SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
donroe doctrine
Guatemalan President Denies Deal With US for Joint Strikes on Drug Cartels
“There is no agreement authorizing foreign military operations by any country in national territory,” the office of President Bernardo Arévalo said in response to a New York Times report.
May 28, 2026
While acknowledging a request for US support in fighting drug cartels, Guatemala's president on Thursday refuted reporting by The New York Times claiming his government "has agreed to carry out joint strikes with the United States military inside its territory"—action that would violate the country's Constitution.
Citing "three people familiar with the talks," the Times reported that "President Bernardo Arévalo of Guatemala agreed to both airstrikes and other military action in a call with [US] Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth... with operations to start as early as next month."
However, Arévalo's office pushed back in a statement stressing that “there is no agreement authorizing foreign military operations by any country in national territory."
The presidential statement said that Guatemalan Defense Minister Henry Sáenz wrote to Hegseth "to request US cooperation in operations led by Guatemalan security forces against narco-trafficking organizations as part of a strategy launched in 2024."
"This request falls within the framework of existing bilateral agreements on the matter, and adheres to constitutional provisions and laws regarding cooperation agreements on civil and military security," the office added.
Arévalo's office stressed that Guatemala's Constitution stipulates that foreign military forces can only be deployed in the country if authorized by a two-thirds vote of the national Legislature.
A source from Arévalo's government told El País Thursday on condition of anonymity that the Trump administration has been exerting "great pressure" for two months.
“What they offered us is to select one or two places to bomb and televise everything," the source said. "But we have been clear that this is not going to happen. It cannot operate a US military force in the country, simply because it is unconstitutional."
Arévalo's office said it is seeking US assistance in training, strategic and tactical support, and intelligence sharing, pointing to recent actions against drug trafficking, including the capture of an arsenal in Las Cruces, Petén, the seizure of a narcotics laboratory in Ayutla, San Marcos, and the capture of numerous suspected narco-traffickers.
Asked during a Thursday press conference about the possibility of joint combat operations like those reportedly carried out by US and Ecuadorian forces in the South American nation, Arévalo claimed unfamiliarity with the details of the agreement between those two countries.
Progressive US lawmakers are demanding answers about “reports of serious human rights violations and the bombing of what appear to have been civilian facilities" in Ecuador, including a "dairy and cattle farm with no known links to armed groups or drug trafficking" where unarmed civilians were allegedly tortured.
Arévalo brushed off a suggestion that his request for US cooperation could open the door to human rights violations in Guatemala, telling reporters that "the best defense against any violation of human rights is our respect and commitment to the laws of the republic and to current legislation."
While Guatemala does suffer from serious narco-trafficking issues, many Guatemalans are wary of US intervention, given past meddling including the 1954 CIA-orchestrated overthrow of reformist President Jacobo Árbenz, which was followed by decades of right-wing repression, civil war, and a US-backed genocide against Indigenous Mayan peoples during which around 200,000 people were killed.
In March, the Trump administration lifted longstanding restrictions on arms transfers to Guatemala.
“Now, our soldiers are going to have access to modern technology, radars, night viewfinders," Sáenz told La Hora on Friday.
The defense minister said he discussed closer counter-narcotics cooperation with the United States during the “Shield of the Americas” summit, during which senior officials from over a dozen nations—most of them ruled by right-wing governments—gathered at President Donald Trump's golf resort near Miami.
In addition to Guatemala, the Trump administration has been trying to pressure other Latin American nations into launching joint military operations against narco-traffickers. President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico has vehemently rejected US requests, even as President Donald Trump has threatened "to do something" about cartels in her country.
“The epicenter of cartel violence is not Mexico, it’s the United States,” Sheinbaum defiantly declared in March. “The cartels are fueled by the United States’ demand for drugs and armed with US weapons, and thanks to the United States, they are able to orchestrate enormous bloodshed and chaos throughout Latin America.”
In January, Trump ordered the bombing and invasion of Venezuela, whose president, Nicolás Maduro, was abducted to the United States on dubious "narco-terrorism" allegations that were then significantly walked back.
Trump has also threatened to attack Colombia, Panama, and Cuba, whose people are bracing for what many observers fear is an impending US war. If Trump does order military action against Cuba, it would be the 12th country he's attacked during the course of his two White House terms. Trump also ordered the ongoing bombing campaign targeting boats his administration claims—without providing evidence—were smuggling drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. Around 200 people have been killed by the US strikes.
As Nick Turse of The Intercept reported Wednesday:
Trump has turned the Western Hemisphere into a war zone as part of what he and others have called the Donroe Doctrine. This bastardization of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine has been used to justify strikes on civilian boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean; an attack on Venezuela and the abduction of its president; CIA operations in Mexico; joint counter-cartel operations in Ecuador dubbed “Operation Total Extermination”; and increased military and intelligence operations elsewhere in Latin America.
Experts contend that, like the boat strikes, any airstrikes carried out against drug cartels would likely constitute illegal acts of murder, even if conducted with the permission of governments in targeted countries.
“As with the boat strikes, depending on the facts, further attacks could amount to premeditated killings outside of armed conflict, which some of us lawyers would refer to as murder,” former US State Department lawyer Brian Finucane told The New York Times on Thursday.
“Congress never authorized any of these strikes," he added. "So US personnel who participate in these actions could face consequences down the road, after the Trump administration.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
From Boat Murders to Kidnapping Maduro, Trump Spending Billions on 'Donroe Doctrine' Militarism
“Across the country people are going bankrupt and dying prematurely because of lack of healthcare, but the US government has billions to spend on imperialist violence to enrich corporations," said one researcher.
Apr 23, 2026
As the basic needs of millions of Americans are sacrificed upon the altar of waning US global domination, an analysis unveiled Thursday revealss that the Trump administration has spent billions of dollars on illegal military aggression against Venezuela and civilian boats alleged without evidence to be smuggling drugs off the coast of Latin America.
The Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson School of International and Public Affairs published an analysis by a pair of researchers who "found that spending on Operation Southern Spear and Operation Absolute Resolve in Venezuela, the Caribbean, and the Eastern Pacific cost at least $4.7 billion from August 1, 2025 to March 31, 2026."
The researchers—Hanna Homestead of the Institute for Policy Studies' National Priorities Project and Jennifer Kavanagh of the think tank Defense Priorities—also found that "costs will continue to mount as some naval assets and aircraft remain in the region and strikes continue."
"This estimate is only partial due to lack of information, and does not include long-term budgetary costs such as veterans benefits," an introduction to the analysis states.
BREAKING: Since August 2025, the U.S. has spent at least $4.7 billion on operations in Latin America and the Caribbean, including the operation to oust Maduro. [THREAD, 1/11]
[image or embed]
— The Costs of War Project (@costsofwar.bsky.social) April 23, 2026 at 8:41 AM
In addition to the financial burden, the analysis notes the human costs of enforcing the so-called "Donroe Doctrine."
"While not the topic of this paper, they are essential to note at the outset," the publication states. "The raid and capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro during Operation Absolute Resolve resulted in approximately 75 known fatalities. These include 32 Cuban personnel killed, at least 23 Venezuelan security officers killed, and at least two civilian deaths."
US strikes "against unarmed vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific between September 2, 2025 and March 31, 2026 have killed at least 163 people," the authors added. "In addition, at least one American service member died while deployed to the Caribbean in February 2026 when two US ships collided."
The toll from Trump's boat-bombing spree has since risen to more than 180 following additional reported strikes. Survivors of somemi bombings allege they were tortured by their US captors. The US military and Trump administration have provided no solid evidence to support their claims that the boats were transporting illicit narcotics.
Homestead and Kavanagh noted in their analysis that "to date, Congress has not authorized the use of force in the Caribbean or Eastern Pacific and the Pentagon has not provided information about costs of Venezuela-related operations, even as they continue to mount."
There have been more than 50 boat bombings since Trump launched his campaign last September. Relatives of people killed in or missing after the strikes insist their loved ones were fishers with no links to the drug trade, an assertion echoed by leaders in Venezuela, Colombia, and some Caribbean island nations.
Multiple war powers resolutions aimed at reining in Trump's ability to wage war on Venezuela or bomb boats on the high seas without congressional authorization have been rejected by the Republican-controlled Congress.
In addition to the bombing and invasion of Venezuela and the boat strikes, the Trump administration has deployed troops to Ecuador as part of a joint campaign against alleged drug gangs dubbed Operation Total Extermination. Trump has also ordered the military to plan an invasion to seize the Panama Canal, threatened to "take" Cuba, possibly attack Mexico and Colombia, invade and annex Greenland, and somehow make Canada the "51st state."
That's just in the Western Hemisphere. Overall, Trump has bombed seven countries around the world since returning to the White House and 10 nations over the course of his two terms—including Iran, where he launched an illegal war with Israel.
The Costs of War Project rose to prominence by tracking the human and financial price of the so-called US War on Terror, which since September 2001 has resulted in over 940,000 direct deaths, including at least 432,000 civilians, in five studied countries, at a monetary cost of around $8 trillion.
Homestead and Kavanagh wrote in their analysis that the $4.7 billion figure "is a conservative estimate, and the greatest costs may yet be to come," as "operations do not have a clear end date and are actively expanding."
"They carry significant human, financial, and strategic costs and risk," the researchers contended. "American taxpayers, who are increasingly unable to afford basic needs, have a right to know how their tax dollars are spent."
Homestead told The Intercept on Thursday that "across the country people are going bankrupt and dying prematurely because of lack of healthcare, but the US government has billions to spend on imperialist violence to enrich corporations—from Venezuela to Iran—without any regard for human rights, life, or rule of law."
“This situation illustrates why greater restraint on Pentagon spending—which primarily benefits private contractors—is so necessary," she added.
This, as Trump seeks a record $1.5 trillion allocation for military spending in the next federal budget—despite the national debt approaching a staggering $40 trillion—while proposing billions of dollars in cuts to vital social programs.
Keep ReadingShow Less
More War in Latin America Feared as Farmers Describe Torture From US-Ecuadorian ‘Operation Total Extermination’
An Ecuadorian human rights group has called for a probe after “bombings, burning of homes, arbitrary detentions, torture, and threats against the civilian population” by the joint US-Ecuadorian military operation.
Mar 24, 2026
Just a day after President Donald Trump suggested that he'd use his crushing economic blockade in a bid to "take" Cuba, an administration official said much more American warfare is on the horizon across Latin America.
It's called "Operation Total Extermination," according to Joseph M. Humire, the acting assistant secretary of war for homeland defense and Americas security affairs, who testified last week before the House Armed Services Committee.
Humire explained in written testimony that beginning on March 3, the US Department of Defense (which the Trump administration refers to as the Department of War) "supported, at the request of Ecuador, bilateral kinetic actions against cartel targets along the Colombia-Ecuador border."
"The joint effort," Humire said, "is the start of a military offensive by Ecuador against transnational criminal organizations with the support of the US, setting the pace for regional, deterrence-focused operations against cartel infrastructure throughout Latin America and the Caribbean."
The operation with Ecuador, led by the right-wing president Daniel Noboa, is part of "Operation Southern Spear," the Trump administration's illegal bombing campaign in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean, targeted at boats accused, with little evidence, of ferrying drugs to the US.
The latest of these bombings, which killed at least two more people, occurred on Friday and brought the total death toll since September of last year up to at least 160.
No casualty counts have yet been released by the US or Ecuadorian government for its operations to target what they said were "domestic terrorist organizations." But reports from those on the ground suggest they may have been similarly bloody.
Víctor Gómez, a journalist for the Ecuadorian outlet Radio Sucumbíos, conducted interviews with the residents of the rural town of San Martín in northeastern Ecuador near the Colombian border, who said their community was attacked twice by Ecuadorian and American forces on March 3 and 6.
Noboa celebrated the attacks on the area, which he said housed "a training ground for drug traffickers," and reportedly the home of "Mono Tole," who is the leader of the Colombian drug trafficking group known as the Border Commandos.
But Gómez described the town as having "no trenches, no firing ranges, no traces of a clandestine military infrastructure," adding that "the only things there are horses, cows, and donkeys, at least that's what can be seen on the Radio Sucumbíos cameras."
Locals, many of whom did not have their names published to avoid retaliation, describe military patrols landing on the riverbank on March 3 and launching an "ambush" against four farmers.
“They tied my hands and feet and then hung me up. They put me in a bucket of water, as long as I could stand it… they kicked me, they hit me with the butt of a gun," one of the workers described.
Another said that the soldiers "were looking for someone we didn't know... they told us to hand things over, but we had nothing to hand over."
The soldiers then reportedly "doused the main house and the wooden kitchen with gasoline" and set it ablaze, leaving the flames to consume large amounts of farm equipment.
As residents attempted to advocate for their loved ones, the farm owner said, "The commander in charge wouldn't let us near; they greeted us with gunfire until they took them away."
The four captured farmers were reportedly transported by helicopter to the capital of Sucumbíos, Lago Agrio, where one of the young men described being taken to a tiny room and tortured.
“They shocked us with that thing they called a taser," he said. "They poured water on me and placed it on my ribs and asked us questions."
After finding no evidence of guilt, authorities released the four men near a hospital in the capital.
Three days later, planes and helicopters flew over San Martín, dropping bombs on the ruins of the same house that had already been burnt to the ground three days earlier and on another abandoned house.
Video of that bombing was shared on social media by the Ecuadorian Armed Forces.
“First they burned it on the 3rd, and then on the 6th they came to bomb it. That’s what they did," said the farm's owner.
“How can it be a training camp if this is a livestock area?" he asked. "There is nothing to justify it, there are no training grounds, there is nothing."
The Alliance for Human Rights Ecuador has called for an investigation into the military's alleged "bombings, burning of homes, arbitrary detentions, torture, and threats against the civilian population," which it said were "serious violations of international humanitarian law."
The fallout from the attack has spilled over to create an international incident with neighboring Colombia. Two weeks after the bombing of San Martín, an unexploded 500 lb. bomb was discovered on a farm on the other side of the San Miguel River in Colombia's Putumayo region.
The bomb was identified as a US-made Mark-82. According to the New York Times, "had the bomb exploded, it would have done so with the force of 192 pounds of TNT" and could have harmed people as far as over 1,900 feet away.
"We're being bombed by Ecuador," said Colombian President Gustavo Petro in response to the explosive's discovery. Noboa denied the accusation, saying that "we are acting in our territory, not yours."
Following the US military's January abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, whom the US Department of Justice accused of drug trafficking, leaks have suggested that the US may soon attempt to bring similar charges against Petro, another left-wing leader who has resisted cooperation with Trump. Petro has denied accusations of drug trafficking.
One unnamed official told Nick Turse of The Intercept that attacks along the Ecuador-Colombia border "increasingly look like a coordinated campaign to foment 'discord' if not conflict" in the country.
In his hearing before Congress, Humire said that the US military was providing Ecuador with “capabilities that they otherwise would not have."
Humire said he was not sure how many strikes have been conducted on land so far as part of Operation Total Extermination, but responded "yes" when asked by the committee's ranking member, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), if the Department of Defense would “be moving to a lot more terrestrial strikes."
He said that these attacks were "just the beginning" of a much broader campaign, adding that the US has entered into agreements with 17 partner nations in the Western Hemisphere as part of the so-called Americas Counter Cartel Coalition.
While Humire said the nations that have reached these agreements "want this support and most of them all are looking for this,” the same cannot necessarily be said for the people living in the crossfire of the operation.
Gomez said that the people of San Martín are still living with “psychological trauma” following the attack. According to the town's vice president, Vicente Garrid, families are living in constant fear that their homes could be targeted next.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Shield of the Americas': Trump Assembles His Fascist Hemispheric Fan Club
The group of Caribbean and Latin American leaders attending Trump’s weekend summit in Miami are the fan club of his aggressive interventionism, his so-called “war on narco-terror,” and his administration’s attacks on left-wing governments and movements.
Mar 07, 2026
For nearly three years the Dominican Republic had been excitedly preparing to host the region’s biggest multilateral event: the 2025 Summit of the Americas, bringing together the leaders of nearly every government in the Western Hemisphere. But on November 3, only a month before the summit was to take place, the DR’s foreign ministry abruptly announced the postponement of the event citing “recent climatic events” (i.e., hurricanes) and “profound divisions that currently hamper productive dialogue in the hemisphere.”
Indeed, regional “divisions”—others might say “alarm” or “outrage”—had intensified during the fall of 2025 following the US’ massive military build-up in the Caribbean, its air strikes against alleged drug boats—resulting in scores of extrajudicial killings—and the threats of a US attack on Venezuela. Past summits, including the 2022 summit in Los Angeles, had seen Latin American leaders fiercely push back against US regional policies. Fearing a potential public relations disaster, DR President Luis Abinader—following consultations with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio—decided that pulling the plug was the best option.
So far there’s no word of a new date for the Summit of the Americas. This weekend, however, President Donald Trump will convene a far smaller hemispheric summit at his golf resort in Miami. The group of Caribbean and Latin American leaders that will be attending Trump’s summit—entitled “Shield of the Americas”—are fans of his aggressive interventionism, his so-called “war on narco-terror,” and his administration’s attacks on left-wing governments and movements in the region. They have earned their exclusive invitations through various forms of tribute and by pledging their continued loyalty, though it remains to be seen whether Trump and Rubio will succeed in garnering support for every point on their agenda, in particular for their effort to push China out of the region.
***
Featuring a who’s who of the Latin American hard right, Trump’s divisions-free summit is reminiscent of recent Conservative Political Action Conferences (CPACs) held in Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay. Like those conferences—in which Argentina’s anarcho-capitalist president Javier Milei and Chile’s far-right president-elect José Antonio Kast have shared the stage with MAGA luminaries like Steve Bannon—the “Shield” summit appears designed to further promote Trump-aligned far-right cultish ideologies in the Americas. As an added bonus, it will be held at the National Trump Doral Miami, ensuring a solid weekend of revenue for Trump’s resort as well as quick, easy travel to and from Mar-a-Lago for the US president.
Still, it remains to be seen whether Trump—whose overall attitude toward the region and its inhabitants oscillates between contempt and indifference—will be willing to invest real time and energy in cultivating this group of leaders.
Each of the summit invitees—numbering 12 at last count—can claim to have advanced the US administration’s regional objectives in one way or another. Many have engaged in sustained attacks against left-wing governments and movements that have resisted Trump’s imperial ambitions. Milei, for instance, has repeatedly insulted President Lula da Silva of Brazil and thrown his support behind former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, convicted last year of plotting a military coup against Lula.
Daniel Noboa of Ecuador, in addition to persecuting left-wing opponents at home, has engaged in an unprovoked tariff war against Colombia’s progressive president—and vocal Trump critic—Gustavo Petro. On March 4, for no apparent reason other than that of wanting to please Trump and Rubio, Noboa expelled the entire diplomatic staff at Cuba’s embassy in Quito. Similarly, Honduras’ recently-elected right-wing president Nasry Asfura rescinded a medical cooperation agreement with Cuba, leading to the departure of more than 150 Cuban doctors that had been serving low-income communities. This offering will have surely warmed the heart of Marco Rubio, who has been pressuring countries around the world to terminate similar agreements in order to eliminate one of Cuba’s few sources of foreign income.
Above all, the cohort of right-wingers attending the summit have been supportive of Trump’s “war on narco-terror,” currently the main vehicle for advancing Trump’s policy of expanding US political and economic influence in the region, referred to both mockingly and seriously as the “Donroe Doctrine.” The first signs of this “war” date back to the first day of Trump’s second term, when he instructed Rubio to designate various drug cartels and Latin American gangs as “foreign terrorist organizations.” It became real when, in late July of last year, the US president ordered a massive build-up of naval and aerial military assets in the south Caribbean and directed US Southern Command (Southcom) to conduct illegal aerial strikes against suspected drug boats, leading so far to over 150 extrajudicial killings of mostly unknown civilians.
On January 3, following months of threats of US intervention in Venezuela, US forces conducted an unprovoked military attack and invasion of Venezuela and abducted President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, who were flown to New York to await trial on dubious charges. The next day, the members of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC, by its Spanish initials) met and discussed a statement denouncing the illegal attack on Venezuela. Nine governments opposed the statement and effectively blocked its release. The leaders of those governments, except for that of politically unstable Peru, are now on the “Shield of the Americas” invitation list. Two other leaders who’d been elected but hadn’t taken office—Kast of Chile and Asfura of Honduras—defended the attack, and have been invited as well.
A number of governments have gone even further in embracing Trump’s “narco-terror war.” After the US administration designated the fictitious Venezuelan drug organization “Cartel de los Soles” as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, later identifying Maduro as its leader, the presidents of Argentina, Ecuador, Paraguay, and the DR (all “Shield” invitees) did the same. Given the lack of real evidence that this so-called cartel exists, the US Department of Justice removed the term from its indictment of Maduro; however, the terrorist designation remains in the books in the US and in those four Latin American countries.
