IFSH Brief Analysis by Dr Tobias Fella
On 3 January 2026, the United States carried out a military intervention in Venezuela in violation of international law, capturing President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. US President Donald Trump and members of his administration subsequently asserted a claim to US control over Venezuela and threatened other countries with intervention and annexation.
U.S. Foreign Policy Between the Monroe Doctrine and Neo-Royalism
In making these claims and threats, the Trump administration has departed from what has historically been described as the “imperialism of anti-imperialism” – that is, the idea that the US does not seek to build an empire while endeavouring to spread freedom worldwide. Now, however, it is openly embracing an imperialist policy. One example is Trump’s addition to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 which frames dominance in the Western Hemisphere as a geopolitical necessity and largely dispenses with traditional justifications – such as the defence of democracy and the “free world” – which were used by earlier U.S. presidents.
One interpretation is that the current US administration is primarily concerned with demonstrating its self-ascribed exceptional position and superior power while demanding submission from others. With regard to the international order, this view follows the principle that a state possesses only as much privilege and sovereignty as it has the power to enforce.
Against this backdrop, political scientists Stacie Goddard and Abraham Newman have coined the term “neo-royalism”. According to this concept, the Trump administration and its milieu envision a world in which elite networks – reminiscent of former ruling dynasties – determine the fate of their nations or regions. These elites signal and reinforce their elevated status through concrete actions, such as extracting financial and cultural concessions.
From this perspective, the bureaucratic state in which foreign policy is shaped, at least ideally, through decisions based on national objectives and expert knowledge is being steadily replaced. In its place emerge personality-driven regimes in which leaders operate with few constraints and are heavily influenced by a close inner circle whose members may pursue conflicting interests. The overarching goal of demonstrating dominance allows ample room for inconsistent or contradictory policies.
Another interpretation explains US behaviour primarily through German philosopher Carl Schmitt’s theory of “great spaces”, which prohibits intervention by external powers while granting intervention rights to the dominant power within a given region. Schmitt’s ideas have often been connected with Trump’s milieu. In 1938, Schmitt developed this theory, which used to rationalize Nazi territorial claims at the time, by drawing on the Monroe Doctrine. And US exceptionalism, historically invoked to claim interpretive authority over international law, may have further enabled this approach.
America First
These two interpretations are not mutually exclusive. Access to Venezuela’s oil reserves and the prospect of more direct influence within OPEC may have shaped the decision to remove Maduro, as may the desire to control suspected cryptocurrency reserves. It is also possible that the United States sought to push back against Chinese influence in the Americas, and that regime-change ambitions within the so-called Rubio camp played a role. What matters most is that, under Trump, traditional, state-centred explanations of US foreign policy reach their limits. The principle of sovereign equality, enshrined in the Westphalian order, holds little relevance for the current US administration.
In dealing with such an actor, a strategy of “maximum alignment” is likely to have only temporary effects at best. The US has already targeted European states with punitive measures and will continue to do so. US administration action against EU digital regulation can be expected. Moreover, US policies aimed at resource extraction directly affect a Europe already under pressure from high energy costs.
US Claim to Greenland as a Test Case for the EU
President Trump and his cabinet have repeatedly announced their intention to bring Greenland more firmly under US control, in one way or another. This does not necessarily imply a military operation – such a move would likely face greater domestic opposition than the recent intervention in Venezuela – but cannot be ruled out entirely.
One possibility is that the US will offer Greenland a so-called Compact of Free Association modelled on US agreements with Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau. These agreements guarantee international legal sovereignty to the partner state while transferring certain responsibilities, such as defence, to the United States. In this scenario, the Trump administration could push for a referendum on Greenland’s independence from Denmark and employ targeted political pressure throughout the entire process, including the vote itself.
There are signs that Europeans have recognized that a US takeover of Greenland would represent a serious blow to the European project. Greenlanders are EU citizens, and the island is of major military, economic and geopolitical importance to Europe. The seriousness of the situation is underscored by the fact that some experts are already exploring the possibility of additional European armed forces deployments to Greenland. The underlying idea here is to express Europe’s own political claim through concrete action – in Trumpian terms.
But even below this threshold, it is essential that Europeans remind both the international community and the United States of international law, and that they clearly name violations such as the US attack on Venezuela as such. This is not only a moral obligation but a matter of realpolitik as well. International legal norms are shaped through state practice, and Europe currently lacks both the capacity and the unity required to hold its own in a world dominated by great powers.
Allies are therefore needed, especially if one day a worst-case scenario – the formation of a counter-power to the United States – becomes unavoidable.
About the author:
Dr Tobias Fella is Head of the “Deep Cuts” project at IFSH.
