For decades, American presidents spoke of global leadership while subtly relinquishing influence. A shift has occurred, a departure from established norms that has left the foreign policy world scrambling to understand the new landscape.
Emerging is what could be called the Donroe Doctrine – a bold, modern echo of the Monroe Doctrine. It’s a strategy defined by the unapologetic assertion of American power, direct confrontation with adversaries, and a clear expectation that allies will shoulder their own defenses.
Since taking office, decisive actions have marked this new approach. Targeted strikes against Iran’s nuclear capabilities, demands for increased defense spending from NATO allies, challenges to China’s ambitions in the Indo-Pacific, and a renewed focus on dominance in the Western Hemisphere – from Greenland to Venezuela – demonstrate a clear break from the past.
To some, these actions appear unpredictable. However, viewed alongside the 2025 National Security Strategy and the 2026 National Defense Strategy, a deliberate and consistent doctrine emerges, rooted in realism, national sovereignty, and a pragmatic understanding of power.
The Donroe Doctrine fundamentally redefines “America First.” It rejects the post-Cold War belief that the United States must attempt to solve every global problem to ensure its own security. The new strategy argues that attempting to address everything ultimately means focusing on nothing.
National security is now narrowly and deliberately defined: protecting the homeland, securing borders, safeguarding the economy, and preserving U.S. sovereignty. This explains the emphasis on border security, the rejection of open-ended commitments, and the prioritization of economic strength and industrial capacity as essential components of power.
Critics label this approach reckless, but the strategy documents reveal a preference for non-intervention. Force is reserved for deterring aggression, compelling desired behavior, and decisively defending vital interests – not for ideological crusades or attempts at nation-building.
The situation with Iran exemplifies this. The regime is viewed as a proliferation and coercion problem, addressed with finite, conditional, and interest-based enforcement actions. Strength, in this view, creates opportunities for diplomacy, while weakness invites escalation.
The central challenge identified within the Donroe Doctrine is clear: China. Both the NSS and NDS recognize the People’s Republic of China as the only power capable of challenging U.S. dominance across military, economic, and technological spheres.
However, this doctrine doesn’t view conflict with China as inevitable. The goal isn’t regime change or economic strangulation, but rather to prevent Beijing from dominating the Indo-Pacific region and coercing U.S. allies. This is achieved through deterrence, burden-sharing, and a revitalization of American industry.
The focus is on bounding China’s power, not dismantling its system. Competition is pursued within established rules, allowing for continued trade and diplomacy, underpinned by credible deterrence. This is a return to classic balance-of-power thinking, free from post-Cold War illusions.
The Donroe Doctrine also redefines the relationship with allies. The demand for increased defense spending from NATO isn’t simply rhetoric; it reflects the need to address a “simultaneity problem” – the possibility of multiple adversaries acting simultaneously across different regions.
The solution isn’t endless U.S. deployments, but rather capable allies who can defend their own regions with limited American support. Europe possesses the resources to deter Russia, and Israel serves as a model for self-defense. Burden-sharing is seen as essential for credibility, not as punishment.
Restoring American deterrence in the Indo-Pacific requires a significant expansion of the U.S. Navy – more ships, faster production, and shipyards capable of sustaining a prolonged competition at sea. Geography, once again, is paramount.
The NDS advocates for a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, denying hostile powers control over strategic terrain in the Western Hemisphere. Locations like Greenland, the Panama Canal, and regions plagued by cartel activity are considered vital interests, not peripheral concerns.
Finally, the Donroe Doctrine recognizes a fundamental truth: wars are won through production. Both strategy documents prioritize the defense industrial base, directly linking economic security to military readiness. This base is now viewed as a critical instrument of deterrence.
Taken together, these documents outline a governing philosophy that is pragmatic, nationalist, and forceful, but avoids drifting into endless war. The Donroe Doctrine rejects utopian idealism in favor of clear priorities and unapologetic American power, particularly in the face of a rising China.
It’s a doctrine that unsettles Washington because it restores clarity. Red lines are explicit, priorities are narrow, and the strategy is stabilizing. However, it’s also a dangerous doctrine for adversaries, as ambiguity is gone, free-riding is exposed, and miscalculations carry far greater consequences.
