The Trump Corollary: Carving out U.S. spheres of influence and what it means for Latin America

The underpinnings of a new Trump foreign policy doctrine are becoming clear as the president closes out the first year of his second term with a push toward what analysts describe as a 19th-century-style “spheres of influence” approach exemplified by the administration’s focus on Venezuela, and greater Latin America taking center stage.

The extent to which the new approach amounts to an abandonment of the international alliance strategy that undergirded American power throughout most of the post-World War II era is unknown.

However, many analysts agree that the administration’s 2025 National Security Strategy released in November cemented the reality that the spheres of influence approach is in full swing. At a minimum, the strategy indicates the U.S. officially views Latin America as its backyard and is determined to push geopolitical rivals, namely China, from the region.

It states outright that the U.S. will now “assert and enforce a ’Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine” — a dual reference to the 19th-century proclamation by President James Monroe that Europe should stay out of Latin America — and the Roosevelt Corollary, named for President Theodore Roosevelt, insisting the U.S. would act as international police in the region.

The strategy has sparked debate in U.S. national security and foreign policy circles and outrage among some European allies, who claim President Trump seeks to abandon them.

Longtime diplomat and former Associate Director of National Intelligence Joseph DeTrani maintains that the administration has made it clear it favors the protection and promotion of U.S. core national interests over the pursuit of a rules-based international order.

Mr. DeTrani acknowledged in an op-ed for The Washington Times last week that “saying goodbye to the U.S. as the guarantor of global order will be difficult for many of our allies and partners, who will now be expected to contribute more to their own defense and security.”

He praised the strategy’s boldness in deprioritizing Europe and the Middle East while emphasizing the Western Hemisphere as “the primary security region for the U.S. … with a focus on border control, mass migration, narco-trafficking and international crime and terrorism as the principal threats to our nation’s security.”

At the same time, the strategy “correctly focuses on the importance of the Indo-Pacific region,” wrote Mr. DeTrani, who emphasized that “getting the support of regional allies and partners will be an important part of this National Security Strategy.”

Others are homing in on the spheres of influence doctrine shift, asserting that U.S. moves surrounding control of Greenland and the Panama Canal, along with the massive military buildup in the Caribbean, are part of a larger strategy aimed at carving out a new sphere of influence for Washington in the Western Hemisphere.

Spheres of influence became the dominant approach to foreign policy in the 19th century as imperialism expanded and nations sought to carve out pieces of the globe for themselves. The practice fell out of favor in the aftermath of World War II as nations promoted open markets around the world.

Some experts argue that a return to spheres of influence could have massive economic and security consequences for the Western Hemisphere.

“I think it is stunning in assuming that the United States can simply impose whatever it wants on the countries in the region. The Monroe Doctrine was unpopular in Latin America and was seen as U.S. imperialism,” Vanda Felbab-Brown, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said. “It’s kind of returning to an era where the U.S. was preponderant, but also enormously unpopular.”

The Trump Corollary

A possible preview of what the White House calls the Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine may be seen in the waters off Venezuela, where the U.S. Navy has at least a dozen major warships, including the USS Gerald Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier.

Analysts say the buildup is an attempt to reestablish Latin America as within America’s sphere of influence and could be a preview of further military action in the hemisphere to protect U.S. interests.

“It would be the potential for denial of the region for Chinese military or intelligence operations … ports, space launch capabilities, deep space tracking facilities like they have in Argentina,” Eric Farnsworth, senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said. “I do think that … if [nonmilitary options] don’t work, they are willing to use force, and they’ve positioned forces in place to give them the options to do that … prepared to do that if they believe it’s necessary.”

The buildup comes as the U.S. looks to limit its global military presence. In Europe, Mr. Trump has insisted that NATO members boost funding for their defense and has shown unprecedented openness to Russian demands regarding Ukraine peace talks.

The NSS further calls on Europe to provide for its defense and to establish “strategic stability” with Russia.

Proponents of the shift argue the president’s criticism of Europe is necessary.

“The truth is, President Trump’s new National Security Strategy is not just tough love to save Europe, but a searing indictment of the failed policies of the European liberal elite that caused its decline,” Fred Fleitz, president of the Center for Security Policy and former chief of staff of the National Security Council, wrote in a Newsmax op-ed this month.

Additionally, reporting in December suggested that the Pentagon is preparing to downgrade the importance of U.S. Africa Command, U.S. Central Command and U.S. European Command by placing them under a new organization.

U.S. Northern Command and U.S. Southern Command, the two organizations tasked with ensuring security in the Western Hemisphere, would also be consolidated into a single force known as Americas Command.

Meanwhile, the American military buildup in Latin America suggests further investment in targeting what the administration calls narco-terrorists.

Mr. Trump and his allies have said the Venezuelan government, led by Nicolas Maduro, is a terrorist organization, facilitating the transfer of deadly fentanyl into America. The U.S. has conducted dozens of airstrikes on small boats in the territory that have killed at least 99 people. The administration says the vessels were carrying drugs.

Some analysts say the drug interdiction priority, combined with the Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, could create a new forever war.

“The counter-narcotics efforts, as defined by the Trump administration, is an endless war. The metaphor of war on drugs has become a literal war with no end in sight,” Ms. Felbab-Brown said. “And add the lack of clarity as to who makes a viable military target, and it seems like open-ended use of the U.S. military for that purpose.”

Pushing out China

In a clear reference to China, the NSS asserts that the U.S. will fight against “hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets” in the Western Hemisphere and will “make every effort to push out foreign companies that build infrastructure in the region.”

Some analysts doubt the White House’s ability to convince Latin leaders to stop doing business with China.

“They’re in Peru, they’re in Brazil, they’re in Chile, they’re even in Colombia, to an extent, and they’re also in Argentina, which is a very U.S.-friendly administration at the moment,” Mr. Shidore said. “When it comes to building things, the Chinese can do it cheaper and at scale, and we don’t. We lost that skill set largely.”

He added that even if the U.S. government or private companies could deliver bids to compete with China, Latin American nations are looking to diversify their partnerships to minimize risk.

Additionally, Beijing’s investments in energy infrastructure, ports, mining and manufacturing have provided China with troves of exploitable data, political leverage, desirable ports and access to rare earth minerals, which the Chinese probably won’t give up without a fight.

Pushing China out could also work against the White House’s domestic agenda, namely, curbing illegal immigration. If China is pushed out of Latin America and investment in public infrastructure dries up, the U.S. could see a surge in migrants traveling to the developed world.

“The reason people migrate to the United States is that Latin America has been growing at very low rates … If you keep the region underdeveloped, you’re going to get more people to the border, not fewer,” Jorge Heine, also at the Quincy Institute, said. “You should try to help these countries grow and develop and provide opportunities to their populations, not the other way around.”

Still, Trump allies insist that without control over the Western Hemisphere, the U.S. cannot hope to maintain its world power status.

“This is about the U.S. dominating its near abroad. You can’t be a global power if you don’t actually control your region,” Christopher Sabatini, senior fellow for Latin America at Chatham House, said.