The Week The Week
flag of US
US
flag of UK
UK
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/skoGBi9qKFoUtnNWkovjJQ.jpg

SUBSCRIBE

Try 6 Free Issues

Sign in
  • View Profile
  • Sign out
  • The Explainer
  • Talking Points
  • The Week Recommends
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletters
  • From the Magazine
  • The Week Junior
  • More
    • Politics
    • World News
    • Business
    • Health
    • Science
    • Food & Drink
    • Travel
    • Culture
    • History
    • Personal Finance
    • Puzzles
    • Photos
    • The Blend
    • All Categories
  • Newsletter sign up Newsletter
  • The Week's Saturday Wrap
    A siege on Minneapolis, the Monroe Doctrine in the modern age, and Trump grabs a Nobel

     
    controversy of the week

    ICE: Now a lawless agency?

    ICE’s operation in Minneapolis is looking “more and more like a siege on a city than an effort to enforce the law there,” said Zeeshan Aleem in MS.now. Eleven days after an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Good on a residential street, masked immigration officers broke down the door of St. Paul resident ChongLy Thao—a 56-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen with no criminal record— and dragged him out at gunpoint in handcuffs and boxer shorts in subfreezing conditions. He was released an hour later. Shawn and Destiny Jackson, both 26 and both American, were driving home from a child’s basketball game when ICE blasted their car with tear gas and stun grenades, forcing them to perform CPR on their 6-month-old baby. Local police chiefs are reporting that their own off-duty officers— the nonwhite ones, specifically—have been stopped and asked for proof of citizenship. Nor are these aberrations, said Radley Balko in The New Republic. “It is now routine for masked, unidentifiable government agents to sweep people off the street and whisk them away in unmarked vehicles,” and any bystander who dares protest or record ICE’s violence risks becoming a victim of it. To state the obvious, “this isn’t supposed to happen in a free society.” But under President Trump, distinctions between the U.S. and the despotic regimes of history “are getting harder and harder to make.” 

    “ICE is the biggest cog” in Trump’s repressive machine, said Roque Planas in The Guardian. But every agency under Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is joining the effort. That includes the Secret Service, Customs and Border Protection, and the Border Patrol, whose swaggering, pint-size “commander-at-large” Gregory Bovino now regularly shows up in cities far from the border. When the department was first constituted, in the panicked aftermath of 9/11, there were bipartisan fears we might be gifting some future autocrat the tools to control the American people, said Nick Miroff in The Atlantic. A quarter-century later, Noem’s DHS has become exactly “what its critics feared.” 

    Americans, mostly, are “horrified by what they see,” said Kate Andrews in The Washington Post. Even before Good’s killing, ICE’s net approval rating was 14 points underwater—down 30 points in a year. And only 38% of U.S. adults now approve of Trump’s handling of immigration, down from 49% last March. With midterms looming, those numbers have spooked Trump’s “brain trust,” said Alex Isenstadt and Marc Caputo in Axios. Even Trump himself, according to one adviser, has “expressed some discomfort” over ICE’s conduct. Trump “wants mass deportations,” said the source. “What he doesn’t want is what people are seeing.” 

    Trump is uncomfortable, said Chris Brennan in USA Today, only because Americans aren’t taking the bait of ICE’s provocations. His ultimate desire, the unrealized dream of his first term, is to “invade America’s cities with America’s military,” putting Democratic strongholds and pivotal swing-state districts under his control. For that to happen, he needs ICE to provoke civil unrest, giving him “a pretext to trigger the Insurrection Act.” But so far, the only violence we’re seeing is from ICE, which leaves Trump stuck. ICE’s “stormtrooper raids” are not primarily about immigration, said Greg Sargent in The New Republic. This is “a campaign of deliberate terror,” designed in part—yes—to encourage illegal migrants to self-deport. But mainly it’s to “send a warning” to ordinary Americans: that if we resist Trump’s agenda, our citizenship will grant us no more protection than it did Renee Good.

     
     
    VIEWPOINT

    Totalitarian dreams

    “Donald Trump aspires to be the sort of man Xi Jinping is, the sort of man Vladimir Putin is, the sort of man Li Peng was when he ruthlessly suppressed the Tiananmen Square demonstrations—a vicious act of repression that Trump has spoken of admiringly. The acts of unjustifiable violence and extralegal threats carried out by his agents are, manifestly, to Trump’s taste. He is an Iranian ayatollah at heart—fundamentally totalitarian. And he seems to desire violence. Why wouldn’t he? He has the guns and the gun thugs. Where there are genuine acts of violence being perpetrated against federal agents, those carrying out such acts are giving the Trump administration what it desires: a pretext for escalation.” 

