What is the "Donroe Doctrine"?

I'm Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today’s read: 15 minutes.

What we got wrong.

On Friday, we published our annual edition analyzing our work from the previous year. This time, we split it into two parts — reflecting on 2025’s biggest stories, reviewing our takes, and grading our commentary. You can read Part 1 here and Part 2 here.

Quick hits.

1. The U.S. attorney’s office in the District of Columbia opened a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell over his testimony to Congress about the renovation to the central bank’s Washington, D.C. headquarters. Powell described the investigation as an attempt by the Trump administration to pressure the Federal Reserve into lowering interest rates; President Trump denied any involvement in the case. (The investigation)
2. Human rights organizations reported that the death toll from Iran’s nationwide protests rose to at least 544 over the weekend. President Trump is reportedly considering a range of options to respond to the crackdown, including military strikes, cyberattacks, and delivering aid to protesters. (The latest)
3. The Labor Department reported that U.S. employers added 50,000 jobs in December, fewer than economists expected. The unemployment rate decreased slightly to 4.4%, and October and November payrolls were revised lower by 76,000. (The numbers)
4. The U.S. military carried out airstrikes targeting multiple Islamic State sites in Syria, the second such operation in the past month. (The strikes)
5. Former Rep. Mary Peltola (D-AK) announced her campaign for the U.S. Senate in the 2026 midterms. Peltola is challenging incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan (R). (The announcement)

Today’s topic.

Trump’s strategy in the Western Hemisphere. Since the start of his second term, President Donald Trump has prioritized the United States’s influence in the Western Hemisphere, often antagonizing nearby countries and seeking to increase control of critical resources. Last week, after the U.S. captured and arrested Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Trump and his top officials threatened Cuba, Colombia, and Mexico with similar military action and renewed his focus on acquiring Greenland. 

Back up: The second Trump administration’s National Security Strategy, released in November, offers a “‘Trump corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine” that calls for strengthening partnerships between the U.S. and other Western Hemisphere nations while preventing “hostile” foreign influence. After the Maduro operation, President Trump referred to this mandate as the “Donroe Doctrine.”

We covered the new National Security Strategy document here. 

In the week since Maduro’s capture, President Trump has demanded that Venezuela’s interim government — led by Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez — cooperate with the U.S. in extracting and selling oil from its national reserves. “We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need,” Trump said. Since early December, the U.S. military has pursued and seized five oil tankers near Venezuela, alleging that the ships were attempting to evade U.S. sanctions. Trump said the U.S. will sell the oil from the seized vessels. 

The Trump administration has sought investment from U.S. oil companies to revitalize Venezuela’s oil industry, though oil executives have expressed uncertainty about the plan. ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods said Venezuela is “uninvestable” without major changes to its commercial frameworks and the legal system, concerns echoed by ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance. Trump administration officials suggested the government could offer financial assistance or incentives to companies that invest. 

Separately, on Sunday, January 4, President Trump criticized Colombian President Gustavo Petro and implied the U.S. could take military action against his government over its purported complicity in exporting drugs from the country. Colombia’s Foreign Ministry sharply criticized the comments; the leaders subsequently spoke on the phone and announced plans for a meeting at the White House in February. 

Finally, President Trump has further discussed acquiring Greenland via sale or military action. Trump previously said he believes Greenland is a vital national security interest for the U.S., citing its mineral resources and strategic geographic positioning. Greenland’s political leaders rebuked the comments and affirmed their desire for an independent identity. Separately, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said that U.S. military action to control the territory would be the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 

Today, we’ll break down the Trump administration’s actions in the Western Hemisphere, with views from the right and left. Then, Executive Editor Isaac Saul gives his take. 

What the right is saying.

• The right is mixed on Trump’s foreign policy, though many see it as a bold reassertion of U.S. influence. 
• Some suggest the Donroe Doctrine could destabilize South America in the long run.
• Others say the strategy carries equal risk and reward. 

In The American Mind, J. Michael Waller explored “the ‘Donroe Doctrine’ in action.”

“The administration’s move to take Maduro now allows Trump to exert unanticipated leverage over both Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. CCP war planners almost certainly never thought the U.S. would depose Maduro. Xi is unlikely to invade Taiwan under these new conditions, and Trump’s dominance over China’s oil supply can dent Xi’s seeming invincibility as party leader and the patron of the Global South, which is already bleeding,” Waller wrote. “Beijing buys as much oil as it can that is not subject to American pressure — oil that cannot be sold just anywhere because it is sanctioned, so it’s unloaded at a heavy discount.”

