The Monroe Doctrine Isn’t Outdated — It’s Vital for American Security

By Dr. Eric M. Wallace

When President James Monroe articulated his 1823 doctrine, he sought to protect a fragile hemisphere from European imperial ambitions. Back then the threat was distant — naval fleets and colonial powers across the Atlantic. Today, the threat is closer, more complex, and more insidious: transnational criminal networks, hostile foreign states, and global adversaries seeking footholds on America’s doorstep.

For too long, critics treated the Monroe Doctrine as a relic of 19th-century geopolitics — a symbol of outdated hemispheric paternalism. But recent policy developments remind us that geography still matters, and that the security of the United States is bound up with the stability of the Western Hemisphere.

In late 2025, the U.S. government formally revived the Monroe Doctrine — not as mere nostalgia, but as a cornerstone of our national security strategy, complete with what some analysts now call a “Trump Corollary.” This updated doctrine explicitly prioritizes the Western Hemisphere and rejects external interference by powers hostile to our interests, such as China, Russia, and Iran.¹

Why does this matter? Because the threats we face today are not abstract. They are real, proximate, and often lethal:

• Drug Trafficking and Narco-Terrorism. Cartels and criminal syndicates that operate out of Venezuela and other unstable states export violence, fentanyl, and misery into the United States. These are not traditional armies; they are hybrid threats that degrade our communities, overwhelm our healthcare systems, and fund corruption on both sides of the border.
• Hostile Influence by Foreign Powers.
 Nations such as China and Russia — while not colonial empires in the classical sense — have increased their presence in Latin America through infrastructure investment, political alliances, and diplomatic outreach. To ignore this is to cede influence in what the 1823 doctrine defined as America’s sphere of security.²
• Terrorist Nexus and Hybrid Threats.
 Iran and proxy groups are active in the region through aligned governments and networks, challenging U.S. interests in ways Monroe could scarcely have imagined but would have recognized as hostile intervention.³

Times have changed since Monroe’s address. The global system is no longer composed of rival European empires maneuvering for colonial advantage. Instead, non-state actors, extremist networks, and revisionist states use asymmetrical tools — cyber warfare, criminal syndicates, corruption, and economic coercion — to advance agendas hostile to American security and values.

This is precisely where a modern Monroe Doctrine has relevance.

Critics say the doctrine promotes interventionism. To that, we must respond: national sovereignty is a bedrock principle — until a state’s actions directly threaten our own sovereignty and national security. No doctrine should license unilateral conquest or occupation. But a doctrine that signals the U.S. will counter foreign influence and transnational threats in its hemisphere is not imperialism — it is strategic defense in an anarchic world where adversaries exploit every weak link.

Look at how foreign powers operate today: China’s Belt and Road investments, Russia’s military and political meddling, Iran’s alliances with armed groups — all reflect long-term strategies to project power. These are not benign economic ties or cultural exchanges; they are geopolitical maneuvers with real-world consequences for U.S. security.⁴

A robust Monroe Doctrine 2.0 — endorsed by conservative voices from Capitol Hill to the Pentagon — should therefore prioritize the defense of our hemisphere without recklessly violating international law. It should champion:

• Strengthened regional security partnerships
• Expanded intelligence cooperation to combat drug and human trafficking
• Economic partnerships that offer alternatives to adversarial influence
• Clear deterrence against hostile state actors in proximity to the U.S. border

Senator Jim Risch has noted that failing to uphold the Monroe Doctrine enabled adversaries to endanger the peace and safety of the United States, arguing that threats from China, Russia, and Iran today are not fundamentally different from the European imperial threats of the 19th century.⁵

Opponents may decry any hemispheric focus as “imperialism.” But there is a difference between defending one’s own neighborhood and dominating it. The original doctrine spoke of external intervention being hostile; it did not license wanton interference by the United States. Our modern interpretation should likewise signal resolve — not aggression — to secure the hemisphere against foreign powers that would use it as a base to undermine American security.

In an era where supply chains, energy resources, migration, and transnational crime intersect with national defense, a revitalized Monroe Doctrine is not a throwback — it is a necessary strategy for the 21st century. By engaging our neighbors, countering hostile influence, and preventing transnational threats from taking root within our hemisphere, we honor the original spirit of the doctrine while adapting it to the realities of a changed world.
The Western Hemisphere may no longer face European battleships, but it faces other, equally dangerous vectors of influence. It would be irresponsible for the United States to ignore them.
_______________
1. Council on Foreign Relations 
2. DPAM Investments 
3. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 
4. Wikipedia 
5. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

Dr. Eric M. Wallace, author of the new book, The Heart of Apostasy: How The Black Church Abandoned Biblical Authority for Political Ideology--And How to Reclaim It,  is a trailblazing scholar, dynamic speaker, and passionate advocate for faith-based conservatism. With a distinguished academic background and an unwavering commitment to biblical truth, Wallace has become a leading voice challenging cultural and political narratives that conflict with a biblical worldview.

Wallace holds postgraduate degrees in biblical studies (M.A., ThM, Ph.D.), Wallace is the first African American to earn a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Union-PSCE (now Union Presbyterian Seminary). His scholarship and ministry experience equip him to address today’s most pressing sociopolitical issues through the lens of faith, reason, and historical accuracy.