The 'Donroe Doctrine:' Trump, Rare Earths, and Policy Shifts

The turbulent end of 2025 and the beginning of 2026 coincide with the first year of Donald Trump’s second term. Events are unfolding at breakneck speed, overturning everything in their path and calling the international order into question. As Giuliano da Empoli aptly puts it, we are living in the age of predators.

International relations are being upended across the economic, commercial, political, and military spheres. And all of this inevitably carries environmental consequences.

We are witnessing the collapse of our reference points, the erosion of the once-sacrosanct principles of human rights and public international law. The end of multilateralism is reflected in the United States’ withdrawal from key UN institutions, such as the WHO, and from the Paris Climate Agreement. International trade and the free movement of goods are being challenged through the reinstatement of tariffs. What we are seeing is the end of the globalization and neoliberal consensus of the 1990s and 2000s.

In its place emerges a far more primitive logic of human relations: the law of the strongest. Under the Trump administration, the rhetoric of promoting individual freedoms, emancipation, and democracy abroad has been cast aside.

We are witnessing an unprecedented return to the past: the resurgence of the Monroe Doctrine in a distinctly Trumpian version — the “Donroe Doctrine.” With the abduction of Venezuela's authoritarian president, Nicolas Maduro, and threats against Greenland and Latin America, the United States has come to resemble a rogue state.

These developments have planetary implications. As the world’s largest market, America’s inward turn reshapes the global balance. The declaration of a trade war against China only intensifies this shift, especially as the battlefield centers on innovation in artificial intelligence.

The End of the Old World

One should not forget the origins of the United States: a former slaveholding and genocidal colony that broke from its metropolis to become an expansionist empire, annexing half of its current territory from its Mexican neighbor. With such a legacy, it is difficult not to be concerned about the direction of the Trump administration.

Trump’s alignment with techno-capitalists has given him what he sees as fresh momentum to revive the American economy. The prevailing narrative — that whoever dominates artificial intelligence will dominate the world — frames this as a battle that must be won at any cost.

The deindustrialization of wealthy nations during the neoliberal era has made reindustrialization, at least in the short and medium term, nearly impossible. For Trump and his allies in the technosphere, the only viable path lies in fueling the high-tech financial bubble. This will require not only colossal sums of capital, but above all vast quantities of minerals and energy.

They have little alternative. The rest of industry, especially heavy industry, remains in decline. The dismantling and offshoring of industrial capacity during the neoliberal and globalist period will not be reversed quickly.

An analysis of economic data suggests that despite the dramatic tariff announcements that alarm Europeans and Latin Americans, a full-scale trade war with China is unlikely.

It has, in fact, already taken place — and China won long ago. When Trump sought to tax Chinese goods, Beijing effectively called his bluff. The United States accounts for only about 10% of China’s exports. Washington ultimately had to step back. Yet this does not mean that systemic rivalry will not intensify.

Greenland lies at the heart of two clear objectives: securing access to mineral resources and blocking China’s potential Arctic shipping routes, opened by climate change. Pressure on Panama to reclaim a port ceded to China, as well as tensions in the Strait of Hormuz through which Iranian oil flows toward China, follow the same logic.

The post–World War II international order is sounding its death knell. Major nuclear powers no longer fully recognize it, whether in Ukraine or Venezuela. Violations of international law are blatant. This time, however, at least on the American side, the traditional propaganda of defending democracy and liberating oppressed peoples is no longer invoked. In this case, the interest is stated bluntly: securing Venezuelan oil.

It is telling that in nearly every country where the United States has intervened militarily or exerted pressure, the target has either been resource-rich or geostrategically significant: Nigeria, Iran, Panama, Venezuela, Yemen.

The Dec. 5 publication of the new National Security Strategy formalizes this shift and reveals much about this worldview.

The era in which the United States single-handedly upheld the global order, like Atlas, is over. The Monroe Doctrine must now be read in a new context, where the external rival is no longer European empires but China — whose influence in the Western Hemisphere must be contained at all costs. Hence this updated “Donroe Doctrine:” America for Americans.

This vision reflects both weakness and survival instinct. It also speaks volumes about the global environmental situation. Restoring American primacy now means securing control over the last remaining deposits of natural resources, without taboo.

According to this strategy, the United States must ensure independent and reliable access to the goods necessary to defend and preserve its way of life. That implies expanding access to critical minerals and materials. Restoring American energy dominance — in oil, gas, coal and nuclear — and reshoring key energy components have become absolute strategic priorities.

The message is clear: The threat hanging over Greenland should be taken very seriously.

Greenland: The New Far West

Greenland has long been coveted — first by the Norwegians, later by the Danes, who today grant it autonomy under Danish sovereignty.

It is not merely a vast block of ice in the Arctic Circle. It is a massive island rich in untapped resources beneath its soil and within its territorial waters. According to estimates by the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, it holds approximately 36 million tons of rare earth elements.

This is a major strategic issue. Today, most critical minerals and rare earth processing are under Chinese control. China holds nearly 60% of global reserves, refines more than 90% of supply and manufactures over 94% of the magnets used in global industry.

These metals are essential to electric vehicles, wind turbines, and solar panels. They are equally indispensable to high-tech electronics and advanced weaponry. Producing a single F-35 fighter jet requires over 400kg of refined rare earths; a submarine requires more than four and a half tons.

An estimated 1.5 million tons of these resources in Greenland would be relatively accessible.

Yet extraction is extremely polluting. These minerals are dispersed in rock formations that often contain radioactive elements. This is one of the central criticisms of the energy transition: it replaces hydrocarbon extraction with mining practices that are equally destructive to ecosystems and biodiversity.

Mexico Falls in Line

The pressure exerted by the United States on its allies is such that dissent may carry serious consequences. For us Mexicans, this is a familiar reality — the sword of Damocles hangs overhead.

It is no coincidence that the pillars of the environmental and strategic policy inherited from the mentor of current President Claudia Sheinbaum are now being questioned.

Last week, the Sheinbaum administration made striking — even unprecedented — announcements that depart from policies pursued in recent years. When former President AMLO was elected, he championed a 100-point political program. Among its flagship environmental commitments were a ban on fracking for shale gas extraction, a prohibition on open-pit mining, and the strategic protection of lithium reserves.

Yet under mounting geopolitical pressure and in an effort to maintain favorable relations with our northern neighbor, we are gradually conceding ground — without openly acknowledging this change in course.

We are fully aware that the environmental and social impacts on communities near extraction sites will be severe. All signs suggest that 2026 will not be the year of environmental protection. On the contrary, the pieces now moving across the global chessboard are those of resource capture and commercial rivalry — at the expense of multilateralism and environmental stewardship.