By Liu Yuanju

In the early hours of January 3, local time, multiple explosions were reported across Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, following an order by US President Donald Trump to carry out military strikes on targets within Venezuela. Trump subsequently claimed that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife had been captured. This direct cross-border operation carried out by the US armed forces to apprehend a sitting head of state marks a major shift in US foreign policy.

Signs of such a drastic move had already appeared in the US National Security Strategy released in December 2025. The strategic report clearly re-adjusts the priorities of the US global posture. The US takes a tougher stance toward Europe by demanding it assume greater defense responsibilities, while significantly reducing attention to the Middle East and Africa. Public opinion widely interprets this as a return to a form of "isolationism," with some calling it a "New Monroe Doctrine." Trump himself described it as the "Trump Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine.

However, the crux lies in whether it is a strategic retrenchment or an alternative form of expansion. To answer it, we must revisit the historical essence of the Monroe Doctrine and examine its applicability in today's global landscape.

The Monroe Doctrine has never been "isolationism." In 1823, President James Monroe proposed that the affairs of the Americas should be resolved by the American continents themselves, and European powers must not interfere. This appeared to be a rejection of European powers, but in reality, it opened strategic space for the US to establish exclusive dominance in the Western Hemisphere. At that time, transatlantic travel relied on sailing ships, making military deployment extremely costly, and Europe's control over the Americas was limited. Using this regional barrier, the US can not only block external powers，but also covertly expand its own influence. From the US-Mexico War to the acquisition of the Panama Canal, all have demonstrated its geopolitical ambition of "advancing through retreat, offense through defense."

Therefore, the Monroe Doctrine has never been a dogmatic "isolationism," but a highly pragmatic, stage-specific strategic tool. Its core logic has always been to maximize regional dominance while keeping costs manageable.

The capture of Maduro can certainly reinforce Trump's image as a "tough strongman," particularly with midterm elections approaching, making the move politically calculated domestically. Choosing Venezuela, a long-sanctioned, militarily weak country with limited international support, as the target also reflects the typical logic of "maximizing gainwith minimum cost".

But does this mean the US is systematically returning to the "Monroe Doctrine"? The answer is no.

The true Monroe Doctrine relied on two conditions. One is a relatively closed regional system and the other is the overwhelming dominance of the US Today, neither condition exists. The US can no longer sever the Americas from the global system, nor bear the full cost of maintaining regional order alone. Thus, Trump's action is more likely an opportunistic tactical strike rather than a carefully considered strategic realignment.

However, this action also reveals a new trend in US strategy. The US hopes to replace global intervention with a "tough posture in the surrounding region" while demanding its allies share the costs. This could be described as a "lightweight hegemony" model. It no longer aims for comprehensive global order maintenance but focuses on core interest areas, using military deterrence as leverage to compel other countries to pay for their own security.

What is truly alarming is the precedent set by this raid. If the US normalizes the "forcible capture of foreign leaders" and uses it as a tool to coerce regional countries to yield, the Western Hemisphere could return to the dark era of power politics. The more far-reaching implication lies in whether this "tough posture in the surrounding region" will spread to other regions, creating a new imperial model of "selective intervention plus cost-shifting."

History does not simply repeat itself, but similar events often happen. Trump may not have fully considered these implications, yet his political legacy might provide a scaffold for future actors to construct an unknown strategic edifice.

(The author is a special commentator for china.com.cn)

Editor's note: Originally published on china.com.cn, this article is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online. The information and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of eng.chinamil.com.cn