Talk:Foreign policy of the second Trump administration

What is this article?

This entire article is the most depressing thing I've ever read. The entire thing is "Trump did this and here is why it's the absolute worst thing that has ever happened." To call this one enormous compendium of WP:NPOV violations is a massive understatement. I'll just focus on one small line found here, which is emblematic of how poorly this entire article is written: The second Trump administration saw a deterioration of relations between Japan and the United States. Anyone who saw Trump's visit to Japan to meet Sanae Takaichi know this is patently false. I don't care if one source said it, in case you didn't notice, you can find a "reliable source" that will say anything, especially if it's predicting complete global doom as a result of Trump. But there are a very wide plethora of sources which talk about the extremely warm visit that resulted in multiple bilateral treaties and initiatives. I'd love to improve this article to make it far more comprehensive and fair, I just want to know that I won't get immediately reverted by people who want to try to assert ridiculous, objectively false things such as the US-Japan relationship somehow being more negative in 2025 than in the recent past. Archon785 (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Donroe Doctrine into Foreign policy of the second Trump administration

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is to keep the articles separate. satkara❈talk 18:24, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

---

Same topic, just with a special name. The Monroe doctrine outlived Monroe himself, we don't know if the "Donroe doctrine" will also continue with future presidents or just be a Trump thing Cambalachero (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Cambalachero Agreed. This is beyond WP:TOOSOON because it's mostly an invention of the media in reaction to a particular upsetting event (Venezuela). It just means "Trump wants to invade places generally." At this point, we don't even know if the media will bring this up again when he invades another country. If it's Greenland, then it won't even be coherent. lethargilistic (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

(Respectfully) This is a subset of Trump's Foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere, not his foreign policies taken as a whole. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose for three reasons

1) The Donroe Doctrine article is not the same topic with a special name. It refers to a specific interpretation of Trump's foreign policy. The Donroe Doctrine article uniquely describes an approach guiding elements of foreign policy in the Americas (unilateralism, regional power politics) rather than the foreign policy itself. There is a clear precedent for this and it is the difference between an article like Obama Doctrine and Foreign policy of the Obama administration.

2) It does not matter if the Donroe doctrine will continue with future presidents. Many historically cited doctrines e.g. Bush doctrine did not live past their successor. Were Trump to declare an end to the Donroe doctrine today, it would still be WP:N as an academic interpretation. After all, James Monroe never envisaged 'Monroe doctrine' nor did Clinton ever refer to a Clinton doctrine, but the terms still serve as historically and politically significant terms which describe certain foreign policy approaches.

3) The term was not an invention in response to US involvement in Venezuela. Though it gained greater notoriety after this, it was used by many journalists and academics before to offer an interpretation of Trump's foreign policy. The 2025 national security strategy explicitly outlined a 'Trump corollary' to the Monroe doctrine. It is also more nuanced than 'Trump just wants to invade places generally'. In many ways it means the opposite, it has been suggested as an alternative to a 'boots on the ground' approach which looks to avoid military escalation. As for the question of Greenland, it is certainly applicable and the doctrine is has already been cited in WP:RS referring to US territorial ambitions. As such, WP:TOOSOON does not apply as the term is well established.

Sorry if this is long, but I hope it is worth the space :) Saiga Antelope (talk) 08:56, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Weak Oppose While it is hard to keep up with Trump, the trend seems to be going in the direction that this thing is getting more press. I am motivated by the belief that I thought it was a joke, I did not realize it was real. So having it on its own allows greater understanding. And with his expansionist plans I see the separation as necessary for examining the bases for his expansionist ideology.. Inayity (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Support merge The "doctrine" is just a silly nickname for a part of his foreign policy and not especially distinct, certainly not enough to warrant its own article. We can always come back to this if that changes, but merge for now. FunIsOptional (talk) (please use ping!) 07:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

The term is used to refer to Trump's foreign policy in the America's, and it should be separate due to the specific and large focus on US foreign policy in that region. It should be mentioned in the article, but the doctrine is important enough for its own page. Happinerse (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

The term "Donroe Doctrine" is not new. As pointed out by the article, it can be traced back to a New York Post front cover on January 8, 2025, when discussing Trump's foreign policy doctrine of securing and maintaining American dominance in the Western hemisphere and ejecting external (Russian, Chinese, Iranian) influences not only through sheer use of hard power, but also by ensuring allies would win elections in the region. In other words, it is part and parcel of Trump's foreign policy doctrine. So far, the doctrine has been executed not only in Venezuela, but also in Panama, Honduras, and Argentina. In the future, it is of an increasing relevance with regard to Colombia, Brazil, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Greenland. Therefore, it is inaccurate to claim that the Donroe Doctrine is only a "recent invention" in the wake of the capture of Nicolás Maduro or that it simply means "Trump wants to invade places generally". It is immaterial whether this will outlive Trump himself; the Donroe Doctrine is his particular doctrine for his second term. Danu Widjajanto (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. After doing some cleanup in the article and expansion in the article following research searching for sources of the term itself and the original cover, I think there are two issues with this proposal: One, it isn't the same topic, it's definitely an analysis of a subset of a larger piece of a broader topic. Two, it's pretty clear the topic itself meets WP:N on its own to justify its own article. The article stays in its own lane and sticks to sources describing and analysis thereof solely of the term. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose.

I can see the point, and I appreciate the desire to start a discussion (we did need a discussion on this). Trump's approach in regards to the Western Hemisphere, and the shift of the envisaged US sphere of influence, from the past ideological milieu ("an alliance of democracies around the world") to a regionalist viewpoint (total dominance on the Western Hemisphere but disengagement from Europe and other regions), are enough of a break from tradition and deserve their own page. Also, as has already been mentioned, there is already a precedent for this through the Obama Doctrine page, which referred to a far more nebulous and undefined concept than the Donroe Doctrine. Revangarde568 (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment: is it time to close this move request? Saiga Antelope (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I am in the oppose party, but I say give it to Monday just in case there are any stragglers on either side who wish to comment. We should try and be fair to all parties. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Perfect- didn't mean to cut anyone off. I am bit new to this! Saiga Antelope (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

No apologies necessary. You were being very respectful to all editors by asking. I think the usual length of time is 3-7 days, but there is no hard and fast rule on this that I am aware of. For big controversial topics the dialogue can ask much longer, with dozens of editors.

Personally for smaller issues such as this I wait for the conversation to generally die low and wait a few days after for good measure, to try and be fair to anyone.

I have seen it before where some editors will hover around an article they worked on a lot or is their own, and they ask to wait for discuss if they are traveling or dealing with life issues or something. For issues like these I usually wait for them within reason. It makes Wikipedia a nicer place for editors even if you disagree with them on any issue. (:

You are doing fine. Keep asking questions. Great job on your The Forgotten American article by the way. I love it when people write articles on something that has not been covered, but should be covered. Bravo. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: merge Donroe with American expansionism under Donald Trump Braganza (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I think I can relate to your logic friend, but I respectfully disagree for a few reasons in no particular order.

1. American expansionism under Donald Trump is already long enough as it is.
2. The concept of the Monroe Doctrine broadly and the Donroe Doctrine narrowly are related but separate concepts in American foreign policy. The Monroe Doctrine is more about kicking foreign powers especially European out of the Western hemisphere. The Donroe doctrine is similar, but is very much intertwined with his American first policy and arguably his art of the deal tactics (not saying you have to agree with any of these necessarily, I am just outlining the methodology). An example of American expansionism being seperate than the Monroe Doctrine is the capture of Maduro and the bombing of alleged drug trafficking boats. Not inherently expansionist, but all about American supremacy of the Americas and somewhat arguably the war on drugs. For more broad examples of the Monroe Doctrine consider American's foreign policy concerning the 2nd Franco Mexican war where the United State threatened war with France after the American Civil War ended, because France breached American Monroe Doctrine Foreign policy. Respectful Suggestion: May I suggest if you wish to make this specific proposal we wait, till proposed merge of Donroe Doctrine into Foreign policy of the second Trump administration is resolved? Good of you to post the idea here initially, as a frame of reference though. (:

Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: The Donroe Doctrine solely concerns the Western Hemisphere and not the second Trump administration's foreign policy as a whole. Skitash (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Hands off Greenland protest by Christian Ursilva (9).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Possible AI-generated text

Concerns were raised last year by Athanelar about AI-generated content in this article. This is a procedural talk page section to discuss it. There is no need to ping me in response. Read WP:AISIGNS for more information for why this is tagged.

Please do not archive this topic. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)