In early 2026, the United States conducted a military operation in Venezuela, leading to the detention of President Nicolás Maduro. This action was accompanied by a series of broader policy announcements and withdrawals from international organizations by the Trump administration, signaling a reorientation of US foreign policy, particularly concerning the Western Hemisphere. The administration described these actions as part of a new national security strategy aimed at asserting US pre-eminence and protecting national interests.
Venezuelan Operation and Administration Transition
A United States special forces operation in Venezuela resulted in the removal and detention of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. The operation, which reportedly incurred no American casualties, culminated in Maduro's incarceration in Brooklyn. Following the operation, President Donald Trump announced from his Mar-a-Lago residence that the US would manage Venezuela's administration "until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition."
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly engaged with Venezuelan Vice-President Delcy RodrĂguez, who was quoted as stating, "we'll do whatever you need." President Trump indicated that a military presence remained an option if required. The administration stated it was not pursuing regime change in Venezuela, contrasting this with past interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Reports from Washington indicated a deal had been struck with the Venezuelan military regarding future actions, and a large-scale military intervention was avoided. President Trump posted an image on Truth Social depicting Maduro on board the USS Iwo Jima amphibious assault ship.
President Trump also stated that US companies were poised to extract Venezuela's oil resources, indicating that "a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground" would go to the people of Venezuela, former Venezuelan residents, and the United States "in the form of reimbursement." Concerns about the potential for violence and instability following Maduro's removal had been raised by the International Crisis Group in October, which also noted that simulations conducted by the first Trump administration suggested the prospect of violent chaos from competing armed factions.
Regarding future Venezuelan leadership, President Trump stated that opposition leader MarĂa Corina Machado, a 2025 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, would be challenging to lead the country due to a perceived lack of support. He did not mention Edmundo González, another candidate in the 2024 elections. The US is currently supporting Maduro's Vice-President, Delcy RodrĂguez. The structure of the regime established by Hugo Chávez reportedly remains in place, with Venezuelan armed forces and civilian supporters noted as having benefited from corruption networks. Civilian militias had been armed by the regime, and other armed groups, including criminal networks and Colombian guerrillas who supported the Maduro regime, were reported to be present in Venezuela.
"Donroe Doctrine" and Western Hemisphere Focus
The administration's actions were framed within an asserted expansion of the historical Monroe Doctrine. President Trump proposed renaming it the "Donroe doctrine," stating, "The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we've superseded it by a lot." He added that under the new national security strategy, "American dominance in the Western hemisphere will never be questioned again." The National Security Strategy, released in the preceding months, emphasized US pre-eminence in the Western Hemisphere as a condition for security and prosperity. It aimed to maintain the hemisphere free of hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets, support critical supply chains, and ensure access to strategic locations. The strategy sought governments with aligned political philosophies and an accommodating approach to US demands.
This expanded doctrine was characterized as asserting that rival nations, particularly China, should not operate within Latin America, raising questions about existing Chinese investments in the region. The US State Department communicated its position via social media, stating, "This is OUR hemisphere."
The scope of US interest was depicted as extending north to include Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. President Trump reiterated interest in acquiring Greenland, citing its strategic Arctic position and natural resources, which are becoming more accessible due to climate change. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller stated on CNN that Greenland should be part of the US and that "nobody is gonna fight the US militarily over the future of Greenland." President Trump also commented, "I think Greenland is going to be something that maybe is in our future," emphasizing the importance of "ownership" as "psychologically needed for success." These statements have prompted questions among NATO members in Europe.
The administration also issued warnings or expressed grievances against other nations in the region, including Colombia, Cuba, and Mexico. Specific policy applications included US support for Argentinian President Javier Milei's government, which involved a currency swap agreement of up to $US20 billion in 2023 for economic stability, and support for an additional $US20 billion facility. President Trump stated that aid would be withheld if Milei was defeated in elections. Conversely, the US imposed "additional" 40 percent tariffs (above a 10 percent baseline) on Brazil, citing "unusual and extraordinary policies and actions harming US companies, the free speech rights of US persons, US foreign policy, and the US economy." The administration also referenced "politically motivated persecution... of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and thousands of his supporters," describing these as "serious human rights abuses."
Withdrawal from International Organizations
Concurrent with these developments, the United States announced its withdrawal from 66 international organizations. President Trump stated that approximately half of these organizations focused on international law and the protection of women and children. An ABC review of the list identified at least 16 groups focused on climate change and environmental issues, 14 centered on international law, peacekeeping, and the protection of vulnerable populations, and five addressing international security threats, counterterrorism, and cybercrime.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that these organizations now advance agendas perceived as "contrary" to US interests and posed "a threat to our nation's sovereignty, freedoms, and general prosperity." The White House issued a fact sheet contending that these groups operated contrary to "US national interests, security, economic prosperity, or sovereignty," and that "many of these bodies promote radical climate policies, global governance, and ideological programs that conflict with US sovereignty and economic strength." The administration asserted that these withdrawals would result in "saving taxpayer money and refocusing resources on America First priorities."
Key international agreements affected include the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a framework in place for over three decades and signed by 198 countries, which serves as the basis for the Paris Agreement. President Trump previously initiated US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement in 2016 during his first term and again in 2025 following his second inauguration. The US withdrawal from the UNFCCC is slated to become official later this month, one year after formal notification. This action places the US among four countries not included in the agreement, alongside Iran, Libya, and Yemen. Concurrent actions included the suspension of US support for the World Health Organization (WHO) and other UN agencies.
Broader Foreign Policy Stance and Reactions
President Trump, who had positioned himself as the "president of peace" earlier in 2025, stated in an interview with the New York Times that his power as commander-in-chief is limited only by his "own morality" and "own mind." He also indicated he did not "need international law" but later affirmed that his administration does abide by it, while specifying he would be the arbiter of its application to the United States. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller reiterated that global affairs are "governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power," adding, "We're a superpower. And under President Trump, we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower."
These policy shifts have generated discussion about adherence to international legal and diplomatic norms. Some Republican senators supported legislation aimed at preventing further military operations in Venezuela. Analysts such as Professor Wesley Widmaier from the Australian National University commented that the selection of institutions for withdrawal aligns with the Trump administration's national messaging and that the withdrawal was "inevitable" after re-election. Widmaier noted that President Trump's foreign policy approach differs from a Cold War-era "containment" view, instead operating within a "sphere of influence" framework where major powers like China, Russia, and the US maintain regional control, with international institutions perceived as offering "little material benefit" to the US.
Carnegie Institute analyst Tong Zhao suggested that controversial US actions, such as the Venezuela operation, and perceived international acceptance could lower "perceived thresholds of acceptable behaviour" for authoritarian leaders, potentially influencing Beijing's approach to Taiwan. Dr. Emma Shortis, director of the International & Security Affairs Program at The Australia Institute, commented that the withdrawals specifically impact "the poorest and most vulnerable places and organisations," noting that "many organisations focused on Africa" are affected.
Historically, US foreign policy has evolved from George Washington's 1796 advice against permanent foreign alliances, which influenced a period of isolationism, to a global power role after World War Two under doctrines like the Truman Doctrine (1947). The current administration's approach has been analyzed as a departure from previous administrations that generally prioritized leading alliances and supported international regulations, even while acknowledging instances of US disregard for international law. The hypothetical acquisition of Greenland, a Danish sovereign territory, was suggested to potentially impact the transatlantic alliance significantly. Some analysts suggested that the US administration's actions signify a new era where global military powers are overtly pursuing revanchist aims to recover perceived imperial greatness, aligning the US with similar interpretations of objectives attributed to Russia and China.