The Looming Backlash Against Trump’s “Manifest Destiny” Foreign Policy
Just 26% of Americans support a US policy of dominating affairs in the Western Hemisphere. That startling statistic, revealed in recent polling data, underscores a growing disconnect between President Trump’s increasingly assertive foreign policy ambitions and the will of the American people. While the removal of Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela garnered a surprisingly split reaction, the broader vision of expanding US influence – echoing a modern “Manifest Destiny” – is facing significant headwinds, particularly as domestic concerns like inflation take center stage.
The Expansionist Agenda: From Greenland to Venezuela
What began as seemingly outlandish proposals – acquiring Greenland, adding Canada as the 51st state – is rapidly solidifying into a tangible, if controversial, agenda. The ouster of Maduro, coupled with claims to Venezuela’s oil reserves and threats directed at other nations, signals a clear intent to reshape the geopolitical landscape of the Americas. State Department pronouncements declaring “THIS IS OUR HEMISPHERE” aren’t just rhetoric; they represent a fundamental shift in US foreign policy thinking.
However, the public isn’t buying it. Early polling on these ideas consistently showed opposition. A Reuters poll from January 2025 revealed only 7% of Americans “strongly” agreed with the notion of the US having the right to expand its territory in the Western Hemisphere. Even among Republicans, support was lukewarm, at 39% in favor and only 32% strongly agreeing.
Why the Disconnect? Domestic Priorities and War Weariness
The core issue isn’t necessarily opposition to all foreign intervention, but rather a prioritization of domestic concerns. A staggering 75% of Americans, including 57% of Republicans, believe the Trump administration isn’t focused enough on lowering the cost of goods and services, according to CBS News and YouGov. This economic anxiety dwarfs any enthusiasm for grand geopolitical schemes.
Furthermore, decades of involvement in overseas conflicts have fostered a sense of war weariness. Large numbers of Americans feel the US should only intervene abroad when a direct and imminent threat exists. Trump’s Gaza ceasefire deal, for example, was largely ignored, highlighting a broader disinterest in foreign entanglements. As the Council on Foreign Relations notes, public appetite for expansive foreign policy is at a historic low.
The Oil Factor: A Limited Appeal
Even the potential economic benefits of controlling Venezuela’s oil reserves aren’t resonating with the public. Polls show Americans oppose Trump’s plan to control Venezuelan oil by a 17-point margin (46%-29%). This suggests that the promise of cheaper energy isn’t enough to overcome concerns about the costs – both financial and political – of prolonged involvement in the region.
The Republican Divide: Passion Lacking
While Republicans are more likely to support Trump’s expansionist ideas than Democrats, even within the party, enthusiasm is muted. The Reuters poll showed only 8% of Republicans “strongly” favored acquiring Greenland. This lack of passionate support suggests that Trump’s foreign policy agenda isn’t a unifying force within the GOP.
The Panama Canal Exception
Reclaiming the Panama Canal is the only expansionist idea that has shown even a glimmer of potential viability. However, even in this case, polling data generally shows underwater support. This suggests that historical ties and a perceived strategic advantage are necessary, but not sufficient, to garner public approval for territorial expansion.
Looking Ahead: A Difficult Path Forward
Trump’s willingness to pursue unpopular policies is well-documented. However, attempting to implement an expansionist foreign policy agenda in the face of widespread public opposition and pressing domestic concerns presents a significant challenge. The administration may find it increasingly difficult to justify the costs – both economic and political – of pursuing these ambitions.
The key takeaway is this: while Trump may be determined to reshape the Western Hemisphere, the American people appear to have other priorities. Successfully navigating this disconnect will require a significant shift in strategy, a renewed focus on domestic issues, or a compelling narrative that can convince a skeptical public of the benefits of a more assertive US role on the world stage. What remains to be seen is whether Trump can bridge this gap, or if his “Manifest Destiny” vision will ultimately be constrained by the realities of public opinion.
What are your predictions for the future of US foreign policy under the current administration? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