“There are even more wins for Trump and mankind we should consider. First, the Chinese and Russian efforts to destroy the petrodollar, through BRICS and other means, will suffer. If the U.S. steers its policies properly, Venezuela and Iran will revert to selling their oil only in American dollars, and not Chinese yuan,” Waller said. “Second, these changes will enable China to squeeze Russia. Some might argue that China should not offset its losses of discounted Iranian and Venezuelan oil by importing more from Russia. But after losing access to discounted crude from Iran and Venezuela and being forced to pay full price in U.S. dollars, China will have more leverage to demand steeper discounts from Russia.”

In The Free Press, Kenneth Rogoff asked “can the ‘Donroe Doctrine’ make South America better off?”

“South America is so much more important economically than the Venezuelan oil that Trump wants U.S. companies to take control of. Copper, lithium, and uranium, not to mention tropical medicines and extraordinary biodiversity, are all just tastes of what the continent has to offer,” Rogoff wrote. “Now, after decades of being largely ignored except for the odd U.S.-led International Monetary Fund debt bailout, and perhaps some occasional drug eradication programs, suddenly we are in the new ‘Donroe Doctrine’ era, with muscular new threats coming daily.

“It is tempting to think that things can only get better. And one can understand if Marco Rubio and the U.S. State Department genuinely believe that when it comes to Venezuela in particular,” Rogoff said. “One can argue that Trump’s Donroe Doctrine may actually lead to better outcomes for some countries, especially where populist governments have stifled economic growth for decades… But at the same time, the United States’ abrupt turn from soft power to hard power may ultimately lead to the election of more vehemently anti-American governments than the continent started with, handing China greater access to the region’s resources.”

In The Wall Street Journal, Walter Russell Mead said “Trump captivates the globe.”

“This is world politics the way Mr. Trump likes it. Last week it was his seizure of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro in a raid of extraordinary daring and competency that stunned the world. Then came his threats against Greenland, setting Europe in an uproar with a few casual remarks,” Mead wrote. “As European leaders vied to decry the projected American power grab in the Arctic, the French quietly shifted the date of next summer’s Group of Seven summit so as not to conflict with the Ultimate Fighting Championship event scheduled at the White House to celebrate Mr. Trump’s birthday.”

“Imagine for a moment that Mr. Trump’s various gambles pay off. Cuba presumably will have to make its peace with America if Venezuela cuts off the oil and Washington tightens the screws on Havana. If six months from now Cuba, Venezuela and Iran have all changed alignment, Mr. Trump will tower above his recent predecessors,” Mead said. “If Mr. Trump fails, his successors will struggle to clean up the mess he leaves behind. If he succeeds, he will have built a new world. In the moment of maximum drama and uncertainty in which we now live, nobody knows what the outcome will be.”

What the left is saying.

• The left is alarmed by Trump’s foreign policy actions, arguing they are unlawful and unwise.
• Some suggest the president’s push for oil dominance could backfire.
• Others say the U.S. is destroying the post-World War II global order. 

In New York Magazine, Ed Kilgore wrote about “why Trump’s ‘Donroe Doctrine’ is so dangerous.”

“Trump’s occasional musings about seizing Greenland, retaking the Panama Canal, or even turning Canada into the 51st state… look like classic examples of situations in which it’s wise not to take the president too literally or even seriously,” Kilgore said. “But in the light of the Donroe Doctrine, it could all become deadly serious. The Monroe Doctrine’s defensive posture against European colonization of Latin America has now been replaced by an offensive claim that the U.S. must have complete control of its hemispheric ‘neighborhood’ regardless of state sovereignty or the actual wishes of those with whom we share the region.”

“Perhaps Trump’s ego (along with the hawkish wing of the GOP that has never really accepted his ‘America First’ policies) won’t allow him to completely abandon U.S. security commitments outside of our neighborhood. But now they certainly seem subordinate to Trump’s priorities in the Americas,” Kilgore wrote. “The Donroe Doctrine has no clear basis in U.S. constitutional and statutory law, though it is clear it thoroughly violates international law. Trump’s critics have long feared he regards himself as a king; perhaps he instead regards himself as an emperor.”

In The Atlantic, Rogé Karma said “Big Oil knows that Trump’s Venezuela plans are delusional.”

