Trump vs. Latin America: Will there be a war in the Western hemisphere?

From isolationism to “gunboat policy”

Trump’s supporters believed that the United States should focus on its own affairs, including reducing spending on an overly active foreign policy. However, Trump has effectively refuted these expectations. Moreover, he is actively shifting toward a more imperial policy, including a return to past practices and the revival of old methods such as “gunboat policy”.

Among these earlier practices, a special place is occupied by the Monroe Doctrine, adopted in 1823, which declared Latin America a zone of exclusive U.S. interests. In the latest National Security Strategy prepared by the Trump administration for Congress in December 2025, the Western Hemisphere was identified as the top priority for the United States, with particular emphasis on Latin America.

For the United States, the American continent is, conditionally speaking, its backyard and always has been. But during the era of the Monroe Doctrine, the declaration of American intentions toward the region had a distinctly offensive character. Washington was then competing against European rivals, above all Great Britain with its growing colonial empire. The object of competition was the market of the newly independent Latin American states.

By 1823, these states had just gained independence from Spain, creating new opportunities for external powers. Each new Latin American state needed investment, trade, and revenues to cover emerging state expenditures. The only sources were Europeans and the United States. For them, Latin American countries were markets for goods and sources of raw materials. For the growing industrial capitalist empires, including the United States itself, markets for goods were of particular importance and were the subject of intense competition.

At that time, Europeans and Americans did not stand on ceremony and acted within the framework of gunboat policy. For example, throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Americans landed troops in Nicaragua, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti, overthrowing presidents and dictators. The struggle was for trade privileges, control of markets, and transport corridors. It is enough to recall the Panama Canal. Incidentally, it was the Americans who created the conditions for Panama’s separation from Colombia by supporting local elites.

Globalization changed the rules of the game

At the end of the twentieth and the beginning of the twenty first centuries, the situation changed. Although the United States remained a great power and continued to dominate globally in military strength, the economy, and finance, serious changes occurred in both economics and ideology. Economically, the key point was that under globalization the United States became the largest market in the world. It opened its market to goods from many countries. Export-oriented countries of Southeast Asia, from Japan and South Korea to China, based their development precisely on access to the American market. In this context, Mexico became a major producer of goods for the U.S. market. Other countries in the region also participated in this process.

There were also side effects. The powerful American economy generated a demand for labor, which led to migration flows into the United States from poorer Latin American countries. In addition, the concentration of wealth in the United States led to increased consumption. At the same time, harsh competitive conditions in the domestic market created significant pressure on workers involved in it.

The legacy of U.S. policy in the region

One consequence of this was the widespread prevalence of depression among Americans, which led to the emergence of an entire pharmaceutical market producing drugs to combat it. A side effect, however, was increased consumption of narcotic substances, and the wealthy United States became a huge market for illegal drug sales, primarily from Latin America. Initially this was mainly cocaine, while synthetic drugs have since appeared. In turn, enormous revenues from illegal trade contributed to the emergence of powerful criminal groups, which led to the weakening of statehood in many countries of the region. Among them are Colombia and Ecuador, where cocaine is produced, as well as Mexico, the most important transit region on the way to the United States.

In addition to the strengthening of criminal groups that challenged state institutions, ultra left political movements became widespread in Latin America. This was largely due to the weakness of state institutions and the struggle of significant segments of the population for their rights, from indigenous peoples to socially vulnerable groups. It was also a consequence of the struggle between the United States and the USSR during the Cold War.

Some of the most vivid examples of this struggle were Cuba and Nicaragua, where radical left forces came to power at different times. But even outside the Cold War framework, leftist movements were also widespread in Mexico, such as the Zapatistas, in Peru, such as Sendero Luminoso, and in Colombia, such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces and others. In more recent times, Hugo Chávez created a far left dictatorship in Venezuela. A separate story involved moderate left centrist forces in Argentina and Brazil, which were part of the political system.

In any case, leftist forces played a major role in the politics of Latin American countries. Their degree of radicalism varied, as did the results they achieved. The rise of the left, however, led to a right wing reaction, ranging from military dictatorships to far right groups. Thus left and right radicalism went hand in hand in political life, feeding off each other. All of this made Latin America a very difficult region for the United States, as it was a source of migration flows and drug supplies.

The liberal turn of the United States

To this should be added ideological changes associated with the strengthening of the liberal component in American politics. This was especially evident during the presidency of Joe Biden, under whom the inflow of migrants from and through Latin America increased noticeably.

As a result of liberal policies, the United States also appeared less decisive in Latin America itself. One can recall the situation with the claims of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to the oil rich Essequibo Guiana region in neighboring Guyana in 2023. At that time, decisive support for Guyana was provided more by Brazil, which expressed readiness for war, than by the United States.

It cannot be said that U.S. influence in the region declined, but it was no longer what it had been. A serious military political force emerged in the form of Venezuela, with its close ties to Russia and China. It was openly anti-American. In addition, Venezuela supported the authorities of Cuba and Nicaragua by supplying oil at preferential prices.

Taken together, migration, liberal approaches to it, drugs, and the weakening of U.S. influence caused a negative reaction in American society, primarily regarding the inflow of migrants. The Biden administration, however, also presumed that a liberal policy toward migrants would help in elections by securing votes from voters of Latin American origin.

This did not happen. Long established migrants from Latin America, on the one hand, were concerned about their position in American society, including jobs, and on the other hand were conservative. Naturally, they disliked certain liberal practices, such as the strengthening of rhetoric in support of sexual minorities. A separate group of voters of Latin American origin were Cubans. Overall, they were opposed to the left and liberals and were dissatisfied with the Democratic Party’s policy toward Cuba.

Trump’s team and Cuban influence

Thus Trump came to power amid dissatisfaction among part of society with the left liberal policy of the Democrats toward migrants and with the generally much softer U.S. policy toward Latin America. In addition, a key official in his administration became a native of Cuba, Marco Rubio, who took the positions of Secretary of State and National Security Adviser.

Overall, all these circumstances created the background for the more active American policy in Latin America observed today. The United States has shifted to gunboat policy, which was clearly demonstrated in its approach to Venezuela, when on January 3 of this year the president of that country was abducted. Beyond this, Trump began making tough statements toward other countries as well.

Mexico’s sovereignty between cartels and the United States

Recently, his most high-profile statement concerned Mexico. On January 3, at a press conference devoted to the detention of Maduro, he said that Washington “would have to do something about Mexico”. On January 8, he added that he intended to launch a ground operation against drug cartels in Mexico.

After Trump came to power, in February 2025 the United States designated six Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organizations. Now the possibility of a military operation against them is being discussed. This would mean a violation of Mexico’s sovereignty. The problem is that although the influence of criminal organizations is very strong in some areas of the country and they effectively replace the state, if Americans begin a military operation in Mexico, its sovereignty will come under attack.

In such a scenario, Mexican authorities would have very limited options. If they do nothing, their sovereignty will suffer. If they respond, it would mean a war with the most powerful country in the world. Moreover, even if the United States limits itself to special forces operations and air strikes, this will not weaken the cartels or resolve the issue of their influence in specific territories, because state control will not be restored where it has been weakened.

In this sense, it would be more logical for the United States to act together with the central authorities of Mexico, providing support in the fight against drug cartels. This is how Americans traditionally acted in other Latin American countries, for example in Colombia. Introducing troops without the participation of the local government is not just an intervention. More importantly, it will not help eliminate a criminal organization.

A military operation will eventually end, after which it will be necessary either to establish an occupation regime or to withdraw. In both cases, this would be an inefficient use of resources for the United States. It would be more logical to reach an agreement with the Mexican government. It is possible that this is exactly what is happening, and the harsh statements are another form of pressure.

Trump seeks quick solutions. After the Maduro episode, he believes that he is generally succeeding. Now he is trying to find solutions to the oldest problems the United States has faced in recent decades. In Mexico, this concerns control over illegal migration along the border and drug smuggling.

Cuba as Washington’s oldest unresolved issue

In addition, he decided to address the issue of Cuba, which many American presidents have failed to resolve. On January 11, on his social network, he wrote that he strongly suggests they make a deal before it is too late. According to him, no more money and no Venezuelan oil will go to Cuba. He also reacted positively to a post on X suggesting that Marco Rubio could become the president of Cuba.

After the events in Venezuela and the arrest of Maduro, as well as statements about the possible annexation of Greenland, any words Trump addresses to other countries should be taken seriously. This increases unpredictability both for individual countries and for the international system as a whole.

Previously, the United States was criticized as the world’s policeman, but that implied certain rules. Now, with rules, especially in international relations, things are far more complicated. There is a decisive Trump who seeks quick results. But he usually starts by proposing a deal, as was the case with Maduro. Apparently, to cope with such activity by the American president, one must reach an agreement with him, conditionally speaking, try to lead the process.

Deals instead of escalation

For example, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, after Trump’s statement, called for closer coordination with the United States on security issues. This could theoretically mean that the Mexican government itself would begin operations against drug cartels with US support in order to avoid a situation in which it would have to respond to an American invasion. Such an outcome would most likely suit Trump.

Despite his intense activity on various foreign policy fronts, Trump is still not interested in escalation through troop landings, as the risks are too high. But the threat itself makes different countries nervous and likely pushes them toward certain compromises.

In the case of Latin America, there is only one question. Can this approach achieve a long-term solution to the problems of migration and drug smuggling into the United States, or will it only be a temporary fix. The latter depends not so much on the political will of leaders of different countries as on differences in living standards. These will always push people from poorer Latin American countries to desperate attempts to reach the wealthy United States. At the same time, drug smuggling is linked to the enormous market for drugs within the United States itself. Demand creates supply, and it is extremely difficult to deal with this through military actions on the territory of other countries.

Earlier, Qazinform News Agency reported that U.S. President Donald Trump is set to meet Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado at the White House on Thursday.