Connect with us

Business

What is the Monroe Doctrine? Here’s how it has shaped U.S. foreign policy for two centuries, including Trump’s ouster of Maduro

Published

on



In detailing the U.S. military action that led to the arrest of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, President Donald Trump referenced the Monroe Doctrine, a maxim that has shaped American foreign policy for two centuries.

The doctrine formulated by President James Monroe was originally aimed at opposing European meddling in the Western Hemisphere. It has since been invoked repeatedly by subsequent presidents angling to justify U.S. intervention in the region.

On Saturday, the consequential doctrine of America’s fifth president was cited by the 47th president as partial justification for the capture of a foreign leader to face criminal charges in the United States. Trump even quipped that some now called it “the Don-roe Doctrine.”

Political scientists are now looking back on the use of the Monroe Doctrine through history and drawing connections to how the Trump administration is seeking to apply it to current foreign policy, including the Republican president’s assertion that Washington would “run” Venezuela until a suitable replacement for Maduro was in place,

Here’s a look at the Monroe Doctrine, how it has been invoked over time and how it has informed Trump’s decision making:

What is the Monroe Doctrine?

Articulated in Monroe’s 1823 address to Congress, it was intended to ward off European colonization or other interference in independent nations of the Western Hemisphere. In return, the U.S. also agreed to stay out of European wars and internal affairs.

At the time, many Latin American countries had just gained independence from European empires. Monroe wanted both to prevent Europe from reclaiming control and to assert U.S. influence in the hemisphere.

Through the centuries, much of that has included Venezuela, according to Jay Sexton, a history professor at the University of Missouri.

“Historically, Venezuela has been the pretext or the trigger for a lot of corollaries to the Monroe Doctrine,” said Sexton, author of “The Monroe Doctrine: Empire and Nation in Nineteenth-Century America,” citing instances from the late 1800s, all the way through Trump’s first administration.

“And going back to the 19th century, this has been a divided, fractious country that’s had difficult relations with foreign powers and is also courted, relationships with rivals of the United States.”

The Roosevelt Corollary and ‘Big Stick’ diplomacy

European leaders initially paid little attention to the proclamation, but the Monroe Doctrine has been invoked in the two centuries since to justify U.S. military interventions in Latin America.

The first direct challenge came after France installed Emperor Maximilian in Mexico in the 1860s. After the end of the Civil War, France relented under U.S. pressure and withdrew.

In 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt’s argument that the U.S. should be allowed to intervene in unstable Latin American countries became known as the Roosevelt Corollary, a justification invoked in a number of places, including supporting Panama’s secession from Colombia, which helped secure the Panama Canal Zone for the U.S.

The Cold War era saw the Monroe Doctrine invoked as a defense against communism, such as the U.S. demand in 1962 that Soviet missiles be withdrawn from Cuba, as well as the Reagan administration’s opposition of the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua.

Gretchen Murphy, a professor at the University of Texas, described Trump’s reference to the doctrine as in line with how it had been used by his predecessors, including Roosevelt, who she said “claimed that the Monroe Doctrine could be extended to justify interventions that instead of defending Latin American nations from European intervention, policed them to make sure their governments acted in U.S. commercial and strategic interests.”

“I think Trump is jumping on this familiar pattern -– citing the Monroe Doctrine to legitimate interventions that undermine real democracy, and ones where various kinds of interests are served, including commercial interests,” said Murphy, author of “Hemispheric Imaginings: The Monroe Doctrine and Narratives of U.S. Empire.”

What has Trump said about the Monroe Doctrine?

Trump said that Venezuela, under Maduro’s rule, had been “increasingly hosting foreign adversaries in our region and acquiring menacing offensive weapons that could threaten U.S. interests.” Trump called those actions “in gross violation of the core principles of American foreign policy dating back more than two centuries.”

But, Trump added, “under our new national security strategy, American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again.”

“We want to surround ourselves with good neighbors, we want to surround ourselves with stability, and we want to surround ourselves with energy,” Trump said. “We have tremendous energy in that country. It’s very important that we protect it. We need that for ourselves. We need that for the world.”

The Trump Corollary?

Asked Saturday how the U.S. running a country represented his “America First” mentality, Trump defended the move as one that, similarly to the Monroe Doctrine’s origin story, was aimed at strengthening America itself.

