Trump's National Security Strategy: Back to the Future
By Charles A. Ray- December 7, 2025
In the early 1800s, after many of Spain’s former colonies in Latin America had gained their independence, both Britain and the United States feared that the continental powers of Europe would attempt to help Spain restore them. The U.S. was also concerned about Russia’s ambitions in the northwest coast of North America. In 1823, the British foreign minister, George Canning, proposed a joint U.S.-British declaration that would prohibit future colonization in Latin America. President James Monroe favored the idea, as did former presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, but John Quincy Adams, who was U.S. secretary of state, argued that it should be exclusively an American policy, and his view prevailed.In his December 2, 1823, annual message to Congress, Monroe announced that the Old World and New World had different systems and must remain distinct. The Monroe Doctrine had four basic points: (1) the U.S. would not interfere in the internal affairs of or wars between European powers; (2) the U.S. recognized and would not interfere with existing colonies and dependencies in the Western Hemisphere; (3) the Western Hemisphere was closed to future colonization; and (4) any attempt by a European power to oppress or control any nation in the Western Hemisphere would be viewed as a hostile act against the United States. The policy, which was not known as the Monroe Doctrine until the 1850s, was largely ignored by the continental powers, who apparently had no intention of recolonizing Latin America. The U.S., not a major power at the time, did not invoke the policy to oppose British occupation of the Falklands Islands in 1833, or subsequent British encroachments in Latin America.In 1845 and 1848, President James K. Polk invoked the Monroe Doctrine to warn Britain and Spain not to establish footholds in Oregon, California, or Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula. In addition, he warned European nations not to interfere with the United States’ territorial expansion, its ‘manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions,’ according to a newspaper editorial published in 1845 advocating for the United States to annex Texas. Manifest Destiny, as it came to be known, was the driving force behind the creation of the continental U.S. as we know it today. While the westward expansion was always done through treaties, some of them were the result of coercion or wars, and many minorities, especially Native Americans and African Americans, suffered from the greed and desire to acquire new land.Over time, the interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine was broadened and came to define a recognized sphere of influence. Theodore Roosevelt, for instance, extended the doctrine to justify intervention in the internal affairs of Latin American countries in cases of flagrant and chronic wrongdoing.Before the 1930s, the United States frequently intervened in Latin America, particularly in the Caribbean. Even though from that time, the U.S. tried to formulate a Latin American policy in consultation with the individual nations and with the Organization of American States (OAS), the region remained a predominantly U.S. sphere of influence, and the Americans continued to exercise a proprietary role whenever it was felt that U.S. national security was threatened.The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy (NSS). Published in early December, returns the U.S policy to what it was before the 1930s. While the NSS, in listing the world’s regions, claims that it’s not asserting that any peoples, regions, or countries are somehow intrinsically unimportant, the fact that the Western Hemisphere is listed first is telling.That portion of the NSS is titled, ‘Western Hemisphere: The Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, and the opening sentence states, “After years of neglect, the United States will reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere, and to protect our homeland and our access to key geographies throughout the region.” A jumble of words worthy of a high school essay in which the student is aiming to impress the teacher, it seems to say, in essence, we’re taking possession of our territory. Or to put it in more adult terms, the United States is asserting hegemony over the Western Hemisphere, an action underscored by the president’s rhetoric since his inauguration. For example, his frequent references to making Canada the 51st state, taking control of Greenland, or seizing the Panama Canal. The most glaring manifestations of the resurgence of America’s ‘manifest destiny’ impulses have been the string of attacks on alleged drug boats off the coast of Venezuela and the president’s constant threats of land operations. This return of ‘gunboat diplomacy,’ while it probably pleases the wannabe warriors in the administration and their supporters among the population, does nothing to ensure national security and hasn’t slowed the import of fentanyl into the country by the slightest. What they might do is contribute to the further destabilization of the Caribbean and divert American resources from real threats.We might feel a sense of great accomplishment for what the country did during the nineteenth century, when it expanded from ‘sea to shining sea’ and established itself as a global power, acquiring territories like Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and, for a brief period, the Philippines. But as great as those achievements might have been, glorifying them often masks the suffering that went with them. The displacement and destruction of Native American communities and culture, and the enslavement and dehumanization of African Americans.The NSS has definite tints of nativist thinking in it, and an embrace of some far-right themes, such as ‘civilization erasure’ when describing Europe, which is a companion to the racist, far-right Great Replacement Theory that is popular with the far-right fringe in the U.S. and Europe.A national security strategy doesn’t have the force of law, but it is a clue to the direction the executive is going. This administration’s disdain for Congress and its habit of ignoring judicial decisions it doesn’t like, along with this NSS, should be cause for every citizen to be alarmed.Turning the clock back to the 1820s is not the future this country needs.