In the picture
The spherical quadrant, from the North Pole to the equator and from Hawaii to the vicinity of the Azores and Cape Verde
PDF version / SRA 2026 Regional report [full PDF]
√ The “Donroe Doctrine” already has its own map, although there is no official graphic version: its visual representation would reveal an imperial impulse that people still seem somewhat reluctant to acknowledge.
√ We move from the “Greater Caribbean” of the Roosevelt Corollary to the “Greater North America” of the Trump Corollary: the same purpose a territory extending north and south.
√ The department Defense says it intends to handle security up to the equator; for countries located beyond that point, alliances will be formed to “share the burden.”
The term “imperial,” which is sometimes used to describe Donald Trump’s second presidency, refers not only to a style of governance but also to an attitude toward neighboring countries and their territories. Trump had previously spoken of acquiring Greenland and noted the desirability of reclaiming the Panama Canal, but since returning to the White House in January 2025, he has consistently demonstrated an interest in exercising geographical control over the area surrounding the United States.
In some instances, he has chosen not to go any further, such as with his threat to invade Greenland or his “invitation” to Canada to join the U.S.; in others, he has achieved some progress through pressure, such as the expulsion of the Chinese operator of the port terminals at both ends of the Canal; and in others, he has decided to play his cards aggressively, such as the deployment of the Southern Command in the Caribbean, the military aggression against Venezuela and the arrest of Maduro, and the oil blockade of Cuba.
These actions have been accompanied by a doctrine that explains them. The strategic security and defense documents published in November 2025 and January 2026 invoked the Monroe Doctrine and dubbed the current administration’s interpretation of it the “Trump Corollary.” But that formulation lacked a roadmap, and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth outlined its parameters on March 5 in a speech to hemispheric defense authorities (lecture the Americas on the fight against cartels):
“The answer to our challenge does not lie in ignoring our geography in the name of global interests, but in embracing our shared geography in the name of national interests. That is why President Trump has drawn up a new strategic map that stretches from Greenland to the Gulf of America, the Panama Canal, and the surrounding countries.
At the department War, we call this strategic map “Greater North America.” Why? Because every sovereign nation and territory north of the equator—from Greenland to Ecuador and from Alaska to Guyana—is not part of the “Global South.” It is our immediate security perimeter within this vast region where we all live. Each of these countries borders either the North Atlantic or the North Pacific.
Each of these countries lies north of the two main geographical barriers in this region: the Amazon and the Andes Mountains. This is basic geography that is not taught in schools as often as it should be. It also helps restore our North-South relations, and we must do it right. In the North, the United States must strengthen its stance and presence, in cooperation with you and our sovereign partners, to defend our shared immediate security perimeter.
In the South—that is, south of the equator, on the other side of this vast region—we will strengthen our partnerships through greater burden-sharing. This will enable them to play a more significant role in defending the South Atlantic and the South Pacific, and in protecting critical infrastructure and resources in partnership us and other Western nations.
That’s what we did in World War II—just as we sank ships with torpedoes. At the department Defense, we call it “quarter-sphere defense,” and we’ll do it again. If we take our national security seriously and prioritize geography, we can’t continue as we have been. This means that, for every country in this hemisphere, border security must be its top priority.”
The “Donroe Doctrine,” then, has its own map—that of “Greater North America”—as the department War has dubbed the area where the doctrine is most strictly applied. However, there is no official graphic representation: its visual representation would reveal an imperial impulse that still seems to be met with a certain degree of reticence.
The prefix "great"
When the adjective “great” is applied to a geographical term, it usually refers to a space that exceeds the dimensions of the original term: sometimes it serves merely as a descriptor for a natural region that transcends artificial borders, and at other times it serves an purpose driven purpose (nationalist, imperialist, or irredentist).
In the United States, the term “Greater Caribbean” has sometimes been used to refer to the maritime region encompassing the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, emphasizing that what happens south of its coastline is of direct concern to the United States. Thus, historically, the Caribbean has come to be seen as an American lake, with the United States acting as its policeman.
This occurred when the Monroe Doctrine (1823)—which was initially defensive, as it demanded that European powers show “respect” for an entire Western Hemisphere that had recently gained independence as a multitude of republics—set aside its continental Pan-Americanism and became offensive. There, the doctrine was rebranded as the Roosevelt Corollary (1904) and turned the Greater Caribbean into the “backyard” of the United States. Today, the Trump Corollary (2025) aims to extend the scope of U.S. “dominion” to Greater North America, a area larger area .
In reality, the process is somewhat like an accordion: in the century average two turning points, Washington intervened throughout the hemisphere (under the National Security Doctrine, which it used to sponsor coups or exert influence through military dictatorships), within the framework the Cold War’s global struggle against communism. Now that it is certain that Russia is no longer a global threat, the U.S. is strategically retreating: but the platform is no longer the Greater Caribbean, which served as a springboard for its growth as a world power, but rather Greater North America, which must serve to guarantee a base of supplies and security against China, its new rival, in a world of fragmented globalization.
design improvisation?
It is unclear how much of Donald Trump’s actions actually follow a design how much is mere improvisation. The war against Iran, for example, does not appear in the National Defense Strategy—in which the Middle East was downplayed—and runs counter to the entrenchment in the Western Hemisphere that the “Dulles Doctrine” advocated. Rather, one must assume that the Trump Administration’s strategic documents are an attempt to bring order and direction to approaches that are, in fact, less disciplined; even their drafting could be a task that Trump leaves to his more ideologically driven advisors so they can fulfill themselves, without him attaching any value to the resulting formulations.
In any case, Trump’s expressed desire to control Greenland, his warning that he might cross the Mexican border to pursue drug cartels, his disregard for Canadian national sentiment, and his boasted intention to take over Cuba, in addition to the attacks carried out against drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific and his forcible seizure of Venezuela’s oil, to understand that the map in question—from the North Pole to the equator (and one might add, from the Hawaiian Islands to the vicinity of the Azores and Cape Verde)—is perceived by this Administration as area U.S. dominion, or at least under relatively direct control. That demarcation (a quarter of the Earth’s sphere, the northwestern hemisphere) has been presented as the U.S. “security perimeter,” but it more closely reflects a “right of intervention” approach.
Hegseth himself distinguishes between the countries north of the equator—which are more compelled to maintain a partnership the United States on the terms it sets—and those located to the south, with whom “alliances” will suffice. He implies that in the north, the U.S. intends to take direct charge of security, which ultimately written request that vast area into a sort of protectorate, while in the south there will be a greater “sharing of the burden” when subject security. In this context, Trump gathered a dozen Latin American presidents in Miami in March to launch the Shield of the Americas, a military agreement through which the White House aims to advance its strategic interests in the region.
* Emili J. Blasco is director GASS and coordinator Applied Geopolitics program within the International Degree the University of Navarra