America’s Oldest Foreign Policy Playbook Is Making a Comeback—Here’s Why That Matters
By Dominick Calabro, Editor-in-Chief
NexfinityNews.com
You probably haven’t thought about the Monroe Doctrine since high school history class. Most Americans haven’t. But in the halls of power in Washington, this 200-year-old policy is experiencing something of a renaissance—and the implications stretch from Caracas to Beijing.
What Even Is the Monroe Doctrine?
Let’s back up for a second. In 1823, President James Monroe stood before Congress and essentially told European powers to keep their hands off the Western Hemisphere. The message was simple: Europe’s days of colonizing the Americas were over. Any attempt to expand European influence in our neighborhood would be viewed as a hostile act against the United States.
It was bold. Maybe even arrogant. The United States was barely 50 years old at the time, hardly a global superpower. But Monroe was drawing a line in the sand, declaring that the Americas—North and South—were America’s sphere of influence.
For nearly two centuries, this doctrine shaped U.S. foreign policy in Latin America, sometimes for better, often for worse. It justified everything from building the Panama Canal to supporting coups against democratically elected governments. The doctrine became synonymous with American interventionism, and by the late 20th century, it had fallen out of fashion. Too imperialistic. Too 19th century.
So why are we talking about it again in 2026?
The New Players in Our Backyard
Here’s what’s changed: China and Russia aren’t staying in their own neighborhoods anymore.
China has poured billions into Latin America over the past two decades—building ports, funding infrastructure, offering loans when Western institutions said no. They’re now the top trading partner for several South American nations. Chinese companies control key infrastructure from Argentina to Mexico. They’ve established a strategic foothold that would have been unthinkable 30 years ago.
Russia, meanwhile, has been cozying up to regimes the U.S. has tried to isolate. Venezuela. Nicaragua. Cuba. They’re sending military advisors, conducting joint exercises, and some intelligence analysts believe they’re even exploring the possibility of establishing military bases in the region.
This isn’t abstract geopolitics. We’re talking about foreign powers—one authoritarian, one increasingly aggressive—establishing influence in countries just hours from U.S. shores.
Why Should You Care?
Fair question. What does it matter if China builds a port in Peru or Russia sells weapons to Venezuela?
Let’s think practically. The Western Hemisphere has been relatively stable for American interests precisely because no rival superpower has had significant military presence here since the Cold War. That stability allowed the U.S. to focus its military and diplomatic resources elsewhere—the Middle East, Asia, Europe.
If hostile powers establish a genuine foothold in Latin America, everything changes. Supply chains get more complicated. Migration patterns shift. Security concerns multiply. The U.S. would need to dedicate significantly more resources to its own hemisphere, resources that are already stretched thin globally.
There’s also the economic angle. Latin America represents massive markets for U.S. goods and services. If those countries become economically dependent on China, American businesses lose access. Jobs are affected. Trade relationships deteriorate.
And then there’s the bluntest reason: proximity. Venezuela is closer to Florida than California is. Nicaragua is a two-hour flight from Texas. When rival powers operate in your backyard, the stakes are fundamentally different than when they operate across an ocean.
The Modern Monroe Doctrine in Action
So what does recommitment to the Monroe Doctrine actually look like in practice?
It’s not gunboat diplomacy anymore—at least not overtly. Instead, we’re seeing a multipronged approach:
Economic competition. The U.S. has ramped up infrastructure investment in Latin America, trying to offer an alternative to Chinese Belt and Road Initiative projects. The message: you don’t need Beijing’s money, we can help too.
Security partnerships. Increased military cooperation, training programs, and intelligence sharing with Latin American allies. The goal is to make these countries less dependent on Russian or Chinese security assistance.
Diplomatic pressure. The U.S. has been more vocal—and more aggressive—in pushing back against Chinese and Russian influence in the region. This includes everything from public statements to private warnings to economic sanctions.
Countering disinformation. Both China and Russia have invested heavily in media operations throughout Latin America. The U.S. is finally waking up to the fact that winning hearts and minds requires more than occasional White House statements.
The Uncomfortable Questions
Here’s where it gets complicated, though. The Monroe Doctrine has always had a dark side. For every instance where it protected Latin American nations from European colonialism, there’s a counter-example of the U.S. overthrowing a government it didn’t like or supporting a brutal dictator who happened to be “our” brutal dictator.
Latin Americans haven’t forgotten this history. When U.S. officials start talking about foreign interference in the Western Hemisphere, many people south of the border roll their eyes. They remember CIA operations in Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua. They remember decades of American companies extracting resources while local populations remained poor.
Protectionism or Just Another Form of Colonization?
This is where we need to have an honest conversation about what the Monroe Doctrine actually represented—and what its modern revival might mean.
Supporters argue that the doctrine was fundamentally about protectionism, not colonization. The distinction matters. When Monroe issued his declaration in 1823, Latin American nations had just won independence from Spain and Portugal. European powers—particularly Spain and France—were openly discussing reconquest. The Holy Alliance wanted to restore monarchies. Britain had designs on former Spanish territories.
From this perspective, the Monroe Doctrine was defensive. It said: these newly independent nations have the right to determine their own futures, free from European interference. The United States, as the hemisphere’s first successful republic, was standing up for the principle of self-determination.
And there’s historical evidence for this interpretation. The U.S. didn’t colonize Latin America the way European powers colonized Africa and Asia. There was no direct political control, no formal empire, no governors appointed from Washington. Latin American nations maintained their sovereignty, their own governments, their own laws.
But critics point out—correctly—that there’s more than one way to colonize.
Economic colonization doesn’t require formal political control. When American companies dominated Latin American economies, when U.S. banks controlled national debts, when entire countries depended on a single export crop sold primarily to American markets—that’s a form of control. It might not look like the British Raj, but it produces similar outcomes: wealth extraction, political dependence, limited sovereignty in practice if not in theory.
Military intervention became the enforcement mechanism. The U.S. didn’t need to colonize when it could simply invade or orchestrate coups whenever a government threatened American interests. Guatemala 1954. Chile 1973. Grenada 1983. Panama 1989. The list goes on. This wasn’t protection—it was domination with better PR.
Paternalism infused the entire enterprise. The assumption was always that the United States knew what was best for Latin America. Democracy was good when it produced governments we liked, but expendable when the “wrong” candidates won elections. Stability mattered more than self-determination. American interests trumped local sovereignty.
So which interpretation is correct?
Probably both. That’s the uncomfortable truth.
The original Monroe Doctrine likely did prevent some European colonial adventures in the 19th century. Newly independent Latin American nations genuinely benefited from having a hemispheric power willing to push back against European reconquest. Simon Bolivar himself initially welcomed American support, even as he grew suspicious of U.S. intentions.
But the doctrine also provided ideological cover for a century of interventionism that looked an awful lot like what it claimed to oppose. The United States became the very thing it warned Europe against—a foreign power using military and economic leverage to control Latin American politics.
The Modern Dilemma: Can We Do Better This Time?
This history creates a genuine dilemma for contemporary policy. Because here’s the thing: Chinese and Russian influence in Latin America isn’t benign either.
China’s “debt-trap diplomacy” has left several nations struggling with unsustainable loans, often collateralized by critical infrastructure or natural resources. When Sri Lanka couldn’t pay China back, they lost control of a strategic port for 99 years. Ecuador, Venezuela, and others face similar situations.
Russia’s support for authoritarian regimes props up governments that oppress their own people. Venezuelan citizens are fleeing by the millions while Russian advisors help keep Maduro in power. That’s not promoting self-determination—it’s enabling dictatorship.
So when the U.S. pushes back against this influence, is it protecting Latin American sovereignty or just defending its own sphere of influence against competitors?
The answer depends entirely on how it’s done.
True protectionism would mean:
- Supporting Latin American sovereignty even when governments make choices the U.S. doesn’t like
- Offering economic partnerships that genuinely benefit both parties, not just extracting resources
- Respecting democratic processes even when they produce leftist governments
- Providing alternatives to Chinese and Russian influence without demanding political allegiance in return
- Acknowledging past mistakes and demonstrating that this time is actually different
Neo-colonialism with better marketing would mean:
- Using the China/Russia threat to justify renewed interventionism
- Supporting authoritarian right-wing governments because they’re “pro-American”
- Economic partnerships that primarily benefit U.S. corporations
- Demanding political loyalty as the price of economic cooperation
- Repeating Cold War patterns with new enemies
So the big question is: can the United States pursue its strategic interests in Latin America without repeating the mistakes of the past?
The answer isn’t clear. On one hand, Chinese and Russian influence genuinely does pose challenges to regional stability and democratic governance. These aren’t benevolent actors distributing aid out of the goodness of their hearts. They’re pursuing their own interests, often in ways that undermine human rights and democratic institutions.
On the other hand, if the U.S. response is heavy-handed or hypocritical—preaching democracy while supporting authoritarian allies, for example—it will backfire. Latin American nations have more options now than they did during the Cold War. They don’t have to choose between Washington and Beijing. They can play both sides, or forge their own path.
What Comes Next
The reality is that the Monroe Doctrine never really went away—it just got quieter for a while. Now it’s back, repackaged for a multipolar world where China challenges U.S. economic dominance and Russia probes for strategic openings wherever it can find them.
For policymakers, the challenge is updating a 19th-century doctrine for 21st-century realities. That means recognizing that Latin American nations are sovereign partners, not subordinates. It means offering genuine economic opportunity, not just lectures about democracy. It means acknowledging past mistakes without abandoning strategic interests.
For the rest of us, it means paying attention. What happens in Latin America doesn’t stay in Latin America. The relationships we build—or fail to build—with our neighbors will shape everything from immigration policy to drug enforcement to climate change cooperation to national security.
The Monroe Doctrine is back. The question is whether we’ve learned anything in the 200 years since James Monroe first declared the Western Hemisphere off-limits to foreign powers.
Because this time around, those foreign powers have a lot more money, a lot more influence, and a lot less interest in respecting lines drawn two centuries ago by a country that wasn’t yet a global superpower.
The Western Hemisphere isn’t anyone’s exclusive sphere of influence anymore. But the United States is betting that it can still be the most influential player in its own backyard.
Time will tell if that bet pays off.
What do you think? Is renewed focus on the Monroe Doctrine smart strategy or outdated imperialism? Share your thoughts below.