical implications of what is happening, as long as it does not directly affect their daily lives. What fills me with despair is seeing just how disconnected the American political process has become from the reality of the rest of the world. Decisions made in Washington have devastating consequences for millions of people thousands of kilometers away, but these consequences seem to carry no weight in the political calculations of American leaders. How can we hope for a just international order when the dominant superpower is itself so deeply divided and so blind to the effects of its actions?
Implications for the 2026 Midterm Elections
The intervention in Venezuela is likely to become a major issue in the U.S. midterm elections in November 2026, when control of both houses of Congress will be at stake. Democrats hope to use the controversy surrounding the intervention to mobilize their electoral base, which is critical of Trump’s aggressive foreign policy approach and his disregard for international law. They may also try to link the intervention to voters’ economic concerns by highlighting the potential costs of the occupation and challenging Trump’s claim that the occupation will not cost a penny. Republicans, for their part, will likely campaign in favor of the intervention, presenting it as a necessary and successful action to protect American interests and promote democracy in the Western Hemisphere.
However, polls suggest that domestic economic concerns such as inflation and the cost of living remain voters’ top priorities, which could limit the electoral impact of foreign policy. Trump has historically used international crises to bolster his image as a strong and decisive leader, and the intervention in Venezuela could play a similar role in the 2026 elections. However, if the occupation drags on and the human and financial costs rise significantly, it could become a political liability for Republicans. Past electoral defeats linked to prolonged military interventions—notably during the 2006 elections in the midst of the Iraq War—serve as a warning about the political risks of a poorly managed occupation. The outcome of the 2026 elections could therefore depend largely on how the situation in Venezuela unfolds and on public perception of the intervention’s success or failure.
When I think about the 2026 U.S. elections, I feel a deep weariness at the way American politics turns everything—even wars and human suffering—into abstract power games. The intervention in Venezuela, which has already caused so much death and destruction, will likely become a campaign issue in TV ads and political debates, with images of destruction or victory used to promote candidates. What repulses me is this systematic dehumanization of politics, where the lives of ordinary people count only as points in opinion polls or as statistics in campaign reports. American voters will cast their ballots based on their feelings about the intervention without ever having seen a single image of bodies torn apart by bombs, without ever having heard the cries of mothers who have lost their children, without ever having felt the hunger and terror of people living under occupation. This disconnect between those who make the decisions and those who suffer the consequences is the defining feature of our current political system, and I don’t see how it could ever be overcome.
Conclusion: Lessons from a Historic Turning Point
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_914196192-optimized-madmax-mjzmcsmy.jpeg)
The Urgency of a Return to Multilateralism
U.S. intervention in Venezuela and the announcement of the Donroe Doctrine represent a historic turning point in international relations, marking a return to unilateralism and imperialism that many believed had been consigned to the past. In this context, there is an urgent need to reaffirm the principles of multilateralism and the rules-based international order that emerged after World War II. The United Nations, despite its current limitations, remains the most legitimate framework for resolving international conflicts and promoting cooperation among nations. The international community must work together to clearly condemn violations of international law and to develop more effective mechanisms for conflict prevention and the peaceful resolution of disputes. Regional organizations such as the Organization of American States must also be strengthened to play a more active role in promoting dialogue and cooperation in the Western Hemisphere.
Today’s global challenges—from climate change and pandemics to nuclear proliferation and economic inequality—require close international cooperation rather than competition among major powers. U.S. intervention in Venezuela risks diverting attention and resources away from these urgent global challenges, turning Latin America into a new battleground in the modern Cold War. European, Asian, and African diplomatic communities must work with their Latin American counterparts to promote a multilateral approach to the Venezuelan crisis, based on dialogue, negotiation, and respect for national sovereignty. Only collective and coordinated efforts can prevent intervention in Venezuela from becoming the prelude to a new era of instability and international conflict.
When I look at today’s world, with its deep divisions and existential challenges, I am haunted by this question: Will we learn from history, or are we doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again? The intervention in Venezuela and the Monroe Doctrine are the product of the very same arrogance that led to the catastrophes of the past—the conviction that a power can impose its will by force without lasting consequences. But history teaches us a different lesson: brute force always creates more problems than it solves; it breeds resistance, resentment, and ultimately rejection. Empires that believed they could dominate the world by force have all collapsed, and the American empire will be no exception if it continues down this path. What gives me a fragile hope is the resilience of the people—their ability to survive and resist even in the darkest of circumstances. The Venezuelan people are enduring a terrifying ordeal, but they are not alone. Millions of people around the world stand in solidarity with them, and this solidarity is the true force that can ultimately defeat imperialism. We must continue to believe that another world is possible—a world based on mutual respect, cooperation, and justice, not on domination and brute force.
Collective Responsibility for the Future
The crisis in Venezuela and the emergence of the Monroe Doctrine confront us with fundamental questions about our collective responsibility as global citizens. We cannot simply stand by passively while the fundamental principles of international law are violated and the lives of ordinary people are destroyed by decisions made far from them. Each of us has a small but significant responsibility to contribute to building a more just and peaceful world. This may mean staying informed about international issues, voicing our concerns to our political representatives, supporting humanitarian organizations working on the ground, or simply refusing to accept simplistic narratives that justify violence and interventionism. The information revolution and global connectivity give us tools that previous generations did not have to organize resistance and promote alternatives.
Venezuela will not be the last test of our commitment to a just international order. Other crises will arise, other interventions will be proposed, and other doctrines will be formulated to justify the use of force. The question we face today—collectively and individually—is which side of history we want to be on. Will we accept a return to a world of spheres of influence and imperial domination, or will we fight for a world of equal, sovereign nations cooperating peacefully? The answer to this question will determine not only the future of Venezuela, but the future of all humanity. The time has come to choose, and this choice will have consequences that will reverberate for generations.
I conclude this article with the sobering yet necessary realization that we are living through a pivotal moment in history—a moment when the choices we make today will shape the world in which our children and grandchildren will live. The Monroe Doctrine is not merely a foreign policy; it is a statement of what the United States believes to be its place in the world and how it intends to treat other nations. But it is also a test for the rest of us: will we accept this worldview, or will we oppose it? I have chosen my side—the side of resistance to imperialism in all its forms, the side of solidarity with oppressed peoples, the side of faith in a future where might no longer makes right. I know this path will be difficult, that there will be setbacks and disappointments, but I also know that there is no other path worth taking. History will not repeat itself if we refuse to let it.
Sources
Primary sources
Bfmtv.com – Nicolás Maduro’s Capture: What Is the Donroe Doctrine, Which Donald Trump Is Using to Take an Aggressive Stance Against His Opponents? – Published January 4, 2026
Usatoday.com – Trump calls the Monroe Doctrine the ‘Donroe Doctrine’ after the Venezuela raid – Published January 3, 2026
Reuters.com – Trump says U.S. will run Venezuela after U.S. captures Maduro – Published January 4, 2026
Aljazeera.com – World reacts to U.S. bombing of Venezuela, ‘capture’ of Maduro – Published January 3, 2026
Secondary Sources
History.state.gov – Monroe Doctrine, 1823 – U.S. Office of the Historian
Archives.gov – Monroe Doctrine (1823) – National Archives
Archives.gov – Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, 1904 – National Archives
Warontherocks.com – The Many Faces of the Monroe Doctrine – Published in December 2023
Foreignpolicy.com – Let the Monroe Doctrine Die – Published in May 2019
This content was created with the help of AI.