“The Trump administration is right about one thing: Venezuela has a lot of oil. As recently as the ’90s, it was one of the world’s top producers, pumping out more than 3 million barrels a day. But in the early 2000s, the populist leader Hugo Chávez forced out most Western oil companies, seized their assets, and turned their operations over to the country’s dysfunctional state-owned company. Production has since plunged by more than two-thirds,” Karma wrote. “Rebooting the country’s oil industry… would involve training an army of workers with no experience in the industry, rebuilding decrepit processing facilities and miles of crumbling pipelines, and amassing a private security force to protect these investments from cartels and private militias.”

“In fact, now that the U.S. is a major oil producer, unlocking a trove of foreign oil could backfire. The current price of oil approximately matches the cost for most American companies to produce a barrel of oil. If the price were to drop significantly, then suddenly many of those companies’ assets would no longer be profitable,” Karma said. “The Trump administration is correct to distinguish its intervention from the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq. As recently as 2003, you could have at least made a coherent argument that securing the invaded country’s oil reserves would serve the U.S.’s economic interests. That isn’t remotely true today.”

In Newsweek, Nicholas Creel argued “the emerging world order looks like the old one.”

“The American-led international order that followed WWII isn’t dying. It’s dead, and it was America who killed it. What is replacing it is quickly shaping up to look very much like what came before it, a world where the strong do as they wish and the weak accept what they must. The emerging order is set to make the world poorer, more violent and one in which America is better cast as a regional power than a global one,” Creel wrote. “The postwar world was marked by systemic decolonization, yet the official policy of the U.S. is now nakedly one of colonial resource extraction.”

“The administration has already doubled down on this mindset by threatening military action against Colombia and Mexico. After having tried and failed to use economic sanctions to coerce Latin American countries, it seems Trump has embraced not just the concept of the Monroe Doctrine but also the gunboat style diplomacy that often accompanied its deployment,” Creel said. “Alienating allies in Europe while embracing a policy of domination over Latin America means the world which America can influence is getting smaller. As former allies grow in power to counter our hostility, we will increasingly be limited to ever smaller spheres of influence.”

My take.

Reminder: “My take” is a section where we give ourselves space to share a personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

• Trump’s “Donroe Doctrine” fits within an already described security strategy that I broadly agree with.
• Some of that strategy, and Trump’s recent actions in the Western Hemisphere, contradict the stronger principles.
• That makes me think Trump doesn’t really have a doctrine, other than following personal and transactional relationships.

Executive Editor Isaac Saul: The “Donroe Doctrine” started to come into focus in December, when the administration released its National Security Strategy (NSS) document. 

While the doctrine focuses on the Western Hemisphere, it is designed to fit into the larger NSS about global relations. After all, our desire to take over Greenland has a deep impact on Denmark and Europe. Our wish to have a greater influence in Latin America is, in part, driven by the goal of keeping China, Russia, and Iran out. And so on. Yet the last few weeks have called into question how committed the administration really is to its underlying ideas — both globally, through the NSS, and more specifically to the purported “Donroe Doctrine.” 

On the one hand, I nod along to about 75% of the goals defined in the NSS (it’s only 33 pages and easy to read yourself). The Trump administration rightly identifies the Western Hemisphere as the most critical priority for the United States; it rightly de-emphasizes the importance of the Middle East for energy and national security in the mid-2020s; it rightly rejects the imposition of our own values on other nations as a mandatory condition to do business; and it rightly calls for a more diplomacy-forward, peace-through-strength approach that avoids dragging us into military quagmires. And, perhaps most critically, the administration’s concerns about China, the power it has amassed, and the importance of protecting Taiwan are all well founded.

The entire strategy unapologetically declares allegiance only to our own national interests, and it speaks plainly about the self-interested nature of all sovereign nations without ornamental, diplomatic non sequiturs. 

I felt strongly enough about these ideas that a few weeks ago, when Senior Editor Will Kaback penned the take about the NSS, I used the “staff dissent” section to defend Trump’s prioritization of Latin America and the Western Hemisphere. I wrote this:

I believe the Trump administration’s focus on Latin America is warranted. I’d agree threats from China, Russia and Iran are more serious threats of kinetic warfare and cyber intrusions, but economic instability, mass migration, and the import of narcotics and gang activity are also national security concerns. The immediacy of those threats from Latin America is apparent and, I think, more urgent. Plus, the very actors Will identifies — China and Russia — are making inroads in Latin America. This isn’t an accident. They recognize the region is an open door to increase their influence in the Western Hemisphere, making it all the more important we focus here. Further, I think in order to make Will’s argument you’d have to show that the preceding policies — those deployed by Biden, Trump I, or Obama — actually worked. Have our past policies toward China, the Middle East, and Russia deterred these nations? Prevented war? Stopped trade imbalances? And if not, is it really fair to frame a reset as a wrong turn? 

