Nonpartisan Fact: Citing the Monroe Doctrine to justify the USA's 2026 expansion into the Western Hemisphere violates international statutes of sovereign rights.
The Trump administration is currently using the Monroe Doctrine as the legal and moral shield for its 2026 expansion into the Western Hemisphere. Meanwhile, international statutes label these actions as criminal overreach. I will use some strategic redundancy in this article because this shift in world order must be clearly understood.
There is a rampant amount of misinformation regarding this topic; therefore, it is vital to simplify the facts in a nonpartisan way. Bottom line: violating another country’s sovereignty constitutes a criminal violation of multiple laws. Despite the political rhetoric following the January 3rd extraction of Nicolás Maduro, these actions face a "wall" of established law. Specifically, they violate:
- UN Charter Article 2(4): Protects the territorial integrity and political independence of all states.
- Article 19 of the OAS Charter: Explicitly forbids any state from intervening, directly or indirectly, in the internal or external affairs of another.
- The Rome Statute: Defines the "Crime of Aggression" as the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty of another.
That means that even if a country is led by a dictator, another nation cannot simply remove the regime and begin running that country as if we were back in colonial times. Expanding is not only frowned upon — it is a crime.
AUTHORITARIANISM AND PROPAGANDA The Puppet Master Tools
Revised Edition! Available on Paperback and Hardcover
The Monroe Doctrine Context: 24 stars vs. 2026
President James Monroe (the 5th U.S. President) addressed the nation on December 2, 1823. At that time, the United States was a young nation; the American flag had only 24 stars, and Missouri was considered the western frontier.
A couple of paragraphs from that 1823 message became what we now know as the "Monroe Doctrine." However, President Trump has rebranded this as the "Don-roe Doctrine," even sharing a New York Post cover with that title on Truth Social following the recent events in Caracas.
This history isn't something most people learn in civics class, but it is essential to research if you plan on making or defending it as the cornerstone of a controversial international breach. From an outside perspective, it appears the administration found a "loophole" they simply Googled and decided to wedge into modern policy. Thus far, the defensive arguments are disjointed and far from ironclad.
The Monroe Doctrine Verbatim
Part 1: The Principle of Non-Colonization (Found about one-fifth of the way through the speech, originally addressing Russian expansion in the Northwest.)
"The American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers."
Part 2: The Warning of Non-Intervention (Found near the end of the speech, addressing the "Holy Alliance" in Europe.)
"...we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere."
The takeaway? Monroe was building a "shield" to keep old empires out, not a "sword" to seize neighbors' assets. Reading this 203-year-old language can be taxing, and we must remember how different the world was in 1823. For context:
- The U.S. Civil War wouldn't end for another 42 years.
- The Russian Empire under the Czars (which Monroe was specifically addressing) wouldn't fall until 1917 — 94 years later.
- The Cold War, which defined modern sovereignty, didn't end until 168 years later.
WOKE & PROUD The Charlatans' Inconvenience
Available worldwide on eBook and Paperback
The Modern Interpretation: "Don-roe" and the Iron Laws
It is worth juxtaposing history with this administration’s current interpretation. Regardless of party, advocating for the violation of statutes because of a preventable misinterpretation is dangerous. If you are close to these officials, let them know: we are stronger together when we identify blind spots before they become an international quagmire. History won't be kind to those who turned the USA from a beacon of freedom into a neo-Conquistador regime.
- Donald Trump: Has explicitly used the term "Don-roe Doctrine," stating: "The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we've superseded it by a lot... American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again." He has also been clear about the "prize," noting that Venezuela’s oil is energy "we need for ourselves."
- Stephen Miller: Miller provides the philosophical "Iron Law," telling news outlets that the future depends on America asserting interests "without apology." He has even questioned Denmark’s right to Greenland, suggesting it join the U.S. security apparatus because "Nobody's going to fight the U.S. militarily over the future of Greenland." For the record, the rest of the world — including the majority of Americans (however silent) — disagrees with Miller.
- The Trump Corollary: The November 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) formally codified this, stating the U.S. will "reassert and enforce" the doctrine to restore preeminence and deny "non-Hemispheric competitors" (China and Russia) access to vital assets.
Ironically, Trump's actions are highly convenient to Russia and China's geopolitical goals. They were hoping for the U.S. to set this precedent so they could "condemn" us in public — lowering our prestige — while following suit with their own land-grabs in Ukraine or Taiwan, using the USA as their legal precedent. Bravado makes any reckless regime's posture unsustainable.
What This Means for America and the World
Unsurprisingly, the administration has interpreted the Monroe Doctrine incorrectly. Seizing sovereign foreign territories is a criminal act, regardless of personal politics. There are currently 195 recognized countries in the world; roughly 185 of them have officially denounced this 2026 expansion.
Regional powers like Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia have called this "naked imperialism." While a few "hostage" nations stay quiet to avoid punitive tariffs, and others like Argentina (Milei) and El Salvador (Bukele) offer support in exchange for massive loans or prison funding (like the $6 million given to CECOT), the U.S. stands largely alone.
I must repeat this: Ironically, this "doctrine" is a gift to our adversaries. By declaring the Western Hemisphere our "private backyard," we give Russia and China the perfect legal cover to do the same in their own regions.
Functional grownups manage conflict by speaking truth to power. The alternative is complicity through capitulation. It takes a lot more courage to course-correct than to double down on a mistake and crash. We know which choice the current administration is making — what is your choice? HLC
About the Author: J. Marcelo "BeeZee" Baqueroalvarez
🔗 Connect & Learn More: Visit Marcelo's comprehensive landing page for his extended bio, social links, consulting form, and more.
J. Marcelo "BeeZee" Baqueroalvarez is the Founder of Half Life Crisis™, a unique father-daughter collaboration dedicated to the relentless pursuit of intellectual honesty, critical thinking, geopolitical strategy, and meaningful art. Marcelo is the recognized author of the essential reads, Authoritarianism & Propaganda and Woke & Proud, driving challenging conversations worldwide. When not publishing, Marcelo utilizes his strategic insight in technology and business as the founder of BeeZee Vision, LLC™, which includes BZVweb™ Automated Web Services and Info in Context™ strategic consulting.
Continue the Conversation
We encourage intellectual debate! To maintain a clean, focused reading experience, comments have been disabled on this article. Share your insights, counterarguments, or continue the discussion on your preferred social platform: