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
latin america
The Return of the Kirkpatrick Doctrine
The Trump agenda in Latin America is about protecting US economic and financial interests, just as it was under Kirkpatrick’s reign of terror-for-profit.
Sep 08, 2025
In August 1981, US Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick traveled to Santiago to meet with Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, eight years after he seized power in a military coup. Kirkpatrick cheeringly described their talk as “most pleasant” and announced that the Reagan administration would fully normalize relations and resume arms sales—support that Pinochet quickly used to claim renewed legitimacy and crack down on opponents.
The episode crystallized what became known as the Kirkpatrick Doctrine: the notion that the US government should embrace any autocrat who aligned with Washington’s anti-communist agenda while working to undermine, sanction, or topple any left-wing leader who refused to “play ball,” even if they were democratically elected (and popular). Protecting American economic interests was the lodestar, and just about anything was permissible in service of that goal.
The Kirkpatrick Doctrine shaped US Cold War policy across Latin America under President Ronald Reagan. It was invoked to justify participation in Operation Condor, a transnational repression system that coordinated dictatorships’ assassinations and torture chambers. It was used to rationalize funneling weapons and training to Nicaragua’s Contra rebels, and to support Brazil’s military junta and its anti-communist crusade.
And it explained why Washington turned a blind eye to the Argentine junta’s Dirty War, which disappeared tens of thousands of citizens while receiving US diplomatic cover. In Kirkpatrick’s view, these horrors were an acceptable price for preserving American hegemony and global “liberalism.” Kirkpatrick is still hailed as a “True American Hero” by conservatives, knowing full well the horrors she committed.
This imperialist view was not entirely new. US foreign policy had long operated on behalf of economic interests. The “Banana Wars” and “Banana Republics” of the early 20th century and the invasions of the Philippines and Caribbean islands were justified in the same way. What changed under Reagan was the sheer arrogance and brazenness of American evil. Washington packaged its hyper-capitalist, immoral backing of tyrants and terrorists under the banner of freedom, insisting to the world that the US was a “shining city upon a hill.” It was nonsense, but the message resonated at home.
The main architect of this approach was Jeane Kirkpatrick. Long discredited after the Cold War ended, her ideas seemed destined for the dustbin. Yet under US President Donald Trump, the Kirkpatrick Doctrine’s ghost has come hauling back. It is now a cornerstone of foreign policy in conservative circles.
Human rights, democracy, and human progress are expendable when they collide with American profits and hegemony.
There has been plenty of talk about this being the new Monroe Doctrine. A Newsweek piece this week argued that Trump’s America First agenda in Latin America is a “MAGA Monroe Doctrine.” But there is a contemporary precedent to Trump’s kind of imperialist chest-thumping.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio and a handful of other Trump-aligned hawks have pushed for the Kirkpatrick Doctrine’s revival. The GOP, under Trump, has openly flirted with copying Reagan’s playbook in Latin America and making it clear the region is a no-go zone for foreign competitors. US military and economic power could, at any time, be deployed to bully Southern nations into protecting American profits, once again.
This thread runs through both Trump terms. In the first, neoconservatives like John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and Elliott Abrams held sway. In the second, the torch has been picked up by figures like Mike Waltz, Pete Hegseth, Pam Bondi, and Rubio.
In just over four years, the US has shown itself willing to deploy military forces against “subversive forces,” allegedly support coups such as the Silvercorp operation in Venezuela or the Organization of American States-assisted 2019 ouster of socialist Evo Morales in Bolivia, and meddle in elections to achieve its preferred outcome.
It has protected and propped up leaders engaged in authoritarian wars on drugs and socialism—Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, Argentinian President Javier Milei, Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa, Salvadorian President Nayib Bukele—while punishing leftist leaders like Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva Lula, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, Colombian President Gustavo Petro, and Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro with tariffs, sanctions, and economic warfare. It has also supported right-wing opposition figures across the continent, from son-of-Nazi-SS-lieutenant José Antonio Kast in Chile to oligarch María Corina Machado in Venezuela to far-right groups in Peru and Colombia.
The US has also supported paramilitary groups. Colombia is the clearest case. For decades Washington poured weapons, training, and billions of dollars into the Colombian military, mostly under the Plan Colombia program, all while it collaborated with right-wing paramilitary death squads that murdered tens of thousands of civilians.
The US participated in the “False Positives” scandal, where the Colombian Army, armed with US weapons, training, and equipment, killed thousands of civilians before claiming they were guerrilla fighters, often planting evidence to do so.
Similarly, police and military units engaged in war crimes and brutality have been given US weapons and training. In Brazil, most foreign weapons for the police and military are American, including the very snipers used to gun down children in favelas. Meanwhile, the US has sanctioned any Latin American country from purchasing Chinese and Russian weapons, equipment, and technology, to help feed the American military-industrial complex’s profits.
The doctrine also shows up in how the Trump administration uses pressure campaigns. In Venezuela, the “Maximum Pressure” campaign from the first term has escalated to outright military confrontation. Just last week, the US allegedly destroyed a fishing boat in Venezuelan national waters, killing 11 people. It claimed the boat was transporting drugs headed to the US, affiliated with Tren de Aragua.
There is no evidence for this claim, and even if there was, should drug traffickers be massacred without respect for sovereignty, due process, or congressional approval? Such a war crime could lead to full-on regime change or a new War on Drugs on Venezuelan shores.
This is all while ExxonMobil and Chevron have practically bought Washington’s Venezuela policy, and as the Venezuelan opposition, backed by the US, has said it would give oil rights to US corporations.
The underlying interests are clear. The US wants to maintain dominance over investment and markets, ensuring preferential treatment while shutting out competitors like China and Russia. This has meant pressuring governments not to buy BYD cars, threatening sanctions for buying Russian oil and weapons, strong-arming Panama to ditch Belt and Road projects, and trying to block Chinese banks from opening across the continent.
As South America becomes a breadbasket for the world, countries are turning to Brazilian, Russian, and Chinese fertilizers, cutting into US Big Agriculture’s profits. Oil and gas are front and center in Venezuela, where the largest proven reserves on Earth remain largely untapped.
Mining is increasingly important in the Andes, with lithium, copper, and other critical minerals needed for the global energy transition—and US firms want to be at the center of it, despite Chinese companies leading the way. This can help explain why the administration, particularly Marco Rubio, is so obsessed with supporting oil-rich Guyana, where ExxonMobil and Chevron have billions at stake.
The region is viewed as an extension of US dominance over global commerce—and measures to protect that dominance will be taken accordingly.
Locally, elites close to Trump are eager to profit from the US. They expect fatter contracts, looser regulations, and lower taxes under right-wing authoritarian governments backed by Washington. Brazilian business magnates, including real estate developers involved in building a Trump hotel in Rio de Janeiro that was shut down over corruption investigations, were key actors in pressuring Trump into putting 50% tariffs on Brazil, a move that has backfired massively.
The Trump administration has also pressured Latin American governments not to diversify away from the dollar, discouraging them from signing trade deals in yuan or joining BRICS currency initiatives. China’s opening of multiple bank branches across Latin America has also been a target of US pressure. Countries are now able to sign deals, both internationally and regionally, using foreign currencies like the yuan. This threatens dollar dominance, and the US simply cannot abide by a globally competitive system in “our hemisphere.”
The Trump agenda in Latin America is, most conveniently, about protecting US economic and financial interests, just as it was under Kirkpatrick’s reign of terror-for-profit. The rhetoric may change; today it is about fighting socialism, China, or “narco-terrorism” rather than communism; but the underlying logic is the same.
Human rights, democracy, and human progress are expendable when they collide with American profits and hegemony. Ironically, that very logic destroys US credibility, and may help bring about a truly multipolar system in a region long hurt by unipolar imperial control.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Won't Stop With Venezuela: Rubio Indicates Broader Campaign of Lawless Executions
"There is no military solution to the overdose crisis, but there is a political solution to a president with authoritarian ambitions," said one peace advocate. "Congress must act now to end unauthorized military action."
Sep 05, 2025
As rights groups and Democratic lawmakers condemned the Trump administration's bombing of a boat it claims—without evidence—was carrying drugs off the coast of Venezuela, Secretary of State Marco Rubio made clear on Thursday that targeting vessels linked to drug smuggling in Latin America, and possibly elsewhere, will be part of the White House's ongoing policy.
At a news conference in Quito, Ecuador, Rubio suggested Latin American governments have a choice: Work with the Trump administration to crack down on drug trafficking or see the US kill more citizens suspected of trying to smuggle illegal substances.
"For cooperative governments, there's no need because those governments are going to help us," said Rubio. "They're going to help us find these people and blow them up, if that's what it takes."
Some governments in the region have avoided criticizing this week's bombing of a boat off the coast of Venezuela, which the US has said killed 11 people it had identified at "narco-terorrists" connected to Tren de Aragua, and which was conducted under the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force.
The White House has not provided evidence of the suspected drug smuggling or that the victims were connected to the gang. US intelligence agencies have also called into question President Donald Trump's claims that Tren de Aragua is a high-level gang that terrorist organization working with the Venezuelan government.
Ecuador's government said Thursday it intends to revise its extradition agreement with the US, and President Daniel Noboa praised the US for its efforts to "actually eliminate any terrorist threat." On the same day, Rubio announced $20 million in new security assistance for Ecuador.
"Under Trump, if the president declares you a terrorist, the U.S. military will apparently execute you on his behalf, no questions asked."
The White House has also turned its attention to two Ecuadorian gangs, Los Lobos and Los Choneros, with Rubio announcing they have been designated as terrorist groups. The designation gives the Trump administration "all sorts of options," Rubio claimed, for cracking down on the gangs' activities, including potentially killing those suspected of being leaders or traffickers for the groups.
"This time, we're not just going to hunt for drug dealers in the little fast boats and say, 'Let's try to arrest them,'" Rubio said. "No, the president has said he wants to wage war on these groups because they've been waging war on us for 30 years and no one has responded."
As Rubio spoke in Quito, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said at Fort Benning in Georgia on Thursday that while Trump said he ordered the strike on the boat in the Caribbean this week, low-ranking military officers will soon be empowered to make final decisions on such attacks—strikes which international law experts have decried as nothing less than extrajudicial murder.
"The understanding is that those authorities are better made, those decisions are better made, by men and women in the professional arms," Hegseth said.
Despite the administration's use of the military to attack the boat near Venezuela this week and Rubio's rhetoric about being at "war" with groups involved in the drug trade, human rights advocates and other Latin American leaders have stressed in recent days that drug trafficking is a crime that must be confronted by law enforcement—not an entity that the US can defeat through military action.
"We have been capturing civilians transporting drugs for decades without killing them. Those who transport drugs are not the big drug traffickers, but the very poor young people of the Caribbean and the Pacific," said Colombian President Gustavo Petro.
Adam Isacson of the Washington Office on Latin America told The Washington Post that "you don't just simply blow boats out of the water. You follow law enforcement procedures."
Sara Haghdoosti, executive director of Win Without War, said that with this week's deadly attack—and plans to conduct more strikes—Trump has brought former President George W. Bush's "dream to full fruition."
"Under Trump, if the president declares you a terrorist, the U.S. military will apparently execute you on his behalf, no questions asked," said Haghdoosti. "That should deeply alarm us all, especially at a time when the president thinks nothing of labeling anyone from a USAID worker to a college student as a terrorist."
The killing of 11 suspected Venezuelan gang members, added Haghdoosti, will make "no difference whatsoever in the lives of people struggling with their own or a loved one's addiction," particularly as the Republican Party's budget cuts have "ravaged" funding for substance use disorder treatment and overdose prevention.
"There is no military solution to the overdose crisis, but there is a political solution to a president with authoritarian ambitions," said Haghdoosti. "Congress must act now to end unauthorized military action in the Caribbean, investigate these apparently lawless killings, and restore the proven health and harm reduction programs that people struggling with the scourge of fentanyl desperately need."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Maduro Says US Pointing '1,200 Missiles' at Venezuela After Trump Sends More Warships
One anonymous American military official told Axios that the US seemed to be revving up for "Noriega part two," suggesting a regime change war may be on the horizon.
Sep 02, 2025
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro said the United States was pointing "1,200 missiles" at his country during a news conference Monday, and issued a stark warning that he was prepared to "constitutionally declare a republic in arms" should the US attack.
The US is set to raise the number of military vessels deployed near Venezuela to eight this week, which Maduro described as "the greatest threat that has been seen on our continent in the last 100 years."
Following an authorization by Trump to use military force against Latin American drug cartels, the Associated Press and CBS News report that "the US Navy now has two Aegis guided-missile destroyers—the USS Gravely and the USS Jason Dunham—in the Caribbean, as well as the destroyer USS Sampson and the cruiser USS Lake Erie in the waters off Latin America."
This week, an anonymous Defense Department official told the AP that, "three amphibious assault ships—a force that encompasses more than 4,000 sailors and Marines—would be entering the region this week."
"In response to maximum military pressure," Maduro told the international press, "we have declared maximum readiness to defend Venezuela," adding that the country "will never give in to blackmail or threats of any kind."
Though the US has not made any public threats to invade Venezuela, an unnamed official told Axios Thursday that Trump was planning something akin to "Noriega part two," referring to the US-led invasion of Panama, which overthrew its leader, Manuel Noriega, in 1989.
"The president has asked for a menu of options," the official added, "and ultimately this is the president's decision about what to do next, but Maduro should be shitting bricks."
Trump has a long history of calling for US intervention to overthrow the South American nation's government.
During Trump's first term, he repeatedly suggested that the US should invade Venezuela to take Maduro out—an idea that his top aides rebuffed.
Trump instead dramatically escalated sanctions on Venezuela, which many studies have shown contributed to the nation's historic economic crisis. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo explicitly acknowledged that the goal of these sanctions was to push the Venezuelan people to topple Maduro.
In 2023, following his first presidency, Trump lamented at a rally that the US had to purchase oil from Venezuela, saying that if he were in charge, "We would have taken [Venezuela] over; we would have gotten to all that oil; it would have been right next door."
According to Responsible Statecraft, lobbying groups in bed with Exxon Mobil have been leading the campaign for "maximum pressure" against Venezuela, with the goal of protecting the company's control of over 11 billion barrels of oil in neighboring Guyana, which has been referred to as a "petrostate" closely aligned with the oil giant.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio made several posts in support of Guyana as it backed Trump's escalation with Venezuela.
As Joseph Bouchard and Nick Cleveland-Stout wrote:
Rubio has all but committed to a U.S. security guarantee for Guyana and Exxon. On a visit to Guyana in March, he warned Venezuela against attacking Exxon's oil fields. "It woultd be a very bad day for the Venezuelan regime if they were ever to attack Guyana or attack ExxonMobil," Rubio said then.
Prior to that, Rubio obliquely suggested in a Fox Business interview that there may be plans in the works to force Maduro out of power, saying the Venezuelan president was "going to have to be dealt with."
On Monday, Maduro said Rubio was leading Trump "into a bloodbath... with a massacre against the people of Venezuela."
Trump's deployment of warships to Venezuela is part of what he says is an effort to use military force against drug cartels, which his administration has dubbed terrorist groups.
Though Trump has named Maduro as a global drug kingpin and the leader of the Venezuelan Cartel de los Soles, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil disputed that accusation Monday, calling it a "false narrative."
He cited the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime's 2025 World Drug Report, which says that Venezuela is not a major cocaine-producing or transit country.
This is backed up by data from the US Drug Enforcement Agency, which has found that 84% of the cocaine seized in the US comes from Colombia.
According to UNODC, "the majority of Colombian cocaine is being trafficked north along the Pacific coast," rather than trafficked through Venezuela. Just 2% of all the cocaine seized by UNODC is in Venezuela, ranking it sixth among Latin American countries.
"For there to be a drug cartel, either you produce (the drugs), you process it, or you traffic it," Venezuelan congresswoman Blanca Eekhout told CNN. "If there is no cultivation, production, or drug trafficking in Venezuela, how can there be a cartel? It's unsustainable."
As Trump's military threats have revved up, Maduro has mobilized tens of thousands of soldiers and several warships to prepare for a possible invasion.
This weekend, the streets of Caracas filled up with demonstrators opposing US aggression and supporting Maduro's military recruitment efforts. They were joined by supporters across the globe in cities including London, Johannesburg, Sydney, and Mexico City.
(Video: Forbes)
Even members of Maduro's opposition have harshly criticized the idea of US intervention. Henrique Capriles, a frequent critic and one-time presidential opponent of Maduro, told the BBC that although he opposes Maduro's antidemocratic actions in the most recent election, he wants to see the tensions between Venezuela and the US solved through negotiations rather than gunfire.
"There are no good wars; they're all bad. That's my position, and I'm not afraid to express it publicly," Capriles said. "Most of the people who want a military solution and a US invasion don't live in Venezuela. They don't even consider the consequences. Human lives are lost."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular