For quite some time now, U.S. presidents have spoken about leadership but often seem to surrender authority, influence, and deterrent power without much fanfare. President Donald Trump, however, is attempting to shift this trend, even as traditional foreign policy experts seem to grapple with his approach.
This has been dubbed the Donroe Doctrine—a contemporary twist on the Monroe Doctrine, firmly claiming American assertiveness. It opts to confront foes rather than manage them and encourages allies to shoulder their own defense. Since his inauguration, Trump has targeted Iran’s nuclear capabilities, pressured NATO allies to bolster their military readiness, challenged China’s regional intentions, and reasserted U.S. leadership in areas from Greenland to Venezuela.
To some, these actions appear reckless. But a close look at Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) alongside the newly released 2026 National Defense Strategy (NDS) paints a different picture: a doctrine rooted in pragmatic realism, national sovereignty, and classic power dynamics. The Donroe Doctrine isn’t just a spur-of-the-moment decision; it reflects a thoughtful strategy.
Redefining America First
Trump’s military actions could showcase the constraints facing China and Russia, as the U.S. asserts itself more robustly.
The Donroe Doctrine begins with the assertion that America doesn’t need to solve every global crisis to remain secure. The 2025 NSS critiques past administrations for overly broad definitions of U.S. interests, noting that focusing on everything is akin to focusing on nothing. It emphasizes that national security should be narrowly defined: protecting the homeland, securing borders, and ensuring economic stability and sovereignty.
This explains why Trump views border security through the lens of national security, why he turns down open-ended global commitments, and why he considers economic strength essential. It’s peace through strength, rather than aiming for perpetual military engagements.
Critics often label Trump as careless, but his strategic documents convey another narrative. The NSS calls for high standards for military engagement, demonstrating an inclination toward non-interventionism. The NDS emphasizes that the military should deter, coerce, and, if necessary, act decisively to defend vital interests—not engage in ideological campaigns.
Regarding Iran, Trump approaches it as a matter of proliferation rather than nation-building. His military responses are calculated, conditional, and limited, showcasing enforcement rather than escalation.
Surprisingly, this strategy might explain how Trump managed to sanction military actions against Iran while still advocating for diplomatic remedies elsewhere. The Donroe Doctrine suggests that overwhelming strength allows for room to negotiate; weakness tends to incite conflict.
China as a Pacing Threat
The crux of the Donroe Doctrine highlights China as a significant challenge—the kind that can influence global pacing.
Both the NSS and NDS recognize China as the only global power capable of genuinely contesting the U.S. in military, economic, and technological realms. The NDS makes it clear: China’s military development, industrial strength, and regional goals dictate U.S. defense planning.
Notably, Trump’s doctrine does not take for granted that conflict with China is unavoidable. The aim is neither regime change nor humiliation but to prevent Chinese dominance in the Indo-Pacific while maintaining strong alliances. The strategy is about limiting China’s reach, rather than dismantling its economic system, encouraging a competitive rather than confrontational stance.
Allies as Equals, Not Burdens
This principle becomes evident in Trump’s view of alliances. His insistence that NATO partners increase their defense budgets isn’t merely a rhetorical outburst—it’s tied to the NDS’s concerns about multiple potential threats emerging concurrently.
The response isn’t about indefinite U.S. deployments but fostering capable allies who can protect their territories with U.S. support as needed. Trump argues that Europe possesses the resources necessary to deter Russian aggression. Israel serves as a prime example in the NDS for its self-reliant defense model. Sharing responsibilities isn’t a punishment; it’s a necessity for reliability.
The rapid growth of China’s naval power underscores the need for U.S. deterrence in the Indo-Pacific, which ultimately hinges on the capability to build more ships and maintain a sustained military presence at sea.
A Return to Geographical Considerations
The Donroe Doctrine also reinvigorates geographic considerations in U.S. strategy. The NDS aims to enforce Trump’s addition to the Monroe Doctrine by barring hostile forces from controlling critical areas in the Western Hemisphere.
Strategic assets like Greenland, the Panama Canal, and various cartel-controlled regions are seen as pivotal rather than peripheral. Trump’s recent tensions over Greenland and his initiative for a “Framework for Future Agreements” with NATO reflect this mindset.
Moreover, the Donroe Doctrine acknowledges a post-World War II truth: production underpins victory. Both the NSS and NDS prioritize bolstering the defense industrial base, linking economic health directly to military preparedness.
In conclusion, by examining the NSS and NDS together, you can see a blend of stubbornness without recklessness, nationalism that does not retreat, and a robust governing doctrine that avoids the trap of perpetual war. The Donroe Doctrine turns away from idealistic utopias toward clear priorities and an unapologetic display of American might—especially in response to a rising China.
This could raise concerns in Washington, as clarity drives the doctrine, making it more stable but also more dangerous for adversaries. Ambiguity dissipates, exposing free riders and heightening the costs of missteps.
