By J. Simpson
Editor’s note: The opinions expressed here are those of the authors. View more opinions on ScoonTV
What You Need to Know About the War Powers Act and the Monroe Doctrine
The War Powers Act has been showing up in headlines more than it has since it was voted in back in 1973. This isn’t exactly a shock, considering the Trump Administration’s fondness for extrajudicial actions. Running parallel has been the Monroe Doctrine, which has also been invoked more in the last 12 months than it has for most of the 21st Century. Together, they’ve been rebranded as The Donroe Doctrine, and they’re being used to justify President Trump’s actions in Venezuela and abroad.
But what is the Monroe Doctrine? What is the War Powers Act? Getting a straight answer isn’t immediate or obvious, as both are frequently invoked by conservative governments looking to broaden their reach as well as their critics. To help set the record straight, here’s what you need to know about the War Powers Act and the Monroe Doctrine, aka The Donroe Doctrine.
The War Powers Act: Congress Tries to Reclaim Its Constitutional Role
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted in direct response to the Vietnam War and to revelations that U.S. presidents had conducted large-scale military operations without congressional authorization, including the secret bombing of Cambodia disclosed in the Pentagon Papers. Alarmed by what it viewed as executive usurpation, Congress sought to reassert its Article I authority “to declare War.”
The statute itself, codified in Title 50 of the U.S. Code, requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent. It further mandates that such forces be withdrawn within 60 days unless Congress provides authorization or declares war, a requirement Congress described as necessary to “fulfill the intent of the framers” in the statute’s statement of purpose.
Despite this clear language, the War Powers Act has been constitutionally contested from the start. Every president since Richard Nixon has argued that the automatic withdrawal provision infringes on the commander-in-chief’s power, a position documented repeatedly by the Congressional Research Service’s War Powers reports. As a result, presidents routinely submit reports “consistent with” rather than “pursuant to” the Act, signaling compliance without conceding constitutional authority.
In practical terms, the Act has not prevented the initiation of military action. Instead, it has shifted the confrontation with Congress until after force is already deployed. Legal scholar John Hart Ely famously argued in War and Responsibility that the Act inadvertently normalized presidential initiative by requiring Congress to stop wars rather than authorize them in advance, a critique echoed in later analyses published by the Yale Law Journal. And wars are notoriously hard to stop once started.
Do Modern Presidents Possess Caesarian War Powers?
The perception that U.S. presidents now wield imperial war-making authority is widespread, but it is only partially accurate. Constitutionally, the power to declare war still resides with Congress, and that allocation has never been amended. What has changed is Congress’s willingness to delegate or avoid responsibility. The most consequential example is the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. Although passed to target those responsible for the September 11 attacks, it has since been used to justify military operations in countries far removed from its original context.
According to a detailed CRS analysis of the 2001 AUMF’s scope, successive administrations have interpreted the authorization expansively, effectively converting it into a standing permission slip for global counterterrorism operations. This broad interpretation has allowed presidents to bypass fresh congressional debate even as military missions expand geographically and temporally.
Presidents have also narrowed the definition of “hostilities” to avoid War Powers Act triggers. During the 2011 Libya intervention, the Obama administration argued that sustained airstrikes did not constitute hostilities because U.S. personnel faced minimal risk, a legal position criticized in contemporaneous commentary published by the Harvard Law Review. These interpretive maneuvers illustrate how executive power has expanded not through formal constitutional change, but through precedent, ambiguity, and congressional reluctance to confront the president once troops are engaged.
The Monroe Doctrine: From Anti-Colonial Warning to Hemispheric Assertion
The Monroe Doctrine originated in President James Monroe’s 1823 annual message to Congress, in which he warned European powers against further colonization in the Americas while pledging U.S. non-interference in European affairs. At the time, the doctrine was aspirational rather than enforceable, relying heavily on British naval power instead of American military strength.
Crucially, Monroe’s statement did not claim sovereignty over Latin American nations nor assert a right to intervene in their internal affairs. That interpretation emerged later. In 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt announced what became known as the Roosevelt Corollary, asserting a U.S. right to intervene in cases of chronic instability to prevent European involvement, a shift documented in Roosevelt’s 1904 annual message.
