The "Donroe" Doctrine: big sticks and bigger blunders

The stunt was successful. One autocrat down, zero American casualties. Following the surgical abduction of Nicolás Maduro on 3 January, US President Donald Trump is currently riding a wave of geopolitical adrenaline.

He’s intoxicated by the "win," and like any high-roller who just cleared the house, he’s looking to double down. The new targets on the map? Colombia, Cuba, and Mexico.

Under the so-called "Donroe Doctrine"—a shiny, aggressive 2026 update to the 1823 Monroe original—Trump effectively asserts that the Western Hemisphere is his backyard, and he's authorized to use whatever lawn tools he deems necessary. But while the bravado is high, the strategic math doesn’t add up. Attacking these three vastly different nations would likely be less of a masterstroke and more of a self-inflicted wound.

Cuba: the oil-starved fortress

Cuba has long been the white whale for the Florida-centric wing of the GOP, specifically Secretary of State Marco Rubio. For decades, the dream was simple: wait for the communist regime to starve. That dream was deferred by Hugo Chávez’s oil-soaked lifeline, which kept Havana afloat even as Venezuelan production sputtered down to 30,000 or 35,000 barrels per day.

The current Washington logic is a "route through Caracas." If you kill the Venezuelan host, the Cuban parasite follows. On 11 January, Trump told President Miguel Díaz-Canel to "make a deal or face the consequences," subsequently pledging to sever all oil shipments.

But Havana isn't Caracas. The regime is not a fragmented mess of venal kleptocrats; it’s a disciplined, indoctrinated machine. A Maduro-style snatch-and-grab against Díaz-Canel—who is backed by a loyalist circle including Alejandro Castro—would likely end in a bloodbath. If Trump targets infrastructure instead, he risks hitting Chinese satellite stations or Russian ports, effectively turning a Caribbean stunt into a global shoot-out. Furthermore, toppling the regime risks a chaotic exodus of refugees hitting Florida’s shores—hardly a "win" for a president obsessed with border security.

Colombia: the war of words in the jungle

In Bogotá, the vibe is tense. Trump has already taken to X to tell President Gustavo Petro to "watch his ass." When asked about military action, Trump’s response was a casual "It sounds good to me."

The justification? Cocaine and communism. Petro is a former guerrilla who hasn't been shy about criticizing Israel or US hegemony. With the Colombian presidential elections looming in May 2026, Trump is clearly leaning on the scales, hoping to favor the "Trump-adjacent" Abelardo de la Espriella over Petro's protégé, Ivan Cepeda.

However, a military strike on Colombian soil would be a tactical nightmare. Bombing jungle labs is a game of whack-a-mole that hasn't worked for forty years. More importantly, Petro is a democratically elected leader, not a pariah like Maduro. A missile strike wouldn't "liberate" Colombia; it would turn Petro into a martyr and ignite a firestorm of nationalism that would burn any pro-US candidate at the polls.

Mexico: striking your best customer

President Claudia Sheinbaum has the hardest job in the room. Mexico is the US's largest trading partner, shipping 80% of its exports north. More crucially, Sheinbaum is the gatekeeper for Trump’s immigration stats. She manages the deportees, houses the asylum seekers, and patrols the 2,000-mile border.

Yet, Trump told Fox News on 8 January that he plans to "start hitting land" to target the cartels, claiming they "run Mexico." This is where the stunt logic fails completely. Surgical strikes on fentanyl labs sound great in a briefing room, but they are a declaration of war against an ally.

If Trump acts without Sheinbaum’s blessing, the cooperation on immigration—his crowning domestic achievement—evaporates instantly. Trade stops. Tourism dies. Even the upcoming FIFA World Cup becomes a security impossibility. It’s the equivalent of a thief burning down the bank he already owns.

A partisan doctrine with no endgame

The "Donroe Doctrine" is less about regional stability and more about a partisan hit list. Trump has played nice with Brazil’s Lula and occasionally Petro, but his crosshairs are firmly fixed on the left.

The fatal flaw in this plan is the lack of a "why." Is the goal to stop drugs? Destabilizing sovereign governments usually makes the drug trade flourish in the vacuum. Is it to remove leaders? Cuba and Mexico are not Venezuela.

If the only objective is to keep the world off-balance and staring at his X feed, then the mission is accomplished. But as a long-term strategy, it’s a stunt where the getaway driver has forgotten the map.