Trump's Foreign Policy Shift Risks Return to Imperial-Era Power Politics, Analysts Warn

President Donald Trump's aggressive approach to foreign policy, exemplified by the Venezuela raid and Greenland threats, signals a potential departure from decades of alliance-based international order that could reshape global power dynamics.

President Donald Trump's recent military intervention in Venezuela and threats to acquire Greenland by force represent what analysts describe as a fundamental break from post-World War II American foreign policy, raising concerns that the United States may be pushing the international system back toward 19th-century imperial competition. The moves have alarmed allies, particularly in Europe, and prompted warnings that Trump's "America First" doctrine could destabilize the rules-based international order that has underpinned global security for nearly eight decades.

BBC International Editor Jeremy Bowen has analyzed these developments as potentially heralding a return to an era when major powers pursued spheres of influence through military might rather than multilateral cooperation, with significant implications for smaller nations worldwide, including African states like Ghana.

Trump's decision to deploy special forces to remove Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power has become the centerpiece of what the president calls his quick, decisive approach to foreign policy. Monitoring the raid from his Mar-a-Lago mansion in Florida, Trump later described the operation to Fox News in admiring terms.

"If you could see the speed, the violence, they call it that... It was amazing, amazing work by these people. No one else could do something like this," Trump stated.

Maduro now sits in a Brooklyn prison cell while Trump has announced the US will "run" Venezuela, taking control of millions of barrels of oil and directing how profits are spent. The administration has installed a new president while maintaining the existing Chavista regime structure—a move that has created what observers call "chaos" in the South American nation.

The operation achieved Trump's goal of a quick victory without American casualties and without the prolonged occupation that proved disastrous following the 2003 Iraq invasion. However, analysts note that Venezuela is a country larger than Germany with deeply embedded corruption and repression, complexities the administration appears to be downplaying.

Trump has rebranded the historic Monroe Doctrine—which since 1823 has asserted American primacy in the Western Hemisphere—as the "Donroe Doctrine," a play on his own name. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth have emphasized that Trump is a president who delivers on his promises.

"The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we've superseded it by a lot," Trump declared at Mar-a-Lago. "Under our new national security strategy, American dominance in the western hemisphere will never be questioned again."

The updated doctrine extends America's sphere of influence northward to include Greenland and warns China and other rivals to stay out of Latin America entirely. The implications for China's massive existing investments in the region remain unclear.

A State Department social media post featuring a stern-looking Trump declared: "This is OUR hemisphere – and President Trump will not allow our security to be threatened."

Trump's approach represents a sharp departure from policies established by President Harry Truman after World War II. The Truman Doctrine of 1947 committed the United States to supporting "free peoples resisting attempted subjugation," leading to the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe and the creation of NATO in 1949.

These commitments created the transatlantic alliance that defined Western security for generations. There is a direct line from Truman's doctrine to President Joe Biden's recent decision to fund Ukraine's war effort against the Russian invasion.

Trump is now dismantling this legacy. His threats to somehow take possession of Greenland—Danish sovereign territory—could destroy what remains of the transatlantic alliance. European allies have rallied to Denmark's support, warning that military action would end NATO.

Stephen Miller, a powerful Trump adviser and MAGA ideologue, articulated the administration's worldview on CNN: The US, he said, operates in a real world "governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power… these are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time."

Trump's interest in both Venezuela and Greenland appears driven partly by resource considerations. Venezuela possesses heavy crude oil reserves, while Greenland holds rare earth minerals, becoming accessible as climate change melts Arctic ice sheets. Both are viewed by the administration as strategic US assets.

Unlike previous interventionist American presidents, Trump does not justify his actions through international law or democratic promotion. His legitimacy, analysts note, derives from his belief in "the force of his own will, backed by raw US power."

The shift echoes warnings from America's first president, George Washington, who in his 1796 farewell address cautioned against permanent foreign entanglements while also warning about extreme domestic partisanship. Washington's isolationist approach guided US policy for 150 years until World War II transformed America into a global power.

From Franklin D. Roosevelt through Biden, American presidents believed the best way to wield power was through leading alliances, which required compromise and cooperation. They supported the United Nations and international rules to regulate state behavior, despite America's own frequent violations of these norms.

Trump's predecessors maintained this framework, however imperfectly, because they remembered the catastrophic consequences of "rule of the strongest" politics—two world wars and millions dead in the first half of the 20th century.

For Ghana and other African nations, Trump's approach raises troubling questions about international sovereignty protections. The principle that borders should not be changed by force—a cornerstone of the post-colonial order—appears threatened by great power competition.

If major powers increasingly pursue spheres of influence through military and economic coercion rather than respecting sovereignty, smaller nations may find themselves vulnerable to external pressures. China's Belt and Road investments across Africa could face American challenges, while African nations might be pressured to choose sides in intensifying superpower competition.

While Trump frequently changes his mind, analysts identify a consistent belief that America can use its power with impunity to maintain dominance. Whether he continues this course remains to be seen, but the direction has alarmed allies and observers worldwide.

The risk, as Bowen's analysis suggests, is that Trump may be pushing the world back toward imperial-era power politics—a system where might makes right and authoritarian nationalism leads peoples toward disaster. For the international community, including Ghana, the coming months will reveal whether this represents a temporary aberration or a fundamental reordering of global politics.