By the mid-20th century, the Monroe Doctrine had been repurposed as an anti-communist instrument, invoked to justify U.S. actions in Guatemala, Cuba, and Chile. Historians writing in the Journal of American History have shown how the doctrine’s meaning expanded from opposing colonialism to policing ideological alignment, often at the expense of local sovereignty.
The Trump Administration and the Revival of Hemispheric Doctrine
During the Trump administration, senior officials explicitly revived Monroe Doctrine language to frame U.S. policy toward Latin America. In a 2019 press briefing, National Security Advisor John Bolton declared the doctrine “alive and well,” positioning it as a warning against Chinese and Russian influence, remarks documented in the White House briefing transcript.
This revival—informally dubbed the “Donroe Doctrine”—did not create new legal authority but signaled a return to overt hemispheric competition. Analysts at the Brookings Institution cautioned that this framing risks treating Latin American states as strategic terrain rather than autonomous actors, echoing older patterns of great-power dominance rather than Monroe’s original defensive posture. Prophetic or otherwise, unlike his first administration, Trump’s second term is overloaded with Great Power politics and policy.
Spheres of Influence: Russia, Ukraine, China, and Taiwan
Comparisons between U.S. hemispheric doctrine and Russia’s or China’s claims illuminate the dangers of sphere-of-influence thinking. Russia has justified its invasion of Ukraine by asserting historical entitlement and security necessity, arguments that directly conflict with the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2 of the U.N. Charter. Ukraine’s internationally recognized sovereignty leaves little legal ambiguity under international law.
China’s position on Taiwan is more complex but similarly rooted in historical claims. Beijing asserts sovereignty over Taiwan and opposes formal independence, while Taiwan operates as a self-governing democracy. The legal and diplomatic dimensions of this dispute are analyzed in detail by the Council on Foreign Relations’ Taiwan backgrounder.
The key distinction between these cases and the Monroe Doctrine is that the United States does not formally deny the sovereignty of Latin American nations. Nonetheless, scholars writing in International Security argue that asserting exclusive regional influence still undermines sovereign equality by implying that certain alliances or relationships are illegitimate based solely on geography.
Doctrine, Drift, and Democratic Accountability
The War Powers Act and the Monroe Doctrine were both born of restraint—one aimed at curbing executive militarism, the other at limiting imperial intervention. Over time, each has drifted from its original purpose. Presidents have not acquired unlimited authority to wage war, but congressional acquiescence has allowed executive initiative to dominate. The Monroe Doctrine no longer primarily resists colonialism; it now polices influence.
The Trump administration’s use of the so-called Donroe Doctrine can be seen as a drastic departure from the benevolent intentions of the original Monroe Doctrine and even the Roosevelt Corollary. Where Monroe and Roosevelt framed their initiatives as measures to preserve peace and stability in the Western Hemisphere, Trump’s approach often seems geared toward extending U.S. influence and reshaping local dynamics to align with American strategic priorities. From this perspective, “peace” is less about regional stability and more about U.S. advantage, a framing that risks treating sovereign nations as instruments rather than partners.
In many Latin American countries, internal conflicts have historically been local affairs – fought between guerrilla movements, rival factions, or strongmen with varying ideological leanings. The Monroe Doctrine traditionally restrained external powers from intervening, allowing these nations some space to resolve their own disputes. Under the Donroe Doctrine, however, the United States signals that local conflicts may invite U.S. scrutiny or involvement if they intersect with broader hemispheric interests, effectively redefining sovereignty in terms of U.S. strategic comfort rather than self-determination. This interpretation underscores a central tension: the original doctrines sought stability through restraint, whereas the modern revival often emphasizes influence and control.
Whether these doctrines can be realigned with democratic accountability depends less on their text than on institutional will. Laws and principles do not enforce themselves. They require actors willing to insist that power, however justified, remains subject to consent.
Curtis Scoon is the founder of ScoonTv.com Download the ScoonTv App to join our weekly livestream every Tuesday @ 8pm EST! Support true independent media. Become a VIP member www.scoontv.com/vip-signup/ and download the ScoonTv App from your App Store.
Support Independent Media Donate to ScoonTV https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/donatescoontv