On the other hand, my issues with the portion I don’t agree with are pretty significant. The 25% I’m not nodding my head along to is so contradictory, and so incoherent, that it doesn’t seem like genuine doctrine at all. And, unfortunately, the actions of the last few weeks have contradicted the already contradictory document in some meaningful ways.

For starters, the NSS emphasizes that the U.S. must reject “the ill-fated concept of global domination for itself” and should “prioritize commercial diplomacy, to strengthen our own economy and industries, using tariffs and reciprocal trade agreements as powerful tools.” Which of the following actions feels closer to those principles: kidnapping Venezuela’s despotic leader in a blaze of airstrikes and extraditing him to the United States, or landing a trade deal with a major, cooperative bloc of Latin American countries? Because Europe — a transnational collective the NSS decries as violating national sovereignty — seems to be doing a better job of following through on Trump’s stated principles.

Elsewhere, the NSS says, “We seek good relations and peaceful commercial relations with the nations of the world without imposing on them democratic or other social change that differs widely from their traditions and histories.” It adds, specific to the Middle East, that the key to success “is accepting the region, its leaders, and its nations as they are while working together on areas of common interest.”

Yet, we are imposing ourselves forcefully on our historical allies in other regions — demanding Greenland accept the U.S. as their new leader and owner or face military incursion, a pretty significant democratic and social change. Even more difficult to parse is that the very same document openly criticizes the trajectory of Europe based on its immigration policies, and offers a thinly veiled threat to our alliance with the continent unless it moves in a direction that we want. The NSS states that Europe’s migration policies, censorship, suppression of political opponents, and cratering birthrates call into question whether it will be a reliable ally in 20 years.  

Trump seems to be generally following a guidance of tolerance and mutual opportunity in much of the Middle East, seeking out investment opportunities and enhancing relationships with Arab countries that have very different governments and cultures from ours. But even there he’s selective. Would Iranians say that the United States is “accepting” its leaders as they are, while Trump is threatening to bomb the country based on how it treats protesters, or on the heels of the U.S. destroying its nuclear arsenal? Regardless of whether you think supporting the Iranian protesters or striking Iran’s nuclear facilities is right or wrong, the guidance behind the strategy is clearly inconsistent.

In other words: Adversaries won’t have our democratic or social norms imposed on them (except when they do), but allied nations need to do what we say lest we abandon them. Europe must close its borders to migration. Denmark must hand over Greenland. The United Kingdom must give up its efforts to thwart hate speech online because that pursuit violates our notion of speech norms. The NSS even calls for “preventing the reality” of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance. So we won’t impose our will on the world, and we will invite nations into our sphere of influence who want to be there, but we won’t allow Ukraine to join NATO (which is obviously who this is in reference to) even when it wants to? This is all without even touching on the lip service paid to energy dominance while we ignore and abandon the most innovative forms of energy, or promises to commit ourselves to merit above all else (except for immigrants, who don’t get to come here to work and innovate if they can out-compete American workers).

In the Western Hemisphere, the NSS also calls for “enlisting” partners and “expanding” our influence. Does the administration suppose we’ll have a lot of success enlisting new allies while we are overthrowing the presidents of other nations, threatening to bomb Colombia, promising to take Greenland, and openly emphasizing the importance of doing all this for oil and military advantages?

These actions don’t make a lot of sense to me in light of the NSS, which I’ll repeat is a document I broadly supported when I first read it. Again: Whether you support the goals outlined in the NSS or not, they are sometimes contradictory, and the actual actions of the administration don’t fit into the “Donroe Doctrine” we’re supposed to think the administration is carrying out. 

The Trump administration’s actions, not its words, provide the best insight into what this doctrine actually is. As best I can tell, Trump doesn’t really have a “doctrine.” His actions are governed by a combination of the personal relationships he forms with world leaders, his view that he is only restrained by his own mind and morality, and the competing interests of the cabinet-level people in his orbit (i.e. Marco Rubio, JD Vance, and Stephen Miller). Trump sees himself as the CEO of the United States and other countries as competing businesses whom he can cut or build ties with on a whim, without much regard for how a “what have you done for me lately” attitude works differently when running a nation rather than a business. This is why, when we covered Trump’s capture of Maduro, I said, “This should be the final nail in the coffin for any notion of a ‘Trump doctrine’ on foreign policy.”

