The term “Donroe Doctrine” emerged as an analytical coinage to capture Donald Trump’s revival and mutation of the Monroe Doctrine. It fuses “Don” from Donald Trump with “roe” from Monroe to signal both continuity and rupture: the return of hemispheric exclusivity stripped of diplomatic restraint. It gained traction among commentators because it described not a formal policy document but a pattern of rhetoric and action centred on unilateral dominance in the Americas. It marks not merely a revival of an old idea but a fundamental transformation in how the United States understands power, sovereignty, and legitimacy.

While the original Monroe Doctrine of 1823 and the recently proclaimed Donroe Doctrine share a common premise, that the Americas constitute a distinct strategic space, the similarities largely end there. The differences in method, scope, and moral framing between the two reveal how far U.S. statecraft has moved from declaratory deterrence toward coercive enforcement, and how this shift distinguishes the Donroe Doctrine not only from Monroe’s original vision but also from the globalised interventionism of the Bush Doctrine.

When President James Monroe articulated his doctrine in the early nineteenth century, the United States was neither a global power nor a hemispheric enforcer. The doctrine emerged in a world dominated by European empires and was primarily defensive in nature. Its core purpose was to deter further European colonisation or political intervention in the newly independent states of Latin America. Monroe did not claim a right for the United States to intervene in the internal affairs of those states, nor did he propose enforcement through direct military action. The doctrine relied more on diplomatic........

© Daily Times