Many of the governments represented at the Miami summit have adopted the term “narco-terror” in official discourse and policy statements. Noboa, whose security forces are allegedly responsible for forced disappearances and widespread human rights abuses, has launched his own “war on narco-terror” in Ecuador. On March 3 the US and Ecuador announced joint military operations targeting “terrorist organizations” with US special forces supporting Ecuadorian commandos to “combat the scourge of narco-terrorism,” per Southcom. Other summit invitees, including Argentina, the DR, Bolivia, and El Salvador appear to be getting in the game as well and Paraguay, like Ecuador, has signed a Status of Forces Agreement with the US administration, allowing the presence of US troops and providing them with immunity from local prosecution.
It’s possible that the Trump administration considers that framing US military expansionism in the hemisphere as a combined war on terrorism and drug-trafficking is helpful in garnering public support, though there’s not much indication that it has, outside of the Republican MAGA base. But it’s hard to claim, with a straight face, that President Trump is genuinely determined to fight drug trafficking knowing that he recently pardoned former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández, who was serving a 45-year sentence for his role in enabling the importation of more than 400 tons of cocaine to the US. Or when one considers that one of his primary partners in his drug war is President Noboa, whose family’s business appears to be implicated in cocaine trafficking, according to a recent investigation by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project.
As of the writing of this article, there are few details about the agenda of the summit except that apparently “security” and “foreign interference” will be discussed. Regarding “security,” Trump, Rubio, and Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth—who are all reportedly attending—probably won’t need to do much to convince their allies to double down further on the “narco-terror” threat. Given recent events, it’s likely they’ll focus more on shoring up regional support for the war with Iran, which has so far received mostly tepid backing, with the exception of presidents Milei, Kast, and Santiago Peña of Paraguay, who have all cheered on the joint US-Israeli attacks. They may also seek more overt backing for the intense US regime change effort targeting Cuba, which involves an oil blockade that could soon cause a “humanitarian collapse,” according to the United Nations. Trump and many Republicans have said that when they’re done in Iran, “Cuba is next.”
By “foreign interference” the White House is presumably not referring to US interference in Latin America and the Caribbean, which has been a constant for many decades but has reached new heights under Trump. Instead, the term is widely understood in Washington as primarily a reference to China’s growing regional influence. Here it is far from certain that Trump and his team will make much progress given the massive economic benefits derived from Chinese trade and investment. China is currently the top trading partner for Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, and Paraguay and the second biggest trading partner for nearly all of the other countries represented at the summit.
Many of these leaders have engaged in strident rhetoric against the PRC, but ultimately have quietly chosen to strengthen relations with the world’s second-biggest (and soon biggest) economy. Milei, for instance, referred to the Chinese government as “assassins” and said that he refused to do business with communists. He has completely changed his tune now: At Davos this year he called China “a great trading partner” and said that he plans to visit Beijing this year.
According to a schedule that the White House shared with the media, President Trump will participate in the “Shield of the Americas” summit for two and half hours and then fly back to Mar-a-Lago in the afternoon. With 12 other heads of state present, it’s doubtful that much will be achieved. There will be speeches—one can expect a long, rambling speech by Trump in which he’s likely to congratulate himself again for his “success” in Venezuela—there will doubtless be many selfies taken with Trump, but it’s unlikely that there will be anything resembling real dialogue.
Instead, the summit’s goal appears to be, first, offering the leaders limited face time with Trump as a sort of recompense for their loyalty and various good deeds. Some of these leaders have already received decisive support from Trump. Shortly before a key congressional election in Argentina, the US Treasury offered Milei’s government a $20 billion bailout, which stabilized the country’s economy and helped Milei’s party clinch a major electoral victory. Late last year, Trump interfered in a big way in Honduras’ election by endorsing Asfura’s candidacy and threatening to exact an economic punishment on the whole country if voters didn’t elect him. Asfura ended up winning by a razor thin margin that was contested by his opponents.
For leaders of some of the smaller countries, participating in the summit is itself a big reward, one that allows them to show domestic constituencies that their pliant behavior has paid off in the form of privileged access to the US president. For Trinidad’s Persad-Bissessar, who supported Trump’s boat strikes even after Trinidadian civilians were killed, and Guyanese president Irfan Aali, who promised US oil companies “preferential treatment” in their bids to operate in Guyana’s booming oil sector, the participation in such an exclusive event with Trump is, in itself, the reward.
Finally, it’s likely that, through this brief summit, Trump and Rubio are hoping to consolidate a hemispheric posse of sorts—a group of obedient allies who will continue to defend the administration’s interventionism and its violations of sovereignty and international law and that will eagerly participate in the expansion of the US’ militarized security agenda.
Still, it remains to be seen whether Trump—whose overall attitude toward the region and its inhabitants oscillates between contempt and indifference—will be willing to invest real time and energy in cultivating this group of leaders. His appointment of Kristi Noem as “special envoy” to the summit, as part of a maneuver to remove her from the position of Homeland Security Secretary, doesn’t send the most positive signal to his far-right guests. Even they may be cringing at the thought of the future of the summit being in the hands of a firebrand immigration enforcer who played a key role in the persecution and stigmatization of migrants that beckoned primarily from Latin America and the Caribbean.
Keep ReadingShow Less
For Trump and Rubio, Colonizing Cuba Is Not About Freedom—It’s About Their Own Egos
For Trump, regime change in Cuba will cement his legacy. For Rubio, it will mark the culmination of his childhood dream. In their equation, they win and Cuba—like Venezuela, Puerto Rico, Hawai’i, Guam, and so many nations before it—loses its independence and freedom.
Feb 14, 2026
The Trump administration’s total blockade on oil imports to Cuba is jeopardizing the lives of millions across the island. It is resulting in severe blackouts that are disrupting food production, hospitals, schools, public transport, and tourism.
Despite this, the people of Cuba remain defiant. As Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel remarks: “The collapse lies in the imperial mindset, but not in the mindset of the Cubans. I know we are going to live through difficult times, but we will overcome them together with creative resilience.”
Cuba Is Not A Threat—Trump Is
President Donald Trump alleges that Cuba poses “an unusual and extraordinary threat” for two reasons. First, its relationship with “hostile countries” and “transnational terrorist groups,” including Russia, China, Iran, and Hamas. Second, Trump alleges that Cuba’s “communist ideas, policies, and practices” are a threat to the region and endanger the lives of its citizens.
Neither of these is the real reason, however. In January 2026, Trump praised Canada’s trade deal with China as “a good thing.” He told reporters, “If you can get a deal with China, you should do that.” While Trump did threaten retaliatory tariffs against Canada a few days later, his own administration has boasted about the “historic agreement” it reached with China on trade. Trump himself raves about his “extremely good” relationship with Chinese President Xi Jinping. He even invited Xi to join his Board of Peace.
For Trump, colonialism is not solely about exploitation and systematic theft—it is a means of reshaping the world in his self-obsessed image.
Likewise, Trump purports to have a good relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump has described Putin as a “genius” and a “strong leader,” and their relationship as “very, very good.” He even praised Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. During a radio interview, Trump said: “Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine—of Ukraine—Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.” Despite his war crimes, Trump also invited Putin to be part of the Board of Peace.
Clearly, Trump has no issue forming close relationships with “hostile countries.”
