A new Monroe Doctrine for a multipolar world?

The newly released American National Security Strategy signals a sharp return to a familiar pattern in US statecraft. The Trump administration appears to be embracing a hemispheric focus, justified by the apparent need to shield the US from global turbulence, while at the same time pursuing contradictory approaches abroad. Although this strategic document has been presented as a forward-looking blueprint for navigating a complex world, its underlying logic reaches back two centuries to the Monroe Doctrine.

In 1823, President James Monroe declared the Western Hemisphere off limits to European interference. Though framed as a defensive posture, this historic doctrine laid the groundwork for decades of US expansionism, especially in Latin America under Theodore Roosevelt. The Trump administration's new National Security Strategy places heavy emphasis on curbing migration and drug trafficking. It also aims to exclude outside powers (China) from establishing strategic influence in South America, thus echoing the earlier hemispheric mindset.

The US has been aggressively intercepting alleged Venezuelan drug running vessels. Meanwhile, a presidential pardon has been issued to the former Honduran President, who had been indicted in a US court for drug trafficking. Across major cities, the Trump administration's hardline immigration approach has led to intrusive raids and rapid deportation of irregular migrants, many of whom had been based in America for years. Simultaneously, a few regional countries, such as Argentina, are being courted through transactional trade agreements and conditional security cooperation arrangements.

America's renewed hemispheric orientation has not gone unnoticed in Europe. Germany and other powerful European states have been particularly frustrated by the US tendency to oscillate between assertiveness and negotiation. America's apparent willingness to allow Russia to retain control over parts of Ukraine as a means of ending the conflict could embolden President Putin's expansionist ambitions, a development that poses a far more existential threat to Europe than to the US.

The new national security strategy claims that the Middle East is "no longer a top strategic priority". Yet American moves such as attacking Iran, promoting a disputed Israeli Palestinian peace plan and engagements with Syria point in the opposite direction.

China remains at the forefront of US strategic competition. However, the nature of this competition has shifted toward the economic realm. Taiwan importance is primarily mentioned in relation to its semiconductor manufacturing capabilities and its location rather than as a geopolitical flashpoint.

The stated strategic approach to South Asia further illustrates Washington's increasingly fluid foreign policy positions. The US seems willing to engage with Pakistan for counterterrorism cooperation and access to critical minerals, but Pakistan is not really given much attention in its security strategy. Conversely, India is described as a pivotal regional partner with which the US aims to expand intelligence sharing, maritime coordination and defence technology collaboration.

Perhaps the most revealing dimension of the new security strategy is what it signals about American policymaking, which has become more reactive and improvisational than at any time in recent decades. Presidential directives issued via Truth Social posts already functioned as informal policy signals, and the national security strategy appears designed with such unpredictability in mind. It reads less like a doctrinal roadmap and more like a statement of preferences, carefully crafted with built-in exit ramps.

Whether this approach can succeed in an interdependent, multipolar and increasingly complex world remains uncertain. Nevertheless, the new national strategy reflects a significant change in how the US views itself - for the moment at least. America seems to have become increasingly insular, less tethered to global obligations and guided by opportunistic and transactional engagements.