    Kevin D. Williamson in The Dispatch

     
     
    briefing

    Dominating the Americas

    President Trump has revived the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine to justify his aggressive foreign policy.

    What is the Monroe Doctrine? 
    It’s a foreign policy vision that was first articulated by President James Monroe in 1823. Monroe declared that the Western Hemisphere was offlimits to European colonization, and that political meddling in the Americas by Old World powers would be considered a threat to U.S. “peace and safety.” This policy—which in the 1850s became known as the Monroe Doctrine—landed after a decade-long stretch in which Venezuela, Mexico, Guatemala, and a dozen other former Spanish colonies in the Americas had won independence and opened their once-closed ports to American and British trade. With rumors circulating that Spain might try to reconquer its New World possessions, and with Russia claiming control of the Pacific Coast from Alaska to Oregon, both Washington and London were keen to protect their hemispheric interests. The two powers discussed a joint declaration opposing further European intervention in the Americas, but Secretary of State John Quincy Adams objected, saying the U.S. should act unilaterally rather than “come in as a cockboat in the wake of the British man-of-war.” And so, in December 1823, Monroe told Congress that the Americas “are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.” 

    Did other countries take that warning seriously? 
    Not initially. The young U.S. was not yet a major military power, making Monroe’s policy “much more of an aspirational goal than a declaration of capacity,” said Britta Crandall, a political scientist at Davidson College. It didn’t stop the French and British navies from blockading Argentina’s La Plata River from 1838 to 1850, or the French from invading Mexico and installing a puppet monarch, the Austrian-born Maximilian I, while the U.S. was distracted by the American Civil War. It was only as the century came to an end that the U.S. started to meaningfully enforce the doctrine. It was invoked in the 1898 Spanish-American War, when the U.S. helped liberate Cuba from Spanish rule—and secured control of Madrid’s former possessions of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. Emboldened by that victory, President Theodore Roosevelt would radically expand the doctrine after taking office in 1901. 

    How did he change it? 
    When British, German, and Italian gunboats blockaded Venezuelan ports in 1902 to collect debts, Roosevelt told the Europeans to quickly strike a deal with the dictatorship in Caracas or else see an American fleet dispatched against their ships. The Europeans heeded the warning. But Roosevelt didn’t want the U.S. to become a shield for the region’s corrupt rulers, who, he said, deserved a “spank.” So in 1904, he laid out what became known as the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. The U.S., he said, must act as “an international police power” to keep America’s backyard “stable, orderly, and prosperous.” It was the start of a new era of American interventionism. 

    What happened? 
    From 1903 to 1934, the U.S. Marines were deployed to a half-dozen countries in the hemisphere. They included Honduras, where American troops were sent seven times to quell revolutions; Nicaragua, which was occupied nearly continuously from 1912 to 1933; and the Dominican Republic, where Marines installed a pro-American president in 1916 and occupied the country for the next eight years. A primary goal was to protect the interests of U.S. companies such as United Fruit, which controlled the trade in bananas, sugarcane, and other goods. A powerhouse in Washington, the company backed coups against elected governments and the installation of accommodating puppet governments, or “banana republics.” These occupations became military quagmires, in which hundreds of U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians were killed. “These are the Forever Wars of their era,” said historian Jay Sexton. “They begin to become very, very unpopular” in the U.S. In 1933, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt put an end to the Banana Wars era with his Good Neighbor Policy, which stressed regional cooperation over military force. 

    Did that policy last? 
    For a while. But the Monroe Doctrine was resurrected with the start of the Cold War, and invoked to combat the spread of Soviet-style communism across Latin America. In 1954, shortly after CIAbacked insurgents toppled Guatemala’s leftist government, Secretary of State John F. Dulles said the “intrusion of Soviet despotism” into the country was “a direct challenge to our Monroe Doctrine, the first and most fundamental of our foreign policies.” Over the following decades, the U.S. would covertly support the overthrow of leftist governments in Bolivia, Cuba, Chile, and Nicaragua. Such meddling fell out of favor with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and in 2013, then–Secretary of State John Kerry won applause when he told an audience of Latin American officials, “The era of the Monroe Doctrine is over.” But President Trump, who keeps a portrait of Monroe near his Oval Office desk, has brought it back to life, calling his approach to foreign policy the “Donroe Doctrine.” 

    What does Trump’s doctrine involve? 
    In its recent National Security Strategy document, his administration laid out a “Trump Corollary,” declaring its intent to combat mass migration, drug trafficking, and “hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets” in the hemisphere. The administration soon followed through with the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro— whom it accused of shipping drugs to the U.S. and hosting “foreign adversaries”— and Trump’s subsequent assertion that the U.S. would “run” Venezuela. Trump is now threatening to use military force in Mexico and Colombia, to “take back” control of the U.S.-built Panama Canal, and to buy or forcibly annex Greenland. The Monroe Doctrine “was very important, but we forgot about it,” Trump said this month. “We don’t forget about it anymore.”

