Trump’s New Brand of Imperialism
The New Yorker Radio Hour | January 9, 2026
Host: David Remnick
Guest: Daniel Immerwahr, historian, author of How to Hide an Empire
Episode Overview
This episode examines the dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy under Donald Trump, who has publicly embraced a more naked brand of imperialism, exemplified by the military invasion of Venezuela and open discussions of territorial annexation. Host David Remnick speaks with historian Daniel Immerwahr about the precedent-breaking character of these moves, their consequences for American power, and the deeper history of U.S. imperial ambitions.
Key Discussion Points & Insights
1. Historical Context: Imperialism Old and New
- Remnick sets the stage by noting Trump’s actions are without immediate precedent, but the U.S. has a long record of military interventions abroad—Vietnam, Iraq, and interventions going back to the 19th century.
- Immerwahr (03:17):
“I described in the book the passage from a desire for annexation as a form of projection of power, so claiming large territories to a more subtle form of power projection… it is extraordinary to hear Trump talk in a way that not only presidents haven't talked in decades, but I think presidents haven't even thought in decades of his desire to claim territory, to annex new places. Greenland, Canada, et cetera.”
2. The Map of the American Empire
- The U.S. retains five inhabited territories, with over 3 million people, and has approximately 750 overseas military bases, many of them secret (04:18).
- Immerwahr (04:48):
“We think, yeah, we don’t know. So the United States does a basing report… but there are hundreds more that we're just reliant on journalists to tell us about.”
3. Trump’s Open Justification: “It’s Oil”
- Trump’s rationale for the Venezuelan invasion is bluntly mercenary, a departure from previous presidents who cloaked interventions in high-minded language about human rights or weapons of mass destruction:
- Remnick (06:25):
“Trump just gets up and says, It's oil.”
- Immerwahr (06:51):
“Yeah, Trump has very little interest in the rhetoric of that. He actually sees it as a constraint and an imposition... so quickly, that pretext just slipped away. And then he started talking about the oil problem.”
4. Venezuela and Precedent
- Trump’s action—having Maduro spirited to a Brooklyn jail cell and speaking candidly about oil plundering—breaks with the tradition of at least pretending to serve an international order.
- Immerwahr (07:06):
“For a presidential administration to say we would like to claim a colony… we want it. I think that's not just a naked rhetoric. I think actually George W. Bush didn't think in those ways. Barack Obama didn't think in those ways…”
5. Greenland: From Joke to Threat
- Trump’s renewed interest in annexing Greenland, amplified by aides like Stephen Miller, echoes 19th- and 20th-century U.S. ambitions.
- Initially “trolling,” post-Venezuela the threats seem real, and risk shattering NATO by targeting Danish territory (12:07).
- Immerwahr (11:43):
“It did. It seemed like a joke. I mean, it was sort of, is he just testing us? ... What do you need to actually colonize this space?”
6. International Consequences & Spheres of Influence
- Remnick and Immerwahr discuss how U.S. actions embolden other powers:
- Remnick (12:15):
“If I'm China, I look at what's going on and I say, oh, okay, my sphere of influence is obvious... And if I'm Russia, well, I've already exercised my ‘right’ to invade Ukraine...”
- Immerwahr (14:54):
“Every time this happens, it's a little more possible for China and Russia to lock down mineral and oil supplies in other places wherever they want them.”
7. The Monroe Doctrine Rebranded: The “Donroe Doctrine”
- Trump recasts the Monroe Doctrine—now drolly referred to as the “Donroe Doctrine”—as openly imperial.
- Immerwahr (17:59):
“The version of [the Monroe Doctrine] that he likes is an imperial version. And then he's actually sort of colonized the name itself… so it's just so on brand.”
- Trump’s focus is hemispheric dominance, not global order—an oddly limited but forceful assertion (19:20).
8. Chaos, System, and Erosion of U.S. Power
- The episode discusses whether Trump’s foreign policy is systematic or opportunistic:
- Immerwahr (19:55):
“We've just seen a sort of gradual erosion of the basis for U.S. power. And it is not surprising that that is expressing itself in a kind of temper tantrum from a US Leader who just really no longer thinks that the thing holds together.”