As a result, we’re forcing regime change in South America, chasing oil interests, threatening sovereign nations with military force, playing police in the Middle East, taking credit for “peace agreements” that haven’t actually ended wars, and trying to bend Europe to our will. 

The framing might differ from past administrations’ (and in many cases sound more compelling) — this time dressed up in an America First, isolationist narrative. Maybe the Trump administration truly will reshape the world over the next three years, but so far, the doctrine of actions sure does ring familiar. 

Take the survey: What do you think of the “Donroe Doctrine?” Let us know.

Disagree? That's okay. Our opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.

Your questions, answered.

Q: I’m probably naive, but why can’t Congress pass a law that [voting] districts must be based on school districts? A big district could be split by high school lines. A small district could be combined with other small nearby or adjacent districts. Seems that would severely limit gerrymandering. 

— Brent from Hurst, TX

Tangle: This is a clever, low-cost suggestion that does sound like it could solve the problem. After all, communities have an incentive to draw school districts sensibly and conveniently, and politicians trying to change school districts to their electoral benefit would meet with immediate blowback. 

However, the suggestion has one significant problem: It’s unconstitutional. The Constitution states that all congressional districts should be as close in population to one another as practicable, and requires them be adjusted to fit that requirement after the census every ten years. Saying they must be drawn along school district lines, when those districts’ sizes vary widely, would conflict strongly with those limitations. More abstractly, school district lines are already subject to sporadic change; adding a political incentive to that process would probably end up corrupting voting districts and school districts. 

Admittedly, a law that says “Congressional districts have to align with school districts as much as practicable” would probably be an improvement over the current process, but other solutions exist that sound cleaner and more effective. Fixing gerrymandering doesn’t require new solutions — it requires the political will to apply them.

Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

Under the radar.

On Friday, Ukrainian officials said Russia attacked the country with hundreds of drones and dozens of missiles, including its second deployment of a new hypersonic missile called Oreshnik that Russia says are impossible to intercept. The attack reportedly killed four people and wounded 25; one drone struck the embassy of Qatar, which has mediated prisoner exchanges between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine’s security service said the use of the Oreshnik was a war crime, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called for a “clear response” from the international community. The attack follows recent progress in talks between Ukraine and its Western allies over security guarantees as part of a potential peace deal with Russia. CBS News has the story. 

Numbers.

• 1,000. The approximate number of “dark fleet” ships believed to be engaging in deceptive practices to evade sanctions on transporting Venezuelan oil. 
• 70%. The percentage of Venezuelan oil exports transported by this fleet. 
• $8 billion. The estimated reduction in Venezuelan revenue if the country lost access to this fleet. 
• 33% and 67%. The percentage of U.S. adults who say they would favor and oppose, respectively, U.S. military action against other Latin American countries that do not cooperate with the U.S., according to a January 2026 YouGov/CBS News poll. 
• 6% and 85%. The percentage of Greenlanders who say they do and do not, respectively, want to leave the Danish Realm and become part of the United States, according to a January 2025 Verian poll. 
• 56% and 28%. The percentage of Greenlanders who say they would and would not, respectively, vote for Greenlandic independence. 

The extras.

• One year ago today we had just published our 2024 retrospective.
• The most clicked link in Thursday’s newsletter was Isaac’s tweet about masked ICE agents.
• Nothing to do with politics: Lit Hub’s most anticipated books of 2026.
• Thursday’s survey: 9,407 readers responded to our survey on the Minneapolis ICE shooting with 83% saying it was morally and legally unjustifiable. “It was the predictable result of untrained ICE officers tasked to complete amoral missions for political reasons. It’s horrible and tragic,” one respondent said. “The masks at this point are for self and family defense,” said another.

Have a nice day.

In the sub-Antarctic zone at the southernmost tip of mainland South America, Chile is preparing to create a national park. In November, the nonprofit foundation Rewilding Chile donated roughly 127,000 hectares of the park’s proposed 150,000 hectares to the Chilean government, on the condition that it establishes the park in the next two years. Rewilding Chile Wildlife Coordinator Benjamín Caceres described Brunswick Peninsula, the location of the park, as “a mosaic of marine, coastal and land ecosystems” that together “maintain balance and create a refuge for species that are in danger of extinction.” Reuters has the story.