The administration’s national security strategy references “a ‘ Trump Corollary ’ to the Monroe Doctrine,” intended to “restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere.”

“Under our new national security strategy, American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again, won’t happen,” Trump said. “For decades, other administrations have neglected or even contributed to these growing security threats in the Western Hemisphere. Under the Trump administration, we are reasserting American power in a very powerful way in our home region.”

“What presidents used to do is they would cloak whatever their agenda was in the Monroe Doctrine by issuing corollaries,” Sexton said.

After World War II, Sexton said, rather than devising corollaries to the Monroe Doctrine, presidents started issuing their own, citing Harry S. Truman and Richard Nixon. He Sexton said he assumed Trump might take similar action.

“When you’re talking about a Trump Corollary, I just knew Trump wouldn’t want to be a corollary to another president’s doctrine, that somehow this would evolve into a Trump doctrine,” he said.

The national security strategy released by the White House in December portrayed European allies as weak and aimed to reassert America’s dominance in the Western Hemisphere.

Laying out a series of military strikes on alleged drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean as “a ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine” to “restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere,” the document said it aimed to combat the flow of narcotics and control migration. The strategy marked a reimagining of the U.S. military footprint in the region even after building up the largest military presence there in generations.

Sexton said the military operation to capture Maduro — and a possible protracted U.S. involvement in Venezuela — could cause another split among supporters of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement, similar to the one after the administration’s strikes last year on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“This is not just the sort of hit-and-run kind of job where, like in Iran a couple months ago, we dropped the missiles, and then you can then you can go on and carry on as normal,” Sexton said. “This is going to be potentially quite a mess and contradict the administration’s policies on withdrawing from forever wars — and there’s a lot of isolationists, within the MAGA coalition.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Down Arrow Button Icon

Published

on



Lawmakers sounded the alarm on the Justice Department’s criminal inquiry into Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, putting at risk President Donald Trump’s efforts to name a new central bank leader.

On Sunday, Powell revealed that the DOJ served the Fed with grand jury subpoenas, threatening a criminal indictment over his testimony before the Senate last June related to renovations on the headquarters, which has seen cost overruns.

He called the allegations a pretext and said the investigation was really aimed at the Fed’s ability to set interest rates without political pressure. Trump has attacked Powell for much of the last year over his reluctance to cut rates, though the president said he didn’t know about the DOJ probe.

But Republican Sen. Them Tillis agreed with Powell’s assessment and instead pointed the finger at the DOJ.

“If there were any remaining doubt whether advisers within the Trump Administration are actively pushing to end the independence of the Federal Reserve, there should now be none,” he wrote in a post on X. “It is now the independence and credibility of the Department of Justice that are in question.”

Tillis sits on the Senate Banking Committee, which oversees the Fed and would vote on anyone Trump tries to put on the central bank.

Powell’s term as chair expires in May, and Trump has said he already has someone in mind to replace him who will lower rates further. But the DOJ investigation into Powell could blow up that process.

“I will oppose the confirmation of any nominee for the Fed—including the upcoming Fed Chair vacancy—until this legal matter is fully resolved,” Tillis said.

While Powell’s term as chair expires in May, his term as a member of the Fed board of governors expires in 2028. When prior Fed chairs have stepped down, they typically have resigned from the board as well. Powell could choose to stay to preserve the Fed’s independence.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat who also sits on the Senate Banking Committee, accused Trump of trying to force Powell off the Fed board “to complete his corrupt takeover of our central bank.”

“He is abusing the law like a wannabe dictator so the Fed serves him and his billionaire friends,” she added. “The Senate must not move ANY Trump Fed nominee.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Down Arrow Button Icon

Published

on



U.S. equity futures fell sharply Sunday night after Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell confirmed that he is under investigation related to testimony he gave last June concerning the renovation of Federal Reserve buildings. 

The New York Times report breaking news of the investigation and Powell’s subsequent disclosure rattled markets, reviving fears that years of President Donald Trump pressuring the Federal Reserve could now be realized into a direct assault on its independence.

Futures tied to the Nasdaq 100 led the decline, falling about 0.8%, as interest-rate-sensitive technology stocks bore the brunt of the selloff. S&P 500 futures were down roughly 0.5%, while Dow Jones Industrial Average futures fell about 0.4%, according to late-evening pricing.