Concerns about destabilizing the region or harms to the Cuban people are also false flags. The Trump administration has issued illegal military strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean that have killed at least 130 people; violated international law by invading Venezuela and kidnapping President Nicolás Maduro; threatened several nations in the region including Colombia, Mexico, Panama, Greenland, Canada, as well as Cuba and Venezuela. Compared to Cuba, the Trump administration is, in orders of magnitude, a significantly greater threat to regional stability.
Moreover, Trump does not care whatsoever about the well-being of Cubans. If he did, he would not have undone President Barack Obama’s attempts at normalizing US-Cuba relations. If he cared, then his administration would not have paused a humanitarian program that allowed Cubans to enter the US and remain here legally for two years. Rather than protecting a group that has overwhelmingly supported him, the Trump administration is mass deporting Cubans back to the very country it is now economically asphyxiating.
This vile disregard, however, is not surprising—Trump does not care about global stability. He does not care about American citizens. And he especially does not care about the peoples of Asian, African, Caribbean, and Latin American countries.
No, Trump’s blatant act of global terrorism against Cuba is not about national security, communism, or saving lives. This act of deprived cruelty masquerading as foreign policy is about narcissism, private interest, and personal grievances.
Donald Trump: Where Narcissism Meets Colonialism
According to a US official, Trump believes that successfully ending the Castro era would cement his legacy by accomplishing what presidents since John F. Kennedy have failed to do. This is among his chief motivations.
Whether it’s adding his name to the Kennedy Center, building the “Arch de Trump,” or whining about the Nobel Peace Prize he thinks he deserves, Trump is obsessed with himself and his legacy. At Turning Point USA’s 2025 AmericaFest Conference, conservative commentator Jesse Watters recounts asking Trump about why his “big, beautiful ballroom” is so extravagant—“four times the size of the White House.” Watters told the audience, “[Trump] said, ‘Jesse, it’s a monument. I’m building a monument to myself—because no one else will.’”
For Trump, colonialism is not solely about exploitation and systematic theft—it is a means of reshaping the world in his self-obsessed image. In his mind, colonized lands are monuments to his greatness and ego; another property upon which he can stamp his name and expand his golden empire; further proof that only he can bring peace and order to the world.
Trump’s narcissism is why he labelled himself the “Acting President of Venezuela” after his administration kidnapped Maduro—a blatant violation of international law reduced to self-aggrandizement.
This is why he posted a video of an ethnically cleansed “Trump Gaza” filled with palm trees, luxury buildings, and, of course, a towering golden statue of himself. Mass displacement and genocide are simply steppingstones in his pursuit of more self-praise.
Cuba will be no different. He will torture Cuba in the hopes of forcing them to submit to his will and cement his legacy. To force them to “make a deal, before it is too late.” For Trump, all this cruelty is business as usual. As he puts it, “Sometimes, part of making a deal is denigrating your competition.”
Marco Rubio’s Childhood Fantasy
That said, Trump’s is not the only ego at play here. Reportedly, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is deliberately blocking negotiations between high-level officials from Havana and Washington. This, despite both Trump and Díaz-Canel insisting that they are open to talks.
Rubio has long since advocated for total regime change in Cuba. In his memoir American Son, Rubio writes about the profound impact his Castro-hating grandfather and President Ronald Reagan’s militant anti-communism had on his political beliefs. He writes that, as a child, “I boasted I would someday lead an army of exiles to overthrow Fidel Castro and become president of a free Cuba.” When applying to law school, his personal essay expressed his “intention to use [his] law degree one day to help construct a new legal and political system for a free Cuba.”
We were too late to stop Trump’s illegal invasion of Venezuela; but we can still save Cuba. From Argentina to Canada, we must unite.
Throughout his life, Rubio has expressed the same sentiment: For Cuba to be free, the Castro regime must end and be replaced with a new political system. For Rubio, Díaz-Canel is no different than Castro. As he sees it, “The dictatorship of Díaz-Canel follows the same tactics as the Castro regime, censoring and repressing members of the opposition.” As such, there can be no negotiations: “Every concession made to the [Díaz-Canel] regime is a betrayal of those who are fighting for freedom on the island.” Thus, Rubio opposed Obama’s attempts at normalizing relations with Cuba, warned against President Joe Biden recommitting to the “failed Obama Administration policy of rewarding Raúl Castro and Miguel Díaz-Canel,” and is now actively blocking negotiations between the two nations. For Rubio, there is only one way forward. The current regime must end, and the era of President Rubio must begin—an illicit inauguration that Trump has already endorsed.
Beyond his own twisted personal desires, many of Rubio’s constituents and backers are also anti-Castro and anti-communist. As journalists Ryan Grim, Noah Kulwin, and José Luis Granados Ceja with Drop Site News write, “If Trump successfully lands a deal with the Cuban government that Rubio would have to sign off on, Rubio would be left to either betray his life’s cause and that of his backers in Miami, or resign in protest.”
The stakes are much higher and far more personal for Rubio than Trump. But in the end, neither care about Cuba nor its people. For Trump, regime change in Cuba will cement his legacy. For Rubio, it will mark the culmination of his childhood dream. In their equation, they win and Cuba—like Venezuela, Puerto Rico, Hawai’i, Guam, and so many nations before it—loses its independence and freedom.
America vs. Trump
Now is the time for nations across the Americas and the Caribbean to band together against Trump’s vile Donroe Doctrine. President Claudia Sheinbaum should be praised for her efforts to aid Cuba, but this is not a fight Mexico can win alone. Nor should it have to; this impacts all of us.
Let’s be clear: Regardless of current US relationships, no country is safe from Trump’s colonial aggression and narcissistic whims. Whether it’s betraying the Kurds in Syria or threatening NATO allies, Trump will do whatever it takes to satisfy his own ambitions. Trump’s allies in the region, like Dominican Republic President Luis Abinader and Argentine President Javier Milei, would do well to remember this.
We were too late to stop Trump’s illegal invasion of Venezuela; but we can still save Cuba. From Argentina to Canada, we must unite. We cannot allow ourselves to be at the mercy of Trump’s delusions of grandeur. We must act now to save Cuba.
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Another Boat Bombing, House Progressives Demand End to 'Donroe Doctrine'
"We need to finally leave the Monroe Doctrine behind and pursue a foreign policy grounded in mutual respect and shared prosperity," said Rep. Nydia Velázquez, introducing the New Good Neighbor Act with Rep. Delia Ramirez.
Feb 10, 2026
With the death toll from President Donald Trump's boat bombings of alleged drug traffickers now at 130 after a Monday strike, a pair of progressive congresswomen on Tuesday called for ending the Monroe Doctrine and establishing a "New Good Neighbor" policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean.
In 1823, then-President James Monroe "declared the Western Hemisphere off limits to powerful countries in Europe," NPR noted last month. "Fast forward, and President Trump is reviving the Monroe Doctrine to justify intervening in places like Venezuela, and threatening further action in other parts of Latin America and Greenland."
Trump's version of the policy has been dubbed the "Donroe Doctrine." After US forces boarded the Aquila II, a Venezuela-linked oil tanker, in the Indian Ocean, David Adler, co-general coordinator of Progressive International, said Monday that "the Donroe Doctrine is not simply a vision for the hemisphere. It is a doctrine of global domination."
