Project 2025 proposes a hemisphere-first economic and security architecture: (1) re-centering U.S. supply chains inside the Americas and (2) framing extra-continental influence as a primary threat, without using the phrase “Monroe Doctrine.”
All Latin America policy does not automatically equal imperialism, but the document’s mechanism reads like hemispheric consolidation plus outside-power exclusion.
If the goal is stability and security, I'm focused on mechanisms and limits.
Most people hear “Monroe Doctrine” and think rhetoric. Here’s the machinery Project 2025 actually puts on paper:
• Threat model: Flags “socialist or progressive regimes” as “hemispheric security threats” requiring a “new approach” that lets the U.S. “re-posture” to its interests.
• Mexico as sovereignty problem: Describes Mexico as a “national security disaster” effectively run by cartels, calling for a “fully sovereign Mexico” posture backed by “all steps” available.
• Fentanyl pipeline: Frames fentanyl as cartels working with PRC precursor manufacturers, with the stated goal of a “fentanyl-free frontier.”
• “Re-hemisphering” industry + energy: Proposes shifting manufacturing from “distant points” (especially the PRC) to Central/South America and building hemisphere-focused energy policy to reduce reliance on “distant and manipulable” suppliers.
• Outside powers named: Warns Central/South America are moving into the sphere of “anti-American, external state actors”, explicitly the PRC, Iran, and Russia—and calls for security-focused cooperation with regional democracies.
Fentanyl, cartel violence, and PRC influence are real problems. The hard question is the limiting principle. What prevents “hemisphere security” from becoming a blank check?
If the document included specific Congressional authorization requirements, sunset clauses, or defined triggers that constrain unilateral action, rather than leaving “all steps” open-ended.
What would you require as guardrails (Congressional authorization thresholds? defined triggers? transparency requirements?) so “local security threats” doesn’t expand into permanent unilateral latitude?