One of the earliest points to become apparent about Donald Trump’s second term as president is that there is a significant difference in foreign policy priorities and a vast change in style from his predecessors over the past 8 or 9 decades. Blather about the United States promoting or defending democracy around the world has already faded with the onset of the new administration. That change is just as well, since more often than not, such rhetoric merely served as a cover for U.S. power politics and an attempt to prolong Washington’s fading global hegemony.
If one truly wants to understand Trump’s likely approach to both continental and world affairs, though, it would be more instructive to study the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt, James K. Polk, and Andrew Jackson than to focus on the post-Pearl Harbor, globalist presidents. That is especially true with respect to Trump’s attitudes and policy preferences regarding the Western Hemisphere. Indeed, his focus on that arena is so intense and stridently nationalist that it is not too early to wonder if there will be a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine.
The original Monroe Doctrine became official U.S. policy in 1823. The actual architect was Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, and it was a bold declaration of rising U.S. power as well as the explicit assertion of a sphere of influence for the upstart republic. Indeed, the scope of the declaration greatly exceeded Washington’s military and economic capabilities at the time to enforce it unaided. However, Great Britain’s objectives and interests in keeping other major powers out of the Western Hemisphere coincided with those of the United States. London became a de facto U.S. ally for that limited, but important, goal. During the post-Civil War period, U.S. economic and military power gradually grew to the point that Washington’s assertion of preeminence in the hemisphere became increasingly credible. Indeed, U.S. leaders even made it clear to their British counterparts in the 1890s that new or expanded enclaves by their country would be as unwelcome as such entities controlled by other outside powers.