Investors sought protection in the traditional safe-haven assets. Gold futures rose 1.7% to around $4,578 an ounce, while silver jumped more than 4%, reflecting renewed demand for protection against political and monetary instability. The U.S. dollar weakened modestly against several major currencies, including the Swiss franc and Japanese yen.

After years of largely staying silent while Trump repeatedly mocked and threatened him, Powell appeared to have reached a breaking point, issuing a rare and pointed statement. 

He wrote that while “No one—certainly not the chair of the Federal Reserve—is above the law,” the attack should be seen in the “the broader context of the administration’s threats and ongoing pressure.” 

“This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings…Those are pretexts. The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President.”

Economists warn that if the executive branch successfully co-opts the Fed, it could create a “self-fulfilling prophecy” of higher long-term inflation.

As Oxford Economics recently noted, any “cracks in the Fed’s independence” could spread rapidly through markets and ultimately raise borrowing costs for the businesses the administration seeks to protect with low interest rates. 

In a note published last July, when Trump publicly threatened to fire Powell, Deutsche Bank warned that such a move could spark severe market disruption.

“Both the currency and the bond market can collapse,” the bank wrote, citing heightened risks of inflation and financial instability. “The empirical and academic evidence on the impact of a loss of central-bank independence is fairly clear.”

Wall Street executives have echoed those concerns. Brian Moynihan, chief executive of Bank of America, said recently the erosion of Fed independence would carry serious consequences.

“The market will punish people if we don’t have an independent Fed,” Moynihan said.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Magnificent 7’s stock market dominance shows signs of cracking

Published

on



To beat the market in recent years, many investors applied a simple strategy: Load up on the biggest US technology stocks. 

It paid handsomely for a long time. But last year, it didn’t. For the first time since 2022, when the Federal Reserve started raising interest rates, the majority of the Magnificent 7 tech giants performed worse than the S&P 500 Index. While the Bloomberg Magnificent 7 Index rose 25% in 2025, compared with 16% for the S&P 500, that was only because of the enormous gains by Alphabet Inc. and Nvidia Corp.

Many Wall Street pros see that dynamic continuing in 2026, as profit growth slows and questions about payoffs from heavy artificial intelligence spending rise. So far they’ve been right, with the Magnificent 7 index up just 0.5% and the S&P 500 climbing 1.8% to start the year. Suddenly stock picking within the group is crucial. 

“This isn’t a one-size-fits-all market,” said Jack Janasiewicz, lead portfolio strategist at Natixis Investment Managers Solutions, which has $1.4 trillion in assets. “If you’re just buying the group, the losers could offset the winners.”

The three-year bull market has been led by the tech giants, with Nvidia, Alphabet, Microsoft Corp. and Apple Inc. alone accounting for more than a third of the S&P 500’s gains since the run began in October 2022. But enthusiasm for them is cooling as interest in the rest of the S&P 500 rises.

With Big Tech’s earnings growth slowing, investors are no longer content with promises of AI riches — they want to start seeing a return. Profits for the Magnificent 7 are expected to climb about 18% in 2026, the slowest pace since 2022 and not much better than the 13% rise projected for the other 493 companies in the S&P 500, according to data compiled by Bloomberg Intelligence.

“We’re already seeing a broadening of earnings growth and we think that’s going to continue,” said David Lefkowitz, head of US equities at UBS Global Wealth Management. “Tech is not the only game in town.”

One source of optimism is the group’s relatively subdued valuations. The Magnificent 7 index is priced at 29 times profits projected over the next 12 months, well below the 40s multiples earlier in the decade. The S&P 500 is trading at 22 times expected earnings, and the Nasdaq 100 Index is at 25 times. 

Here’s a look at expectations for the year ahead.

Nvidia

The dominant AI chipmaker is under pressure from rising competition and concerns about the sustainability of spending by its biggest customers. The stock is up 1,165% since the end of 2022, but it has lost 11% since its Oct. 29 record.

Rival Advanced Micro Devices Inc. has won data center orders from OpenAI and Oracle Corp., and Nvidia customers like Alphabet are increasingly deploying their own custom made processors. Still, its sales continue to race ahead as demand for chips outstrips supply. 

Wall Street is bullish, with 76 of the 82 analysts covering the chipmaker holding buy ratings. The average analyst price target implies a roughly 39% gain over the next 12 months, best among the group, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Microsoft

For Microsoft, 2025 was the second consecutive year it underperformed the S&P 500. One of the biggest AI spenders, it’s expected to invest nearly $100 billion in capital expenditures during its current fiscal year, which ends in June. That figure is projected to rise to $116 billion the following year, according to the average of analyst estimates.

The data center buildout is fueling a resurgence in revenue growth in Microsoft’s cloud-computing business, but the company hasn’t had as much success in getting customers to pay for the AI services infused into its software products. Investors want to start seeing returns on those investments, according to Brian Mulberry, client portfolio manager at Zacks Investment Management.

“What you’re seeing is some people looking for a little bit more quality management in terms of that cash flow management and a better idea on what profitability really looks like when it comes to AI,” Mulberry said.

Apple

Apple has been far less aggressive with its AI ambitions than the rest of the Magnificent 7. The stock was punished for it last year, falling almost 20% through the start of August. 

But then it caught on as an “anti-AI” play, soaring 34% through the end of the year as investors rewarded its lack of AI spending risk. At the same time, strong iPhone sales reassured investors that the company’s most important product remains in high demand. 

Accelerating growth will be the key for Apple shares this year. Its momentum has slowed recently, the stock closed higher on Friday, narrowly avoiding matching its longest losing streak since 1991. However, revenue is expected to expand 9% in fiscal 2026, which ends in September, the fastest pace since 2021. With the stock valued at 31 times estimated earnings, the second highest in the Magnificent 7 after Tesla, it will need the push to keep the rally going.

Alphabet

A year ago, OpenAI was seen as leading the AI race and investors feared Alphabet would get left behind. Today, Google’s parent is a consensus favorite, with dominant positions across the AI landscape. 

Alphabet’s latest Gemini AI model received rave reviews, easing concerns about OpenAI. And its tensor processing unit chips are considered a potential significant driver of future revenue growth, which could eat into Nvidia’s commanding share of the AI semiconductor market. 

The stock rose more than 65% last year, the best performance in the Magnificent 7. But how much more can it run? The company is approaching $4 trillion in market value, and the shares trade at around 28 times estimated earnings, well above their five-year average of 20. The average analyst price target projects just a 3.9% gain this year. 

Amazon.com

The e-commerce and cloud-computing giant was the weakest Magnificent 7 stock in 2025, its seventh straight year in that position. But Amazon has charged out of the gate in early 2026 and is leading the pack.

Much of the optimism surrounding the company is based on Amazon Web Services, which posted its fastest growth in years in the company’s most recent results. Concerns that AWS was falling behind its rivals has pressured the stock, as has the company’s aggressive AI spending, which includes efforts to improve efficiency at its warehouses, in part by using robotics. Investors expect the efficiency push to start paying off before long, which could make this the year the stock goes from laggard to leader. 

“Automation in warehouses and more efficient shipping will be huge,” said Clayton Allison, portfolio manager at Prime Capital Financial, which owns Amazon shares. “It hasn’t gotten the love yet, but it reminds me of Alphabet last year, which was sort of left behind amid all the concerns about competition from OpenAI, then really took off.”

Meta Platforms

Perhaps no stock in the group shows how investors have turned skeptical about lavish AI spending more than Meta. Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg has pushed expensive acquisitions and talent hires in pursuit of his AI ambitions, including a $14 billion investment in Scale AI in which Meta also hired the startup’s CEO Alexandr Wang to be its chief AI officer.

That strategy was fine with shareholders — until it wasn’t. The stock tumbled in late October after Meta raised its 2025 capital expenditures forecast to $72 billion and projected “notably larger”spending in 2026. When the shares hit a record in August they were up 35% for the year, but they’ve since dropped 17%. Demonstrating how that spending is boosting profits will be critical for Meta in 2026.

Tesla

Tesla’s shares were the worst performers in the Magnificent 7 through the first half of 2025, but then soared more than 40% in the second half as Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk shifted focus from slumping electric vehicle sales to self-driving cars and robotics. The rally has Tesla’s valuation at almost 200 times estimated profits, making it the second most expensive stock in the S&P 500 behind takeover target Warner Bros. Discover Inc.

After two years of stagnant revenue, Tesla is expected to start growing again in 2026. Revenue is projected to rise 12% this year and 18% next year, following an estimated 3% contraction in 2025, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Still, Wall Street is pessimistic about Tesla shares this year. The average analyst price target projects a 9.1% decline over the next 12 months, data compiled by Bloomberg show. 



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.