The Donroe Doctrine: The Death of American Multilateralism?

James Monroe’s 1823 message to Congress marked a new age in United States foreign policy, with the introduction of the Monroe Doctrine. Whilst colonial powers initially dismissed it, it became synonymous with the rejection of European colonisation and interference in the Western Hemisphere. The doctrine has historically faced adaptation, famously by Roosevelt in 1904, but the past year has seen a complete (and foolish) repurposing of the policy.

Currently, the ‘Donroe Doctrine’ is re-emerging as a vehement ‘America First’ proclamation, often coming at the expense of international collaboration. With the President himself adopting the term, the doctrine has retained its role as a defensive approach whilst legitimising a more interventionist one seeking to shape the affairs of its neighbours. Essentially, it strives to advance the nation’s political and economic interests and in doing so, justifies military action. No longer a basis on which America acts against active threats, it serves rather as an erratic, unpredictable affirmation of America as an immovable force, attempting to retain its dominance on the world stage. Trump is seeking to make clear that multilateralism will no longer be viewed as an asset, but rather as an impediment, and one thing is at the forefront: oil.  

Trump’s corollary first came to fruition in January 2026 in the wake of ‘Operation Absolute Resolve’ - an initiative involving the forcible seizure of the Venezuelan President Maduro. The operation followed renewed repression of dissent in Venezuela, frequently involving the extended use of excessive force and lethal weapons by the nation’s own national guard, the GNB (Bolivarian National Guard of Venezuela). Given its name by former President Chavez to describe his ‘Bolivarian Revolution’, the guard served as a sycophantic, highly-politicised instrument of power for Maduro, aligned with his socialist, anti-imperialist, nationalist agenda.  Subsequent to the ousting, Trump announced his intention to ‘run’ Venezuela in hopes to better the economy and infrastructure, expressing his intention to send in US oil giants to fix existing facilities in the country. Aside from this, his only stated objectives were for the nation to be governed by a group, assuring the media “we are going to make sure it’s run properly”. This comes amidst the President’s dismissal of the Venezuelan opposition leader, Maria Machado, as unsuitable for office due to her lack of support in the country. With so little thought declared beyond his focus on the oil industry, it is not difficult to question whether American economic interests were his driving force in the invasion. 

Regardless of the brutality of the Maduro administration, looming over Trump is the question: what use is international law if abandoned by such a superpower? There is an unignorable tension between the UN Charter and Trump’s involvement in Venezuela, with the foundation of the treaty resting on territorial integrity and political independence. The President is not simply pushing the limits of international law, but demonstrating the helplessness of other nations when it comes to its enforcement.

Late-February saw a continuation of this hostile foreign policy amidst the joint US-Israeli airstrikes on Iran, which saw the deaths of various high-profile Iranian officials (including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei). In his futile attempts to frame his alignment with the Charter, Trump cites the persistence of the Iranian nuclear programme as the justification for the airstrikes, maintaining that their goal was simply ‘to eliminate the grave threats posed to America’. The US’ letter to the Security Council saw a consistent narrative as Mike Waltz described the attacks as an act of preemptive self-defence, necessary to ‘protect our regional allies from Iran and its proxies’. 

This misapplication of Article 51 prompted the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism to condemn the attacks. Saul dubbed the preventive regime change ‘an international crime’, revealing that the Security Council had not authorised it. Revealing his underlying motives for the invasion, the President admits that ‘if it were up to me, I’d take the oil, I’d keep the oil’. Nevertheless, he conceded that the voters wanted to see an end to the war, labelling those same people ‘foolish’. Since then, Trump’s struggle for effective peace talks only reinforces the suspicion that while the prospect of Iranian oil was clear, his plans for how to move forward were not. 

Still, it is crucial to remember that Trump’s questionable foreign policy extends far beyond his military action and threats. His repeated unsolicited commentary on British domestic policy details that the ‘UK has two problems: they have a huge immigration problem... and you have an energy problem... I was telling Prime Minister Starmer ‘Open up the North Sea!’’. This intolerance grew amidst the Iran war with the refusal of American use of British airbases with the pronunciation of the special relationship ‘dead’. Unsurprisingly, Burnham’s entrance into Number 10 has seen a thaw in relations in the mind of Trump, elated at the sight of the PM’s renewed support for North Sea drilling. But even with this change of heart, there is still cause for concern. The President’s inconsistent attitudes are revealing: with Trump in office, Washington and Westminster cannot act as equals if the fate of the alliance lies on Britain entertaining America’s illegal wars.

Once a warning against colonialism, the ‘Donroe Doctrine’ now serves as a foundation for the President to relentlessly push for prioritisation of American interests, even if it means an erosion in international collaboration. With energy and power as the driving force of White House strategy, Trump acts as an oil-vulture, selectively ignoring territorial integrity, even moving to claim Canada and Greenland as his aspirations for 51st and 52nd states. The culmination of his military aspirations and his ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs make it clear that the days of American international collaboration are in the rearview mirror, and the UN’s inability to take a stand only feeds into the Charter’s powerlessness when faced with American defiance. With such a superpower opting out of international law, we are left questioning if the treaty really stands a chance when faced with American defiance, and whether the death of US adherence means we are reaching the end of the international order it strove to create. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom executive labours to preserve the special relationship, which Trump has deemed obsolete, mourning what seems to be the death of friendly Anglo-American multilateralism.