The Monroe Doctrine Is Back—or Is It?

Suddenly, the Monroe Doctrine is everywhere again. A foreign‑policy statement from 1823 is being invoked in 2026 as if it cleanly maps onto today’s geopolitical landscape. The enthusiasm is striking—and worth unpacking.

Where It All Began: 1823 and the “Era of Good Feelings”

James Monroe

President James Monroe first outlined what would later be called the Monroe Doctrine in his annual message to Congress on December 2, 1823. The United States was still basking in the glow of the so‑called “Era of Good Feelings,” a moment of national pride following the War of 1812. Americans believed they had won a decisive victory. In reality, the war ended in a stalemate. Britain, exhausted by decades of conflict and focused on rebuilding after the Napoleonic Wars, simply agreed to peace. No borders shifted. No major policies changed.

Still, symbolic triumphs—Oliver Hazard Perry’s victory on Lake Erie and Andrew Jackson’s dramatic win at New Orleans (fought after the peace treaty had already been signed)—fed a powerful national myth that outpaced the facts.

A Hemisphere in Flux

Meanwhile, much of Central and South America had recently broken free from European colonial rule. These new nations were fragile, indebted, and vulnerable. U.S. leaders feared that instability or default might tempt European powers to return.

Monroe’s message was direct: any attempt by European nations to colonize or interfere in the Western Hemisphere would be considered a threat to U.S. peace and security. The doctrine was reactive—if Europe interfered, then the U.S. would respond.

At its heart, the Monroe Doctrine was meant to shield the sovereignty of newly independent nations. Monroe believed that keeping Europe out would benefit U.S. economic interests, but those interests were secondary, not central, to the doctrine’s purpose.

A Doctrine the U.S. Couldn’t Enforce

In practice, the Monroe Doctrine was more aspiration than enforceable policy. The United States lacked the military strength to back it up, and European powers knew it. Their disregard was obvious:

• 1833: Britain reclaimed the Falkland Islands.
• 1838–1850: France—and later France with Britain—blockaded Argentina’s Río de la Plata and Buenos Aires.
• 1861: While the U.S. was consumed by the Civil War, Spain reoccupied Santo Domingo and France invaded Mexico, installing a Habsburg emperor.

Only after the Civil War did the U.S. begin enforcing the doctrine more assertively, supporting Mexico’s resistance to French occupation. This marked the start of America’s rise as a hemispheric power—but decades of inconsistency had already damaged trust across Latin America.

Theodore Roosevelt Rewrites the Rules

In 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt dramatically reinterpreted the Monroe Doctrine. What had been a defensive warning became an offensive justification for intervention. The Roosevelt Corollary argued that if Latin American nations failed to maintain order or repay debts, European powers might intervene—so the United States should intervene first.

 President Theodore Roosevelt's
1905 diplomatic mission
to Asia, led by William Howard Taft,
secretly laid the groundwork for
future U.S. conflicts in the Pacific,
including World War II,
by making secret deals that
fueled Japanese imperialism

Roosevelt claimed an American “international police power” to address “chronic wrongdoing or impotence,” transforming the doctrine into a tool of U.S. imperialism. Examples include:

• Dominican Republic (1905–1924): U.S. control of customs houses, followed by occupation.
• Nicaragua (1912–1933): U.S. Marines intervened to crush a revolution and stayed for two decades.
• Haiti (1915–1934): U.S. forces occupied the country after the assassination of its president.

These interventions deepened resentment throughout Latin America.

FDR’s Good Neighbor Policy: A Different Vision

In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt charted a new course by rejecting the Roosevelt Corollary and introducing the Good Neighbor Policy. FDR pledged non‑intervention, mutual respect, diplomatic engagement, and cultural exchange. This shift ended routine U.S. military occupations and opened the door to more cooperative hemispheric relations.

The timing proved crucial. During World War II, the Good Neighbor approach helped unify the Americas. Most Latin American nations aligned with the Allies, provided essential raw materials such as rubber, hosted strategic bases, and curtailed Axis influence. A region once wary of U.S. power became a network of indispensable partners.

The Cold War Ends the Good Neighbor Era

The Cold War quickly unraveled the Good Neighbor Policy. As anti‑communist containment became the overriding priority, earlier commitments to sovereignty and non‑interference faded. The United States resumed overt and covert interventions across Latin America:

• Guatemala (1954) – CIA‑backed overthrow of President Jacobo Árbenz.
• Cuba (1961–1962) – Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
• Brazil (1964) – Support for a military coup against President João Goulart.
• Dominican Republic (1965) – Deployment of 22,000 Marines to suppress an uprising.
• Chile (1973) – Support for the coup that brought Augusto Pinochet to power.
• Operation Condor (1970s–1980s) – U.S. intelligence cooperation with South American dictatorships.
• Nicaragua (1981–1990) – Funding the Contras, leading to the Iran‑Contra scandal.
• Grenada (1983) – Invasion to remove a Marxist junta.
• Panama (1989) – Invasion to arrest General Manuel Noriega.

The hemisphere once again became a battleground for U.S. strategic priorities.

2025–2026: A New Corollary Emerges

In December 2025, the Trump administration introduced what it called the “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. The policy seeks to reassert U.S. primacy in the Western Hemisphere and claims the right to intervene to prevent “hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets”—and asserting that it “supersedes” the original Monroe Doctrine.

“To supersede” means “to take the place of”—and the term fits, because the Trump Corollary diverges sharply from Monroe’s original intent.  The Monroe Doctrine centered on protecting the sovereignty of Western Hemisphere nations. The Trump Corollary prioritizes “America First” national security interests over the territorial and political autonomy of neighboring states. It asserts that the U.S. no longer extends unconditional respect for the sovereignty of regional partners.  The Trump Corollary also explicitly links national security to U.S. access to the natural resources of Western Hemisphere nations, framing economic extraction as a condition of American security—an approach far removed from Monroe’s defensive posture.

Which Monroe Doctrine Are We Talking About?

The Monroe Doctrine has never been a fixed idea. It has been reinterpreted, stretched, and repurposed for two centuries—sometimes as a shield against European imperialism, sometimes as a justification for American intervention, and sometimes as a diplomatic olive branch. The 2026 revival raises an important question: are we witnessing a return to Monroe’s original vision, or the emergence of something entirely new?

History suggests that every generation remakes the doctrine to fit its own anxieties and ambitions. The real issue, then, is not whether the Monroe Doctrine is “back,” but which version of it policymakers are choosing to resurrect—and what that choice reveals about the future of the Western Hemisphere.