Monroe Doctrine and methods of rationality

The 'Donroe Doctrine' and Trump’s new approach to foreign affairs

"All of these (Venezuelan) actions were in gross violation of the core principles of American foreign policy, dating back more than two centuries," President Trump said in his press remarks following the US operation to arrest Nicolás Maduro. "All the way back, it dated to the Monroe Doctrine. And the Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we've superseded it by a lot, by a real lot. They now call it the 'Donroe Doctrine'." This remark clarifies the first half of the title. The second is borrowed from fiction. Fanfiction, to be precise.

Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality is a well-known rationalist fanfiction by autodidact Eliezer Yudkowsky, published online between 2010 and 2015. It reimagines JK Rowling's universe through a protagonist raised by scientists and trained to apply logic, scientific method and cognitive discipline to the practice of magic. The reference here is intentional. It signals an attempt to examine President Trump's policies through the lens of rational state behaviour rather than rhetorical style.

This distinction matters. Media and pundit commentary often treats President Trump's peculiar communication style, which his supporters frequently regard as direct and refreshing, as evidence of policy incoherence. That assumption collapses tone into substance. What is at issue here is not personal manner but state rationality, specifically how a state assesses risk, updates beliefs and signals intent under conditions of uncertainty.

Bayesian reasoning offers a useful frame. At its core, it is a method of decision-making in which one begins with a prior judgement and revises it as new information becomes available, adjusting probabilities rather than discarding assumptions wholesale. For this piece, that approach allows policy to be read as adaptive rather than impulsive. Some historical context is therefore necessary.

The Monroe Doctrine, articulated by US President James Monroe in 1823, warned European powers against colonising or interfering in the Americas, effectively designating the Western Hemisphere as a US sphere of influence. Initially defensive, it later evolved into a justification for American interventionism in Latin America, particularly under Theodore Roosevelt's 1904 corollary, and went on to shape US foreign policy for nearly two centuries. Its explicit invocation in the 2025 National Security Strategy has therefore attracted close attention from foreign policy analysts.

The 2025 US National Security Strategy codifies an "America First" grand strategy centred on sovereignty, hemispheric security and economic power. It reasserts US primacy in the Western Hemisphere to control migration, cartels and external influence; rejects nation-building and permanent wars; and shifts foreign policy towards selective engagement, burden-sharing among allies and balance-of-power logic. The strategy deprioritises the Middle East amid US energy independence; dismisses climate-driven constraints in favour of oil, gas, and nuclear dominance; and frames China as the principal long-term economic and technological competitor. It couples military expansion, missile defence, nuclear modernisation and industrial mobilisation with tariffs, reindustrialisation and deregulation, while pressing Europe to assume greater responsibility for its own defence and to move towards resolving the Ukraine conflict. Taken together, this marks a clear departure from post-Cold War global managerialism.

It must be noted, however, that while commentators are right to consult the strategy document for orientation, they tend to overstate its binding force. President Trump remains a free agent. At best, the document captures a momentary alignment within a fluid policy environment. What is often described as the Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine reflects a blend of hemispheric assertiveness and strategic unpredictability. This bears some resemblance to the Nixon-era "madman theory", which relied on cultivating uncertainty about thresholds and risk tolerance to extract concessions. In Trump's case, this logic is intensified by a personal style that, in an age of hyper-connectivity and permanent visibility, places the madman effect on steroids.

Now, let us operationalise these concepts. You are right to question the talk of running Venezuela after Maduro's arrest when nation-building and long-term commitments are clearly ruled out in the document. To understand this, we need to demystify the manner of Maduro's arrest and what it actually signals. The US administration characterises it strictly as a law enforcement operation and frames the need to clean the Venezuelan stables as an imperative arising from Monroe Doctrine considerations. The administration's detractors see it as yet another regime change operation with a massive, black hole-like commitment trap.

We were weighing the probability of these two claims when intelligence leaks emerged from within an Arab state known for mediation efforts. These suggested that a high-level Venezuelan delegation had met senior US officials some three weeks before the arrest and that a leadership change had been discussed at length. This was not a regime change. Most of the state apparatus remains intact. Venezuela's economy under Maduro was already under severe strain. A further triggering factor appears to have been Maduro's overdependence on Cuba, itself a struggling economy. It seems the regime came to view both Maduro and Cuban influence as bottlenecks to economic recovery. A deal was therefore struck for a US-facilitated palace coup that would replace an ailing figurehead with a more viable one. This helps explain the subsequent emphasis on energy cooperation.

Apply the same logic to Greenland. It is part of Denmark. Unlike Cuba, Denmark is wealthy. But it is not the United States. Its population of roughly fifty-seven thousand must, at least occasionally, consider the advantages of closer alignment with a more prosperous and powerful partner. The most plausible option remains a US purchase of Greenland. Since Denmark appears unwilling to contemplate such a transaction, the use of pressure and signalling through action in Venezuela presents a compelling argument.

Compared to this, note the reluctance to recognise Somaliland, the balkanisation of Yemen or direct intervention in Iran, the three moves Netanyahu keeps pushing for. This is a highly proactive foreign policy focused on America's core interests not driven by any ally's machinations.

Even before President Trump's second inauguration, I had stated on record that I am all in in his support. So every time something as unusual as the Venezuela operation takes place, I am asked whether I am willing to reconsider my position. Why would I? Why would I not support a US president who played a key role in averting a nuclear holocaust in this region?

I am not India that started a cold war with him over minutiae and semantics. I can appreciate that he brings an unprecedentedly incredible value to the table. The main points of contention for you are the choices made by his people. While many cry wolf and complain about erosion, I respect the choices the American people have made. And let's face it. Who doesn't like an ally who can put fear of god in the heart of your rivals? Still all in.