9. Base Support and “Imperial Machismo”
- Trump’s base supports these moves to an extent, seeing them as demonstrations of strength and masculinity (21:25).
- Immerwahr (21:52):
“…So much of the imperial expansion of the United States was not just rendered in the sort of cool calculations… it was, This will psychologically redeem us. This will feel good. This will be a kind of an arena for masculinity. And Trump is offering that…”
10. Growing Tensions—in the U.S. and Beyond
- Even within MAGA, not all are on board; figures like Marjorie Taylor Greene see foreign adventures as a betrayal of “America First” (22:50).
- Escalation from threats to military occupation blurs lines Trump once claimed not to cross.
11. Economic Motives and Historical Parallels
- Immerwahr sees some parallels between 1890s U.S. expansionism (following tariffs and economic crisis) and today’s self-inflicted economic challenges (24:25).
- Trump appears to be “squaring the political circle,” seeking foreign success in lieu of domestic economic fixes.
12. Panama vs. Venezuela: Lessons and Warnings
- Comparisons between the 1989 Panama invasion and Venezuela 2026—biggest difference is uncertainty over outcomes. Will this be a limited operation or the start of something drawn out and destabilizing? (25:32)
- Immerwahr notes U.S. interventions often cause longer-term instability in target countries.
13. The Justification and Fallout of Intervention
- Discussions of morality and legality:
- Removing unpopular dictators may have support, but U.S. interventions typically worsen instability (28:38).
- Open disregard for international law and congressional authority risk eroding global norms and emboldening Russia, China, and others (31:06).
- Immerwahr (31:06):
“When you see something like what Trump is doing, which is sort of openly flouting international [law]... those expectations, norms, taboos, which are important in international affairs, start to break down… Could I maybe get away with just breaking it?”
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
-
On the unprecedented openness of Trump’s motives:
“Trump just gets up and says, It's oil.” — David Remnick (06:25)
-
On Trumpism and the Monroe Doctrine:
“We're now calling it the Donroe Doctrine, the Don Roe Doctrine.” — Daniel Immerwahr (17:29)
-
On the appeal to masculinity:
“This will feel good. This will be a kind of an arena for masculinity. And Trump is offering that.” — Daniel Immerwahr (21:52)
-
On international law eroding:
“When you see something like what Trump is doing, which is sort of openly flouting international... norms, taboos... other countries think, well, is international law going to be binding on me? Is it going to be enforced on me? Could I maybe get away with just breaking it?” — Daniel Immerwahr (31:06)
Key Timestamps
- 01:42 – Setting the stage: U.S. history of intervention
- 03:14 – How Trump reversed the modern approach to imperialism
- 04:18 – The scale and secrecy of U.S. overseas footprints
- 06:25 – Trump’s candid “It’s oil” rationale for Venezuela
- 08:44 – U.S. interest in Greenland: history and renewal
- 12:07 – Breaking with NATO: The risks of annexing Greenland
- 17:29 – The “Donroe Doctrine” and Trump’s use of history
- 19:55 – Erosion of U.S. power as cause for aggressive gestures
- 21:52 – The psychology of imperialism and masculinity
- 24:25 – Echoes of the 1890s: Tariffs and colonial expansion
- 25:32 – Panama vs. Venezuela: Critical differences
- 28:38 – “Is intervention ever justified?”
- 31:06 – Fallout for international law and global norms
Summary in Context
This episode provides a critical, historically-informed exploration of Trump’s overt embrace of imperialism—contrasted with the obfuscations or ambitions of past U.S. presidents. The discussion moves fluidly from historical context to contemporary dangers, drawing links between psychological motives, policy continuity and rupture, and the potential global fallout. Immerwahr lays out how Trump’s approach, far from being isolated bravado, actively destabilizes not just the international order, but domestic coalitions, and sets a precedent other powers will be quick to seize.
For more:
Read Daniel Immerwahr’s latest coverage at The New Yorker and revisit his book How to Hide an Empire for a deeper dive.