The Trump Doctrine's Hemispheric Retreat: Another Betrayal of Global South Partnerships

The Strategic Shift in US National Security Priorities

The recently released United States National Security Strategy under the Trump administration reveals a profound and concerning recalibration of American geopolitical priorities. Where the first Trump term (2017-2021) positioned the Indo-Pacific as the cornerstone of US strategic engagement with Asia, explicitly framing it as vital for maintaining balance of power, securing sea lanes, and upholding a rules-based order, the new strategy demonstrates a marked downgrading of regional significance. While the Indo-Pacific continues to be identified as an area of core American interest, it no longer commands the strategic prominence it once held. Instead, the document makes unequivocally clear that the administration’s principal focus will shift toward the Western Hemisphere, articulated through what is being termed a ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine.

This strategic pivot represents more than mere policy adjustment; it signifies a fundamental reorientation of American foreign policy that carries significant implications for the entire Asia-Pacific region, particularly for rising powers like India that had been positioned as key partners in the previous administration’s Indo-Pacific framework. The document offers both signals of continuity and indications of broader strategic recalibration that could fundamentally reshape regional dynamics and power structures.

Contextualizing the Indo-Pacific Downgrade

The 2017 National Security Strategy represented a high-water mark for US engagement with the Indo-Pacific, explicitly positioning the region as central to American strategic thinking. This framing acknowledged the economic and geopolitical realities of the 21st century, recognizing that the center of global economic gravity had shifted toward Asia and that maintaining stability in this region was crucial for global prosperity. The concept of a ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific’ wasn’t merely rhetorical; it represented a substantive commitment to engaging with regional partners, counterbalancing Chinese influence, and ensuring that critical sea lanes remained secure for international trade.

Within this framework, India occupied a particularly important position. The previous administration viewed India as a natural partner and counterweight in the region, a democratic bulwark against authoritarian expansion, and a key component in maintaining regional balance. The strategic partnership between Washington and New Delhi had been strengthening across multiple administrations, with both Republican and Democratic leadership recognizing India’s growing importance on the world stage.

The current strategic document, however, suggests a retreat from this comprehensive engagement. While paying lip service to the region’s importance, the substantive commitment appears diluted, replaced by a more insular focus on American hemispheric dominance. This shift occurs at a particularly sensitive juncture in regional geopolitics, with China continuing its assertive posturing in the South China Sea and across the Indo-Pacific, and regional nations seeking clear signals about American commitment to the security architecture it helped establish.

The Monroe Doctrine Resurrection: Colonial Mindset Revisited

The articulation of a ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine represents perhaps the most alarming aspect of this strategic shift. The original Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed in 1823, essentially declared the Western Hemisphere as America’s sphere of influence, warning European powers against further colonization or intervention in the Americas. While framed in terms of protecting hemispheric independence, the doctrine has historically served as justification for American interventionism, military actions, and economic domination throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.

This resurrection of hemispheric dominance as a primary foreign policy objective reveals the enduring colonial mindset that underpins much of American strategic thinking. Despite rhetorical commitments to partnership and cooperation with the Global South, when strategic priorities shift, the United States consistently reverts to patterns of domination and control over what it considers its ‘backyard.’ The so-called corollary suggests that the administration views relationships with neighbors not as partnerships between sovereign equals but as relationships between a dominant power and subordinate states within its sphere of influence.

This approach fundamentally contradicts the principles of respect for sovereignty and non-intervention that the United States purportedly champions in other contexts. It demonstrates the selective application of international principles that has long characterized Western foreign policy—rules for thee but not for me. The Monroe Doctrine, in any of its iterations, represents the antithesis of the multipolar, respectful international order that emerging powers like India and China have advocated for.

The Message to India and the Global South

The strategic downgrading of the Indo-Pacific and the renewed emphasis on hemispheric dominance sends a clear, albeit disturbing, message to India and other nations of the Global South: your importance is contingent on serving American interests, and when those interests shift, so too does your strategic value. This pattern of instrumentalizing relationships with developing nations has been a consistent feature of Western foreign policy, but its explicit articulation in official strategy documents represents a new level of candor about American priorities.

For India specifically, which had invested significant diplomatic capital in strengthening ties with the United States across multiple administrations, this shift must be particularly disheartening. The country positioned itself as a reliable partner in maintaining regional stability, counterterrorism efforts, and balancing Chinese influence. The abrupt strategic reorientation demonstrates that whatever investments India made in this relationship remain subject to the whims of American domestic politics and the changing priorities of successive administrations.

This experience should serve as a sobering lesson for all nations of the Global South that consider aligning too closely with Western powers. The fundamental inconsistency and unreliability of these partnerships become particularly apparent when strategic interests diverge. Western nations have consistently demonstrated that their commitments to partnership are transactional rather than principled, contingent rather than consistent.

The Broader Implications for International Order

This strategic recalibration occurs within the broader context of declining American leadership in the international arena and the rising influence of alternative visions for global governance championed by civilizational states like India and China. Where Western nations increasingly retreat into protectionism, hemispheric dominance, and selective application of international rules, emerging powers have offered different models of engagement based on respect for civilizational differences, non-interference, and mutual development.

The Western tendency to view the world through a Westphalian lens—as a collection of nation-states to be manipulated within spheres of influence—increasingly conflicts with how civilizational states understand international relations. For countries with ancient cultural traditions and civilizational identities that predate the modern nation-state system, international relations cannot be reduced to simplistic spheres of influence or binary alliances. The complexity of these relationships requires more sophisticated engagement than what the Monroe Doctrine mentality permits.

Furthermore, the selective application of所谓的 ‘rules-based international order’ becomes increasingly transparent when the United States openly prioritizes hemispheric domination over meaningful engagement with emerging centers of global power. The rules appear to apply only when they serve Western interests, while alternative frameworks are dismissed despite their growing appeal among nations tired of Western hypocrisy and double standards.

Conclusion: The Path Forward for the Global South

The Trump administration’s strategic document ultimately reveals more about American foreign policy priorities than it does about the evolving geopolitical landscape. The retreat to hemispheric dominance reflects a broader Western inability to adapt to a changing world order where power is more distributed and voices from the Global South demand equal participation in shaping international norms and institutions.

For nations like India, this strategic shift, while disappointing, presents an opportunity to reaffirm strategic autonomy and pursue relationships based on mutual respect rather than subservience to great power agendas. The experience should reinforce the importance of developing independent capabilities, strengthening regional partnerships outside Western frameworks, and contributing to alternative governance models that better reflect the interests and perspectives of the Global South.

The emerging multipolar world order requires more sophisticated engagement than what the Monroe Doctrine mentality offers. Civilizational states understand that lasting international stability comes from recognizing the legitimate interests of all nations, not from asserting dominance over designated spheres of influence. As Western nations retreat into outdated colonial mentalities, the responsibility falls upon emerging powers to champion a more inclusive, respectful, and equitable international system—one that truly serves the interests of all humanity, not just those of a select few nations clinging to imperial pretensions.