In response to the president's recent actions—from his boat bombings and pardon of convicted drug trafficker and former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, to his oil blockade of Venezuela and raid that overthrew the South American country's president, Nicolás Maduro—US Reps. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) and Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) introduced the New Good Neighbor Act.
"This administration's aggressive stance toward Latin America makes this resolution critical," said Velázquez in a statement. "Their 'Donroe Doctrine' is simply a more grotesque version of the interventionist policies that have failed us for two centuries."
"The United States and Latin America face shared challenges in drug trafficking, migration, and climate change," she continued. "We can only solve these through real partnership, not coercion. We need to finally leave the Monroe Doctrine behind and pursue a foreign policy grounded in mutual respect and shared prosperity."
Ramirez similarly said that "for more than 200 years, the United States has used the Monroe Doctrine to justify a paternalistic, damaging approach to relations with Latin America and the Caribbean. As a result, the legacy of our nation's foreign policy in those regions is political instability, deep poverty, extreme migration, and colonialism. It is well past time we change our approach."
"We must recognize our interconnectedness and admit that the Monroe Doctrine undermines the partnership needed to confront the complex challenges of this century," she argued. "We must become better neighbors. That is why I am proud to join Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez to develop an approach to foreign policy that advances our collective interests and builds a stronger coalition throughout the Americas and the rest of the world."
The original Good Neighbor Policy was adopted by former President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s, in an attempt at reverse US imperialism in Latin America. The aim was to curb military interventions, center respect for national sovereignty, and prioritize diplomacy and trade.
As the sponsors' offices summarized, the new resolution calls for:
- The Department of State to formally confirm that the Monroe Doctrine is no longer a part of United States policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean;
- The federal government to develop a "New Good Neighbor" policy in place of the Monroe Doctrine;
- Developing a new approach to promoting economic development;
- The termination of all unilateral economic sanctions imposed through executive orders, and working with Congress to terminate all unilateral sanctions, such as the Cuba embargo, mandated by law;
- New legislation to trigger the suspension of assistance to a government whenever there is an extraconstitutional transfer of power;
- Prompt declassification of all United States government archives that relate to past coups d’état, dictatorships, and periods in the history of Latin American and Caribbean countries characterized by a high rate of human rights crimes perpetrated by security forces;
- Collaboration with Latin American and Caribbean governments on a far-reaching reform to the Organization of American States; and
- Supporting democratic reforms to the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, and other international financial institutions.
The measure isn't likely to advance in a Republican-controlled Congress that has failed to pass various war powers resolutions that would rein in Trump's boat strikes and aggression toward Venezuela, but it offers Democrats an opportunity to make their foreign policy positions clear going into the midterms—in which Velázquez, who is 72, has decided not to seek reelection.
So far, it is backed by Democratic Reps. Greg Casar (Texas), Yvette Clarke (NY), Jesús "Chuy" García (Ill.), Sylvia García (Texas), Adelita Grijalva (Ariz.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC), Jonathan Jackson (Ill.), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Summer Lee (Pa.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Mark Pocan (Wis.), Jan Schakowsky (Ill.), Lateefah Simon (Calif.), and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.). Like Velázquez, Chuy García and Schakowsky are also retiring after this term.
Leaders from organizations including the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), the United Methodist Church's board, and We Are CASA also backed the bill and commended the sponsors for, as Cavan Kharrazian of Demand Progress, put it "advancing a new framework for US engagement in the region grounded in mutual respect, sovereignty, and cooperation rather than coercion or threats."
Alex Main, CEPR's director of international policy, stressed that "Trump is waging a new offensive against Latin America and the Caribbean—conducting illegal and unprovoked military attacks and extrajudicial killings and brazenly intervening in other countries' domestic affairs in an undisguised effort to exert control over the region's resources and politics."
"But while Trump’s actions are especially egregious, they are just the latest chapter of a centuries-old story of US military political and economic interference that has subverted democracy and fueled instability and human rights crimes across the hemisphere," Main continued. "It is in the interest of the US to reject this doctrine of unilateral domination and chart a new course for US-Latin American relations—to treat our Latin American siblings as vecinos, not vassals."
Sharing yet another brief black-and-white video on social media, US Southern Command on Monday announced a "lethal kinetic strike on a vessel" allegedly "transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific." SOUTHCOM added that "two narco-terrorists were killed and one survived the strike," which prompted a search for the survivor.
Legal experts and various members of Congress have described the killings as murder on the high seas. Reiterating that position in response to the latest bombing disclosure, Amnesty International USA urged Americans to pressure lawmakers to act.
"US military helpfully publishes evidence of its mass murder of civilians at sea," said Ben Saul, a professor at Australia's University of Sydney and the United Nations special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. "Over to you, US Department of Justice, to do your job and bring murder suspects to justice."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Doomsday Clock and Nuclear Reality: Our World in Peril
A breakdown of international nuclear norms, fueled by “us versus them” thinking and the newly termed “Donroe Doctrine” challenges our legitimacy around the world.
Jan 28, 2026
Today, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Science and Security Board presented the 2026 Doomsday Clock. At 85 seconds to midnight, this is the closest it has been since the original clock was presented 79 years ago by the Bulletin’s founders, scientists who were involved with the Manhattan Project and the development of the atomic bomb. The prophetic clock symbolizes the proximity of humanity to nuclear apocalypse at the strike of midnight. It is yet again a stark reminder of how close we are to nuclear Armageddon and the end of life as we know it. It is at great peril that we continue to ignore this pronouncement. The current board is composed of globally recognized leaders in science, academia and threat assessment who are charged with determining the potential of man-made existential threats.
In recent years, the movement forward of the minute hand has taken into account the nuclear risk accelerators of climate change, disruptive technologies, emerging threats and a breakdown of international cooperation.
This announcement comes as civil society and the majority of the world‘s population last week celebrated the fifth anniversary of the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons which formally made nuclear weapons illegal to have, test, develop, stockpile, transfer and/or threaten to use. In defiance of international law and norms, the nuclear nine nations continue their arms race to develop and modernize their nuclear weapons under the gross fallacy of nuclear deterrence. In reality deterrence remains the greatest driver of the current arms race and threat to our survival. This year’s setting of the Doomsday Clock follows a year where global order has been shaken and conflict multipliers occur, seemingly on a daily basis, increasing nuclear proliferation and potential for use either by intent, miscalculation, accident, or cyber attack. In this past year, 5 of the 9 nuclear nations, Russia, the U.S., Israel, India and Pakistan, were at war, the last two with each other and China has made increasingly bellicose threats to occupy Taiwan.
Additionally, the push to resume nuclear power and the entire nuclear fuel cycle, setting aside environmental safeguards, is presented under the charade of nuclear power – totally ignoring the intimate connection between nuclear power and weapons development increases the availability of nuclear material and thus the risk of nuclear proliferation, increased contamination of our communities, and, of course, a nuclear war.
Finally, the last remaining nuclear arms treaty, New START, is set to expire February 5 with no follow on treaty in the works.
