The Donroe Doctrine: A Shift in U.S. Foreign Policy

In January 2026, the U.S. government, under President Donald Trump, executed a military operation in Venezuela that resulted in the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. This operation, dubbed "Operation Absolute Resolve," has been characterized as a significant violation of international law and a blatant disregard for state sovereignty. The U.S. justified its actions by accusing Maduro's regime of facilitating narco-terrorism, claiming that Venezuela had failed to maintain effective control over its territory.

How a new America threatens states’ territorial sovereignty

The U.S. has a long history of intervention in Latin America, often justified by the Monroe Doctrine, which asserted that any European interference in the Western Hemisphere would provoke an American response. This doctrine has evolved into what some observers now refer to as the "Donroe Doctrine," a term that reflects Trump's aggressive foreign policy approach. The U.S. has previously engaged in military actions in Panama and Cuba, often under the guise of protecting American interests or promoting democracy, but these actions have frequently undermined the sovereignty of the nations involved.

Geopolitics: The erosion of the rules-based order

The recent U.S. actions in Venezuela signal a troubling shift away from a rules-based international order. Critics argue that this approach undermines the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity that have been foundational to post-World War II geopolitics. The operation has drawn condemnation from various international bodies, including the United Nations and the International Commission of Jurists, which labeled the abduction as a violation of international law.

How a new America threatens states’ territorial sovereignty

Critics of the Trump administration's foreign policy contend that the U.S. is prioritizing its self-interests over established international norms. The operation in Venezuela is seen as part of a broader strategy to assert U.S. dominance in the region, particularly in light of Venezuela's vast oil reserves. This aggressive stance raises concerns among U.S. allies about the security of their own sovereignty, as it suggests that the U.S. may be willing to disregard international law for its geopolitical objectives.

How a new America threatens states’ territorial sovereignty

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the operation by stating that America cannot allow important resources to remain under the control of regimes that threaten U.S. interests. This rationale echoes historical justifications for intervention, where access to resources was often couched in the language of national security.

How a new America threatens states’ territorial sovereignty

• “It has a price and is negotiable.” — Anonymous Analyst

Geopolitics: The erosion of the rules-based order

While the U.S. government claims that its actions in Venezuela are justified due to the regime's alleged support for drug trafficking, critics argue that such justifications are often pretexts for pursuing broader geopolitical goals. There remains a lack of consensus on the legality and morality of the U.S. intervention, with some international observers calling it an imperial overreach.

How a new America threatens states’ territorial sovereignty

The implications of the U.S. intervention in Venezuela extend beyond the immediate geopolitical landscape. As the U.S. adopts a more aggressive stance, it risks eroding the principles of sovereignty and international cooperation that have underpinned global relations for decades. The "Donroe Doctrine" may redefine how the U.S. engages with its neighbors and allies, prompting a reevaluation of alliances and international norms in an increasingly multipolar world.

Geopolitics: The erosion of the rules-based order