America’s Doctrine of Power in 2026The opening week of 2026 has stripped away any lingering illusions about the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy. In Caracas, a military raid removed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power. Days later, Washington floated the possibility of acquiring Greenland by force. These are not isolated provocations. They clearly show a belief that control over land can be bargained for, valuable resources are seen as rewards, and military power is used as a way to gain economic advantage.
Venezuela: Justice or Oil?
Officials framed the Caracas operation as a crackdown on corruption and narcotics trafficking. Maduro and his wife were flown to New York to face charges, a spectacle designed to reassure Americans that justice was being served. Yet Venezuela’s vast oil reserves quickly became part of the conversation, with U.S. policymakers hinting at redirecting production toward American markets.
Environmental advocates warn that such a move would undermine global climate goals, flooding the world with fossil fuels at a moment when scientists urge rapid decarbonization. The raid thus raises a fundamental question: was this about justice or about extraction? If the latter, then the precedent is chilling. It suggests that the United States is willing to use military force not merely to topple regimes but to seize the economic lifeblood of nations.
Greenland: Sovereignty on the Table
If Venezuela revealed the economic undercurrent of U.S. strategy, Greenland exposed its geopolitical edge. On the anniversary of January 6, President Trump suggested that military force remained “an option” to secure the Arctic territory. Denmark, Canada, and Nordic allies rejected the notion outright, calling it a violation of sovereignty and a betrayal of NATO principles.
For allies long accustomed to American assurances of rule-based order, the message was unmistakable: alliances are conditional, not constitutional. The United States is signaling that even NATO partners are not immune from the logic of acquisition. Sovereignty, in this view, is not a principle but a price tag.
Climate: Policy Collateral
Later this month, the United States will formally exit the Paris Climate Agreement. The timing is stark. As ecosystems show signs of stress — Arctic ice retreating at record pace, hundreds of plant species blooming in midwinter across Europe—Washington is doubling down on fossil fuel expansion.
Foreign policy and climate policy are now inseparable. Every barrel of Venezuelan oil pumped into the market, every ton of Greenlandic minerals mined without regard for environmental limits, accelerates the planetary crisis. The arithmetic is unforgiving: geopolitics cannot be divorced from climate science. The world cannot separate foreign policy from climate policy; they are two sides of the same coin.
Domestic Parallels: Short?Termism at Home
The doctrine of immediacy is not confined to foreign affairs. At home, lawmakers scramble to avert yet another government shutdown, underscoring how little capacity exists to think beyond the next headline. Fiscal governance has become a theater of brinkmanship, with long?term stewardship sacrificed to short?term political survival.
The parallel is striking. Abroad, Washington treats neighbors as resources and laws as obstacles. At home, it treats governance as a series of tactical maneuvers rather than a project of long horizons. In both arenas, the logic is the same: grab what can be taken today, worry about tomorrow later.
Historical Echoes
This is not the first time American power has been exercised without principle. The annexation of Hawaii in the 1890s, the interventions in Central America throughout the 20th century, and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 all carried the imprint of opportunism cloaked in rhetoric of liberation. What makes 2026 different is the explicitness. Washington is no longer pretending that sovereignty is sacred or that alliances are inviolable. The doctrine is being stated openly: resources justify force, and principle is expendable.
The Precedent Problem
What happens to global norms when the United States openly considers military acquisition of sovereign territory? If Washington can seize oil fields in Venezuela, why should Moscow not seize gas fields in Ukraine? If Greenland is treated as a commodity, why should Beijing not treat Taiwan the same way? The precedent is contagious.
The erosion of norms is not abstract. It reverberates in the calculations of allies and adversaries alike. It reshapes deterrence, destabilizes alliances, and emboldens opportunism worldwide. The world’s most powerful country is setting a template that others will follow — and the consequences will be global.
Realism Without Principle
Defenders of this doctrine may argue that it is simply realism — that power must be exercised in pursuit of national interest. But realism without principle is not realism at all. It is opportunism. It is extraction masquerading as defense. It is realpolitik stripped of ballast.
Hard cases do not require moral purity, but they do require moral clarity. When the most powerful country’s response to global complexity is to treat neighbors as resources and laws as obstacles, the world becomes less safe, less stable, and less just.
Conclusion: A Warning, Not a Strategy
January 2026 is not just a moment. It is a warning. It tells us that the United States is prepared to redefine its role not as steward but as extractor, not as ally but as opportunist. Power without principle is not leadership. It is destabilization. And it threatens not only distant nations but the very idea that law, rather than force, should govern the world.
If this is the doctrine that will shape the decade, then democracies everywhere must ask themselves a sobering question: why does power exist at all? If the answer is merely to seize, then the future is not one of cooperation but of conquest. And in a world already burning, that is a future none of us can afford.