This breakdown of international nuclear norms, fueled by “us versus them” thinking and the newly termed “Donroe doctrine” challenges our legitimacy around the world.
These flashpoints coupled with the interconnected existential threat of climate change that moves forward with the failure to create any significant climate agreements this past year. This has worsened due to the U.S. withdrawal from 66 international organizations and treaties further isolating us around the world.
Currently global nuclear arsenals have approximately 12,321 weapons or roughly 267,000 times the firepower of the bomb dropped over Hiroshima. Therefore, when, and not if, nuclear deterrence fails, as it certainly will as long as these weapons exist, everyone and everything we care about will be destroyed. As Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev stated in 1985, subsequently reaffirmed by Presidents Biden and Putin in 2021, “Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” We cannot outspend or outgun our way out of this. Our only hope for survival for our generation and future generations is the complete and verified elimination of these weapons.
Fortunately there is hope. The non-nuclear nations of the world have refused to be bullied any longer. The International Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, signed by 99 nations, and ratified by 74 nations, is now international law. Here in the United States we have a growing grassroots movement, Back from the Brink, at all levels of our society, from civil society including faith-based organizations to cities, counties, states and bicameral resolutions in the U.S. House (H.Res.317) and Senate (S.Res.323) with 55 sponsors.
We can and must demand action now. Absent this we risk the reality expressed by Oppenheimer when he said, “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” We must push back against the nuclear industrial complex and their captured elected officials. We must denounce the lie of deterrence whenever and wherever it is uttered. We must choose the path of hope, the hope and commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons. We will then be free to turn our global attention and our resources to fighting our other interconnected existential threat of climate change. The choice is ours.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's Bellicose, Chaotic Foreign Policy Is Based on Doing Whatever He Wants
Trump has stated openly that his vaunted unpredictability is a tactic to keep his enemies off guard, but his erratic behavior gets in the way of planning, heightens distrust, and serves as an incentive for other nations to spend more on defense.
Jan 17, 2026
In Charlie Chaplin’s 1940 masterpiece The Great Dictator, there is a scene in which his character “Adenoid Hynkel,” ruler of the antisemitic and fascistic nation named “Tomania,” dreamily juggles a huge balloon painted as a globe—until it bursts. Should our balloon burst, and the possibility is becoming ever greater, the consequences will dwarf anything that Charlie might have imagined.
Since the start of Donald Trump’s second term in 2025, his cult of the personality picked up steam. The Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts has been renamed the Trump Kennedy Center. The president’s name also graces the new $300 million ballroom at the White House and various other Washington buildings. In this vein, he has also called for the construction of a new “Arc de Trump,” and—significantly—plastered his moniker on a new class of Navy battleships.
On the campaign trail, Trump had promised there would be no new wars and that the United States would no longer serve as the “world’s policeman.” But we should have seen what was coming. Glimpses of the future were already apparent when the president changed the “Gulf of Mexico” into the “Gulf of America,” demanded that Denmark surrender Greenland to the United States, and called upon Canada to become our 51st state. Nor was that all. Trump renamed the Department of Defense the Department of War and, despite the cost-cutting frenzy led by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, he successfully pressured Congress into passing the first $1 trillion military budget in American history.
Trump’s crass public campaign for the Nobel Prize failed. An Israeli Peace Prize and another from soccer’s FIFA governing body, both hastily created for Trump, proved merely embarrassing substitutes. His attempts to coerce peace in the Russia-Ukraine War had been unsuccessful. The Gaza ceasefire was appearing increasingly fragile, and it was clear that the president had stoked international tensions with his strangely miscalculated tariff policy.
Trump’s actions normalize contempt for international law, rights of national self-determination, and sovereignty.
Trump claims that he has ended more than eight wars all over the globe. But the statement is thin on evidence, whereas it is abundantly clear that the United States was involved in 622 air and drone strike across seven countries in 2025: Afghanistan,, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. The president has never been a staunch advocate of international law or human rights. To the contrary: Trump stated quite openly that he recognized no constraint on his international decision-making authority other than his own “morality,” which should have surprised no one.
As 2026 begins, the president has taken over Venezuela, kidnapped its president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores, charging them with “narco-terrorism.” To achieve these ends, the United States launched 22 strikes that killed 110 people, murdered sailors seeking to surrender, and shelled vessels without first determining whether they were actually carrying drugs. Nor did Congress approve Trump’s act of war; it was not even briefed. The enterprise was instead prepared by Trump and a few close advisers in consultation with oil company executives; indeed, this was a war waiting for an excuse to wage it.
Why did Trump do it? The president needed something dramatic in the face of slipping poll numbers, mumblings of discontent among a few supporters, the mess surrounding the Epstein files, the anger resulting from an economic “affordability” crisis, changes in healthcare that put millions at risk, and the growing repulsion against the storm-trooper tactics of Immigration and Customs Enforcement against immigrants. In 2024, moreover, Trump had demanded that oil companies and the energy sector donate $1 billion to his campaign. They gave him $75 million. Corporations always expect something for their money, and perhaps providing them with a profitable surprise would make them more generous the next time around.
Given Trump’s desire to recreate a past golden age, it made sense for him to justify his Venezuelan policy by invoking the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. This seminal document of American diplomatic history warned foreign powers against interfering in the Western Hemisphere, and contributed to the belief that Central and South America constituted the United States’ sphere of influence. However, Trump gave it a radical twist by declaring that the United States would “run” Venezuela until an “acceptable” sovereign is installed and for now, under his stewardship, the United States would “indefinitely” control sales of its oil and minerals on the open market.
This he calls the “Donroe” Doctrine. Justifications are of secondary importance. He insisted that the Maduro regime was an agent of “narco-terrorism,” which dominated fentanyl smuggling operations, but it turned out that Venezuela was responsible for only about 5% of the fentanyl entering the United States. Trump then changed the narrative by claiming that Maduro was the mastermind behind the cocaine plague, and when that accusation fell flat, he shifted it again by condemning him as a war criminal for possessing weapons of mass destruction.
Americans cheer interventions when they begin, but quickly grow weary when the price comes due. And invading Venezuela might prove to be a high price to pay. There are striking similarities with the plans laid bare in Venezuela and the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. In both cases, there was the lure of oil, a murderous dictator to overthrow, an exaggerated “existential” threat, an arrogant conviction the citizenry of another country would welcome American “liberators” with open arms, and disregard for the chaos that reckless regime change would generate.
Maduro’s regime was authoritarian, brutal, corrupt, and incompetent. But Trump’s actions normalize contempt for international law, rights of national self-determination, and sovereignty. Indeed, calling his overthrow an international police action against narco-terrorism doesn’t change that reality. Arbitrarily snatching world leaders creates widespread fear and destruction and contributes to creating a politics based on the “war of each against all’ that Thomas Hobbes feared above all else, if only because it heightens instability
As became clear in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, to leave a nation without a sovereign is to condemn it to violent rivalry between paramilitary groups. Vice President Delcy Rodriguez was installed by the Venezuelan Supreme Court as “interim” president for up to 90 days, though that can be extended by legal means, and an election awaits in the future. She is in an untenable situation. Rodriguez must navigate between independence and submission. She must either stand on her own and risk regime change or serve as a shadow sovereign lacking legitimacy and power.
