In a striking and deeply controversial interview with the Daily Mail published in mid-January 2026, former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon outlined what he claims is the true intellectual framework behind Donald Trump’s second-term foreign policy. According to Bannon, the world is witnessing the emergence of a radically expanded version of the Monroe Doctrine—rebranded as the “Donroe Doctrine”—with Canada, not Latin America, now emerging as a central strategic concern.
Bannon’s most explosive claim was blunt: “The next big thing is going to be Canada. Canada is the next Ukraine.”
The comparison, invoking images of territorial vulnerability and great-power competition, sent shockwaves through diplomatic and security circles. While Canada is a long-standing U.S. ally and NATO member, Bannon argued that its vast and sparsely defended Arctic territory represents a critical weakness—one that China, and potentially Russia, could exploit.
From Monroe to Donroe
The original Monroe Doctrine, articulated in 1823, warned European powers against further colonial ambitions in the Western Hemisphere. For nearly two centuries, it served as a guiding principle of American hemispheric dominance. Trump’s version, according to Bannon, goes much further.
Following recent U.S. actions in Venezuela—including the dramatic capture of Nicolás Maduro—Trump publicly declared that the Monroe Doctrine had been “superseded,” boasting that it had evolved into something far more muscular. Trump himself embraced the term “Donroe Doctrine,” a phrase that first gained traction in conservative media outlets like the New York Post before entering his own rhetoric.
Under this doctrine, the United States asserts an uncompromising claim to strategic primacy across the Americas, aggressively denying “non-hemispheric powers”—namely China and Russia—any meaningful foothold. Economic coercion, military posturing, intelligence operations, and territorial leverage are all considered legitimate tools.
Why Canada?
Bannon’s argument rests on geography and capability. Canada possesses one of the world’s largest Arctic coastlines, yet its military infrastructure in the region remains limited. The Arctic’s rapidly melting ice is opening new shipping routes, unlocking untapped mineral wealth, and transforming the region into a frontline of great-power rivalry.
China has declared itself a “near-Arctic state” and has steadily expanded its presence through scientific research, infrastructure investments, and strategic partnerships. While some analysts argue that Beijing’s Arctic ambitions are overstated, Western intelligence agencies—including Canada’s own—have repeatedly warned of Chinese and Russian espionage, resource ambitions, and long-term positioning in the polar north.
From Bannon’s perspective, Canada’s inability to fully secure its Arctic territory creates a vulnerability not just for Ottawa, but for Washington. In his words, China could “take a bite”—not necessarily through tanks and troops, but via economic leverage, resource control, and creeping strategic influence.
Trump’s “Hard” Approach
Bannon insists that Trump sees this vulnerability as unacceptable. Under the Donroe Doctrine, the Western Hemisphere is not merely an alliance system—it is a security perimeter. Any weakness inside it is treated as a threat to U.S. national security.
This thinking helps explain Trump’s renewed fixation on Greenland, which he continues to describe as “essential” for American defense. Greenland’s strategic location offers unparalleled access to Arctic air and sea lanes, missile defense positioning, and early-warning systems against Russian or Chinese advances. While Trump publicly downplays mineral interests, Greenland’s rare-earth reserves—vital for advanced weapons and technology—are impossible to ignore.
Bannon frames Greenland, Canada, the Panama Canal, and even parts of the Caribbean as interconnected nodes in a single strategic map. The goal is simple: total hemispheric denial to rival powers.
Fallout and Backlash
The reaction to Bannon’s remarks has been swift and polarized. Critics accuse him of reckless hyperbole, noting that Canada is a sovereign nation, a NATO ally, and deeply integrated with the U.S. economically and militarily. Comparing it to Ukraine, they argue, inflames tensions unnecessarily and undermines trust between allies who share the world’s longest undefended border.
Supporters, however, argue that Bannon is merely saying the quiet part out loud. They see Trump’s second term as a rejection of liberal internationalism in favor of raw geopolitics—where geography, power, and resources matter more than diplomatic niceties.
A Hemisphere on Edge
Whether Bannon’s rhetoric reflects actual policy or strategic signaling, one thing is clear: the Arctic is becoming the next great arena of global competition, and North America is no longer insulated from it.
Under the Donroe Doctrine, alliances are secondary to dominance, and vulnerabilities—real or perceived—invite intervention. Canada now finds itself uncomfortably positioned not just between rival superpowers, but within a U.S. strategy that views hemispheric security as indivisible.
As 2026 unfolds, the question is no longer whether the Arctic will matter—but whether North America’s closest partners are prepared for the consequences of America’s new, uncompromising doctrine.
