The Long Shadow of the Monroe Doctrine

When it comes to the situation in Venezuela, President Trump made an interesting comment: “If any South American country misbehaves toward any European country, let the European country spank it.” While this certainly sounds like something Trump might say, the quote actually belongs to Theodore Roosevelt. It is a reminder that the United States has a long and often complicated history with Latin America, one that has frequently involved military intervention, often without explicit congressional approval.

I have previously examined the legality of presidents conducting military actions without congressional approval.

And while space does not permit a full rehash of that argument here, our Constitution does grant the president significant authority in this area. Articles I and II create some tension over war powers, but the War Powers Act clarifies that the president may use military forces without prior congressional authorization for up to 90 days. The president must notify Congress after initiating hostilities and must obtain authorization beyond that period, but prior to the 90-day mark, such actions are legal.

Historically, the pattern of Latin American interference began with President James Monroe. Monroe was elected in 1816, in the midst of a revolutionary wave sweeping Latin America.

One nation after another declared independence from Spain: Colombia (1810), Venezuela (1811), Argentina (1816), Chile (1818), Mexico and Guatemala (1821), Brazil (1822), Peru and Bolivia (1824), and Uruguay (1825). The central concern for the United States was that European powers would exploit the resulting power vacuum and attempt to recolonize the region, an outcome that could prove problematic to American national security.

In response, Monroe, more accurately, his Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, made a bold declaration for such a young nation. On Dec. 2, 1823, Monroe issued what became known as the Monroe Doctrine, which included: “Our policy, in regard to Europe… is not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers… But, in regard to those continents, circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different.

“It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent, without endangering our peace and happiness… It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition, in any form, with indifference.”

In other words, hands off. This hemisphere is ours.

Part of the arrangement was an understanding that the United States would not interfere in Africa or Asia. In effect, the world was divided into spheres of influence, with Europe dominating the Eastern Hemisphere and the United States asserting control over the Western Hemisphere. For much of the 19th century, there was not much involvement as the United States lacked the power to enforce this doctrine consistently.

Things changed, however, after the Spanish-American War, as America came into its own, and the first major tests of this new status involved Venezuela.

Prior to its revolution, Venezuela had accumulated substantial debt to European nations, particularly Germany.

Years of internal conflict following the revolution only worsened the situation. By 1902, European powers demanded repayment and imposed a naval blockade to force compliance. Venezuelan President Cipriano Castro did not take these threats seriously, believing the Monroe Doctrine would compel U.S. intervention.

However, President Theodore Roosevelt disagreed, arguing that the doctrine applied only to colonization, not debt collection, hence his remark about European “spanking.”

Two years later, Roosevelt reconsidered. In his 1904 State of the Union address, he announced what became known as the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.

In it, he declared that the United States would “exercise international police power in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence.” In practical terms, this meant that European nations would no longer intervene directly in Latin America; instead, they would seek redress through the United States. The U.S. would assume responsibility for regional stability and ensure that Latin American nations met their financial obligations.

This policy proved far more complicated than anticipated. Under Roosevelt alone, the United States engaged in military actions in Panama, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Venezuela. These interventions continued and expanded under subsequent administrations throughout the 20th century, culminating in more recent actions under President Trump.

While each of these interventions has faced internal criticism, the debate has almost always centered on whether the president should intervene, not whether he could. Viewed through the lens of history, Trump’s actions in Venezuela are neither unprecedented nor unconstitutional.

James Finck is a professor of American history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. He can be reached at james.finck@swoknews.com. Thanks to Southwest Ledger for sharing his column