Trump is satisfied with what has transpired, and he feels emboldened. He is already saber-rattling while making similar charges of drug running against Colombia, Mexico, and Cuba. Trump has also grown more bellicose in insisting that Denmark prioritize American “national security” interests, and either sell or prepare to lose its autonomous territory of Greenland. Whether discord among members of NATO will strengthen its enemies is far less important than Trump’s ability to exercise power in an unimpeded manner
Besides, these policies can change in the blink of an eye should Trump find that alternative approaches better serve his purposes. He has stated openly that his vaunted unpredictability is a tactic to keep his enemies off guard. He neglected to mention, of course, that his erratic behavior gets in the way of planning, heightens distrust, and serves as an incentive for other nations to spend more on defense. He wishes only to be able to do what he wants, when he wants, and wherever he wants. This spirit is infusing his foreign policy and contributing to a spreading existential fear of military conflict.
Nationwide protests have rocked Iran in response to the Islamic Republic’s repression of all democratic tendencies, its incompetence in dealing with questions of infrastructure and water, the corruption of the mullahs, and the complete collapse of the currency. These are brave people risking their lives in the streets, but Trump feels it his duty to take center stage. He has warned that he will intervene should the government wind up killing protesters. It sounds heroic, but such warnings only put protesters at greater risk because the leadership can now claim that they are traitors and agents of “The Great Satan”—and that is precisely what the Supreme Leader has done.
Trump was not thinking about the negative consequences his words might have for those Iranians fighting for freedom. But that is the point: He never thinks about others, only about himself. More likely Trump is thinking about sabotaging further negotiations on a nuclear deal; undermining a regional rival; and making himself appear once again, as with the Maduro affair, as the champion of democracy and peace. Even if the rest of the world disagrees, indeed, that is how he can view himself—and that is what counts.
Keep ReadingShow Less
If You Liked Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam, You'll Love What Trump Is Offering in Venezuela
Meet the 'Donroe Doctrine,' a foreign policy created by the very worst US president ever.
Jan 05, 2026
During rambling remarks on January 3, President Donald Trump announced that the United States had bombed Venezuela, “captured” President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, and gained control of that country’s oil reserves.
Now what? Trump has no idea, but historical precedent portends disaster.
The Dubious Legal Basis
As with his bombing of alleged drug-smuggling boats that have killed at least 115 civilians, Trump offered no justification under international law for his actions:
- The operation was not “self-defense” because Venezuela did not “attack” the United States.
- Calling Maduro a “narco-terrorist” did not render him or his country an “imminent” national security threat. In fact, Venezuela is a relatively small player in the international cocaine market and has no role in fentanyl—the primary killer in overdose deaths.
- Trump used the word “oil” more than 20 times in his speech. Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves. Fifty years ago—in 1976—it nationalized US companies’ oil assets and facilities through a negotiated legal process that netted the firms more than $1 billion. Reversing that nationalization is an absurd—and dangerous—hook on which to hang the military attack in 2026.
Repeatedly, Trump invoked the Monroe Doctrine, saying that he had expanded it “by a lot.” But in fact, Trump has stood President James Monroe’s 1823 seminal proclamation on its head while emboldening China’s President Xi and Russia’s President Putin to follow Trump’s lead in dictating the affairs of sovereign countries.
Trump has no knowledge of history, much less respect for its costly lessons. And with the “Donroe Doctrine,” he has created new danger for the nation and the world.
Monroe v. “Donroe”
In 1823, President Monroe announced a new defensive principle: The United States would object to Europe’s further colonization of the Western hemisphere as “dangerous to our peace and security.” The US would not interfere with existing European colonies, but it would regard future attempts to determine the destiny of these independent nations “as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.”
In 1904 and 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt’s Corollary expanded the Doctrine, permitting the US to act as an “international police power” to prevent “some civilized nation” from intervening to assure a struggling country’s financial solvency.
Rather than a defensive warning to would-be foreign interlopers, Trump has transformed the Monroe Doctrine into an offensive weapon to invade, conquer, and control independent nations.
Trump calls it the “Donroe Doctrine.” It stems from his 19th-century worldview that the United States, China, and Russia are each entitled to operate within their own spheres of influence—kings carving up the world: China gets the Far East; the United States gets the Western Hemisphere (and Greenland!); Russia gets whatever it wants that’s left.
China’s designs on an independently democratic Taiwan are well known. Russia started a war to absorb Ukraine into the new Russian empire. And now Trump has conquered Venezuela.
The Pottery Barn Rule
Before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Gen. Colin Powell warned President George W. Bush that the strategy was fraught with risk
“If you break it, you own it,” Powell said, invoking the “Pottery Barn rule.”
Powell meant that if the US intervened militarily and destabilized a country, it bore long-term responsibility for rebuilding, governing, and managing the consequences. Bush would “own” Iraq's 25 million people.
Venezuela’s population is 28 million.
Trump said that he, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine will “run” that country for the indefinite future. But what does that mean?
For starters, Trump is picking its next president. Maduro’s scandal-ridden vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, is subject to US and EU sanctions and has been a central player in the corrupt regime. But she will serve for as long as she does Trump’s bidding.
“She really doesn’t have a choice,” he said.
An alternative, María Corina Machado, is a former lawmaker and the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner who led the opposition to Maduro. She won the presidential primary by a landslide in 2023, but Maduro’s government disqualified her from running. Her successor still won the general election; Maduro refused to recognize the outcome.
But Trump declared that Machado can’t be president because she “doesn’t have the support within or respect within the country.” What he probably meant was that she won the Nobel Peace Prize that he coveted.
But what if the Venezuelan people want Machado? Things can turn ugly quickly, especially if Trump makes good on his threat to put “boots on the ground.”
Searching for Monsters
In 1821, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams delivered the most memorable speech of his career, saying:
“Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.”
To do otherwise, he cautioned, the “fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.” America would become “an Imperial Diadem, flashing in false and tarnished luster the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.”
When the United States has departed from Adams’s principle, it has turned out badly.
Coup attempts and more than 500,000 “boots on the ground” for years could not secure victory in South Vietnam.
Nearly 15 years after the US led the ouster of Libya’s dictator, it remains a fractured state.
President Bush’s “pre-emptive” war in Iraq over non-existent weapons of mass destruction became a decade-long quagmire.
America’s 20-year struggle in Afghanistan ended in disaster and the Taliban’s return to power.
Worst President Ever
Trump himself made opposition to foreign entanglements a central issue in his “America First” presidential campaigns. But words spoken to win elections ring hollow today—just like his campaign promises to release the Epstein files and strengthen the economy.
Maduro is a despicable person. But it’s a dangerous quantum leap to bomb a country and kidnap its leader in violation of international law. Trump suggested that Colombia’s president could be next. Secretary of State Marco Rubio hinted that Cuba might be on the target list. And Mexico is in Trump’s crosshairs.
Trump has no knowledge of history, much less respect for its costly lessons. And with the “Donroe Doctrine,” he has created new danger for the nation and the world.
For all mankind, surviving the final three years of his term will be a daunting challenge.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy