Donald Trump’s recent foreign policy actions, marked by the dramatic seizure of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and a renewed, aggressive push to acquire Greenland, have ignited widespread international condemnation and significant domestic disapproval. These moves, coupled with the imposition of new tariffs on key European allies, are pushing the NATO alliance to its brink and reflecting a broader public rejection of his approach, as recent polls indicate a substantial majority of Americans oppose his foreign policy decisions.
On January 3, Trump orchestrated the seizure of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, a move he described to The New York Times as guided by his ‘triumph of the will.’ He explicitly stated, ‘My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me… I don’t need international law.’ At a press conference following Maduro’s capture, Trump mentioned ‘oil’ 27 times and ‘money’ 13 times, while conspicuously omitting any mention of ‘democracy.’ He dismissed the democratic opposition as lacking ‘respect’ and ‘support,’ framing the capture as a ‘decapitation’ rather than genuine regime change. Trump subsequently declared himself ‘The Acting President of Venezuela,’ an image he circulated via the White House, and announced his intent to ‘run’ the country, control its finances, and manage its oil industry ‘indefinitely.’
This intervention, dubbed the ‘Donroe Doctrine’ by Trump, is consistent with his broader efforts to rebrand historical narratives. This includes removing mentions of his impeachments from his National Portrait Gallery caption and reportedly coercing the Smithsonian to downplay the severity of slavery. He controversially claimed that the 1960s civil rights movement led to ‘white people’ being ‘very badly treated.’ The ‘Donroe Doctrine’ directly contradicts the original Monroe Doctrine’s intent, as articulated by then-Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, who warned against the United States becoming a ‘dictatress of the world’ by going ‘abroad in search of monsters to destroy.’
Trump’s unilateral approach to Venezuela has met with strong resistance even from within the energy sector. He invited CEOs of major oil companies to the White House, urging them to invest in Venezuela’s dilapidated and challenging oil infrastructure. However, the ExxonMobil chief reportedly told Trump that the country was ‘uninvestable’ due to its lack of a proper legal system and difficult-to-extract oil. Trump’s response, according to The Guardian, was to interrupt the meeting to discuss his ongoing, gargantuan ballroom construction on the White House South Lawn, ultimately stating, ‘I will probably be inclined to keep Exxon out,’ despite Exxon’s stated disinterest in entering. This episode underscored critics’ view of his foreign policy as a ‘vanity ballroom,’ driven by personal spectacle rather than strategic interest.
Concurrently, Trump has intensified his long-standing ambition to acquire Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark and a NATO ally. He declared that ‘ownership’ of Greenland was ‘psychologically necessary for success,’ threatening, ‘If we don’t do it the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way.’ This aggressive stance prompted a joint rebuke from the leaders of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, who affirmed that Greenland ‘belongs to its people.’ Despite this, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, asserted that ‘nobody [is] going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.’ Danish and Greenlandic officials conveyed their ‘fundamental disagreement’ to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Adding to the international friction, Trump announced new tariffs against eight of America’s closest European allies, escalating his campaign to acquire Greenland. These new levies come on top of an existing 15 percent tariff on most EU exports imposed by his administration last year. As Politico reported, Trump stated, ‘Now, after Centuries, it is time for Denmark to give back — World Peace is at stake!’ Europe has responded to Trump’s pressure by deploying troops from Sweden, Norway, Germany, Finland, France, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands for military training exercises in Greenland, a move Trump viewed with suspicion. These actions have ‘dismayed long-term allies and pushed the NATO alliance to the brink,’ with critics warning that such divisions benefit adversaries like Russia and China.
Public opinion polls reveal a significant backlash against Trump’s foreign policy. A Quinnipiac poll shows overwhelming opposition to his Venezuelan actions: 57% oppose ‘running’ Venezuela, 73% oppose sending troops, and 55% oppose taking over its oil sales. Regarding Greenland, 86% oppose military seizure, and 55% oppose buying it. Furthermore, 70% of Americans are against military action against Iran. An AP-NORC poll indicates that 61% disapprove of his foreign policy in general, while a Reuters-Ipsos poll found only 17% in favor of acquiring Greenland and a mere 4% supporting military force. This broad disapproval now nearly mirrors the public’s negative perception of his economic policy, particularly concerning the cost of living crisis, which Trump has repeatedly dismissed as a ‘hoax’ or ‘fake word.’
Trump’s imperialistic tendencies, centered on his ‘imperial self,’ diverge sharply from traditional geopolitical theories. While Vladimir Lenin saw finance capital driving colonialism, Trump, as argued by Sid Blumenthal in The Guardian, appears to compel ‘reluctant capitalists into freebooting imperialist adventures with uncertain consequences,’ representing a ‘lowest stage of imperialism’ in Leninist terms. His ‘Donroe’ atavism aligns with other ‘primitive throwback policies,’ such as tariffs reminiscent of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 and immigration restrictions echoing the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924.
The current political climate also draws uncomfortable parallels with past Republican presidencies. Trump has actively dismantled the legacy of the Bush family, famously humiliating Jeb Bush during a 2016 debate by calling the Iraq War a ‘big, fat mistake’ and blaming George W. Bush for 9/11. He further disparaged George H.W. Bush’s ‘thousand points of light’ initiative after his death. This aggressive posture contrasts with George H.W. Bush’s own struggle with the ‘wimp factor,’ which he seemingly overcame with the Gulf War victory, achieving an unprecedented 89% approval rating. Yet, as former White House official Richard Darman observed, this very triumph paradoxically led to Bush’s political downfall, as a public convinced of his strength felt he neglected their economic plight during a recession. The perception of supreme power, Darman noted, is not always what it seems.
Despite the growing public and international backlash, the Republican party continues to defer to Trump. On January 14, the Republican Senate, with internal dissenters silenced, blocked a resolution that would have required Trump to seek congressional approval for military force in Venezuela. This continued deference, critics argue, defines Republicans as ‘weak and useless’ in service to Trump’s perceived ‘unchallengeable strength.’
Domestically, Trump’s actions reflect the same ‘will to power.’ He has launched a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, whom he has publicly insulted as ‘bonehead’ and ‘low IQ,’ in what Powell calls a ‘pretext’ to undermine the Fed’s independence. In Minneapolis, following the killing of a US citizen by an ICE agent, Trump blamed the victim for being ‘highly disrespectful of law enforcement’ and threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act amid escalating violent melees. His declared philosophy—’My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me’—echoes Friedrich Nietzsche’s concept of ‘master morality’ and the ‘will to power,’ where the noble individual is a ‘creator of values’ and honors ‘whatever he recognizes in himself.’
In sum, Donald Trump’s foreign policy, characterized by aggressive unilateralism and a profound disregard for international law and allied concerns, appears to be paradoxically undermining his own aims. While intended to project unassailable strength and assert American dominance, these actions are alienating crucial international partners and generating significant domestic opposition, potentially creating political vulnerabilities even amidst the unwavering loyalty of his party.