     
     

    Only in America

    Rep. Kristin Noble (R-N.H.), chair of a House education committee, is calling for schools to be “segregated” by political affiliation. “Republicans have been self-segregating out of the leftist indoctrination centers for decades,” Noble said. She added that Democrats will likely be delighted to have “their own schools, with libraries full of porn, biological males in girls’ sports and bathrooms, and as much DEI curriculum as their hearts desire.”

     
     
    talking points

    Trump: A Nobel shakedown

    President Trump finally has his Nobel Peace Prize, said Brian Bennett in Time—“sort of.” Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado visited the White House last week and gifted him the 18-karat-gold medal she won in November for her brave defiance of Nicolás Maduro’s brutal autocratic regime. Speaking to reporters, Machado said she told Trump that he deserved the medal for his “unique commitment” to Venezuelan freedom and likened him to George Washington. Let’s be clear what happened here, said Jeffrey Blehar in National Review: Trump “extorted the medal from its rightful owner and then posed with it as a trophy.” He made it abundantly clear before last year’s Nobel Committee announcement that he’d be peeved if he didn’t get the Peace Prize. And after the U.S. captured Maduro this month, White House insiders said the only reason he didn’t name Machado as Venezuela’s interim president was that she had committed the “ultimate sin” of accepting the Nobel. To secure U.S. support for a true democratic transition in Venezuela, Machado likely thought she had no choice but to hand “our impossibly small-souled president” a prize he did not win or deserve. 

    Trump’s “unquenchable thirst” for adulation and awards is deeply amusing, said Aaron Blake in CNN.com. It’s also deeply disturbing. We have a president who is making world-changing decisions based not on America’s best interests but whether or not he thinks he’s been sufficiently flattered. A failure to kiss the ring can be cataclysmic. This week, he blamed his threat to conquer Greenland on the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s failure to recognize his supposed contributions to world peace. “Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS,” he wrote to Norway’s prime minister, “I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace.” 

    But sucking up to Trump doesn’t necessarily deliver results, said Jonathan V. Last in The Bulwark. Having handed over her Peace Prize, Machado now has nothing else to give a president who always wants more. Meanwhile, Delcy Rodríguez—Maduro’s former vice president and now the U.S.-approved interim president of Venezuela—can supply Trump with “a steady stream of income,” which is why he’s likely to stick with her. Machado made a mistake in thinking that she could defeat autocracy at home by providing “cover and legitimacy” to an aspiring autocrat here in the U.S. But anyone who “bows and scrapes” before Trump “spits in the face of Americans being beaten in the streets of Minneapolis. And makes our attempt to save American democracy a tiny bit harder.” 

     
     
    people

    Foster’s French connection

    Jodie Foster fell in love with France at age 8, said Elaine Sciolino in The New York Times. That’s when her Francophile mother—“She read books on Napoleon, drove a Peugeot, bought a French armoire,” says the actress—first took her to Paris. Foster binged on buttered ham baguettes and snapped photos of bridges over the Seine. Back in Los Angeles, her mother enrolled Foster in a French lycée. “I did science, math, history, everything in French,” she says. “Every kid in my class was French except me.” When Taxi Driver made its debut at Cannes in 1976, a 13-year-old Foster wowed local journalists with her fluent French. Now 63, the actress is giving her first solo lead performance in French in her new film, A Private Life. To prepare, she spent time in Paris living like a local—and enjoying her privacy. “I didn’t talk to any Americans for three weeks. The French leave you alone. There is a kind of anonymity that I am able to have in everyday life. Isn’t it amazing when you can go in the Métro or on the bus, and somebody will be 6 inches from you and they don’t look at you? If you were in an elevator in America, within 10 seconds, an American will tell you where they work, who they’re married to, how much money they make.”

     
     

    Saturday Wrap was written and edited by Theunis Bates, Chris Erikson, Bill Falk, Allan Kew, Bruno Maddox, Tim O'Donnell, Zach Schonbrun, and Hallie Stiller.

    Image credits, from top: Reuters; Getty; White House; Getty
     

    Recent editions

    • Evening Review

      The trilateral summit for peace

    • Morning Report

      Starmer allies to bar Burnham’s return

    • Evening Review

      Nato’s theatre of war

    VIEW ALL
    TheWeek
    • About Us
    • Contact Future's experts
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Cookie Policy
    • Advertise With Us
    • FAQ
    Add as a preferred source on Google

    The Week UK is part of Future plc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site.

    © Future Publishing Limited Quay House, The Ambury, Bath BA1 1UA. All rights reserved. England and Wales company registration number 2008885.