From Monroe to ‘Donroe’: The Evolution of U.S. Power in the Americas

By: Naetra Joshi

For more than two centuries, the United States has seen itself as having a special role in the Western Hemisphere. What started as a warning to European powers has slowly turned into something much more complicated. Now, as countries like China and Russia become more involved in Latin America, the real question isn’t whether the Monroe Doctrine still matters—it’s how far the U.S. is willing to go to enforce it.

In 1823, President James Monroe introduced the “Monroe Doctrine,” warning European powers against further colonization in the Americas. It established the Western Hemisphere as a U.S. sphere of influence, declaring that European interference would be viewed as a hostile act while the United States promised to avoid involvement in European affairs.

More than two centuries after its creation, the Monroe Doctrine did not remain confined to the 19th century. Its core idea—that the Americas fall under U.S. influence—has resurfaced in a far more aggressive form.

Under President Donald Trump, this idea has taken on renewed significance in U.S. foreign policy. Analysts and commentators have begun referring to this modern reinterpretation of the policy as the “Donroe Doctrine,” a term used to describe a more assertive strategy that emphasizes American dominance in the Western Hemisphere and seeks to limit the influence of rival powers such as China and Russia.

In practice, this policy reflects a shift from simply influencing other countries to do what the U.S says, to taking a more active role in shaping political outcomes across the region. One clear example is Venezuela, where the U.S. has imposed economic sanctions—restrictions on trade and financial activity—to pressure the government and encourage political change, as reported by Reuters and Associated Press. At the same time, the United States is working to limit the influence of China and Russia in Latin America by using economic leverage and infrastructure buybacks to force the Latin American nations to ditch Chinese and Russian investments in favor of American-led partnerships. Overall, this reflects a more assertive approach, with the Western Hemisphere once again becoming an important area of global competition.

This shift raises many questions about the nature of U.S. influence in the region. While supporters of the doctrine argue that a stronger American role is necessary to preserve stability and counter external threats, opponents contend that such actions risk weakening the country’s sovereignty and go back to interfering in other countries’ affairs– ideas long associated with earlier interpretations of the Monroe Doctrine. As global competition intensifies, the reappearance of doctrine-based regional control suggests that the principles outlined in 1823 may be far from outdated—but their modern application raises a critical question: is the United States protecting the hemisphere—or attempting to control it?