A landmark judgment on #PMLA that defined the powers of #ED

In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022), the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment that fundamentally reshaped the landscape of financial crime prosecution. A three-judge bench upheld the constitutional validity of almost all the contested provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.

This ruling significantly empowered the Enforcement Directorate (ED), effectively distinguishing it from the regular police and exempting it from several standard criminal procedure safeguards.

Key Pillars of the Judgment

Status of the ED (Not "Police Officers"): The Court held that ED officers are not "police officers." This is a crucial distinction because it means:

Section 50 Statements: Statements made to ED officers are admissible in court as evidence, unlike statements made to police officers (which are generally inadmissible under the Evidence Act).

Self-Incrimination: The Court ruled this does not violate the right against self-incrimination (Article 20(3)) because the person is not an "accused" at the time of the inquiry.

The "Twin Conditions" for Bail (Section 45): The Court upheld the extremely stringent bail requirements. For an accused to get bail:

The Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the bail.

The Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Effect: This essentially reverses the "presumption of innocence" during the bail stage.

ECIR vs. FIR: The Court ruled that the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) is an internal document and not equivalent to a First Information Report (FIR). Therefore, the ED is not required to provide a copy of the ECIR to the accused; simply informing them of the grounds of arrest is sufficient.

Proceeds of Crime (Section 3): The Court broadened the definition of money laundering. It clarified that "money laundering" is not just the act of projecting "dirty money" as "clean money" (untainted), but includes any activity connected to the proceeds of crime, such as possession, acquisition, or use.

The "Predicate Offence" Link: In a rare bit of relief for the accused, the Court clarified that if a person is acquitted or discharged in the "predicate offence" (the original crime that generated the money), the money laundering case cannot continue.

Since 2022, several review petitions were filed. While the core of the judgment remains law, subsequent benches in 2023 and 2024 (such as in the Pankaj Bansal and Manish Sisodia cases) have slightly moderated the impact by emphasizing that:

Grounds of arrest must be provided in writing.

Prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty), which can sometimes override the PMLA's strict bail conditions.

While the 2022 Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgment initially gave the Enforcement Directorate (ED) nearly unfettered power, the Supreme Court has since moved to "rebalance" the scales. In high-profile cases throughout 2024 and 2025, the Court has shifted from focusing on the strict PMLA provisions to prioritizing Fundamental Rights (Article 21).  

Here is how the judgment has been applied and refined in recent major cases:

1. The "Trial as Punishment" Rule (Manish Sisodia Case)

In August 2024, the Supreme Court granted bail to former Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia after 17 months in jail.  

The Shift: The Court ruled that even if the "twin conditions" of PMLA (Section 45) make bail difficult, they cannot override the Right to Life and Liberty (Article 21).  

Application: If a trial is unlikely to conclude in a reasonable time (in Sisodia’s case, thousands of documents and hundreds of witnesses), prolonged pre-trial detention becomes "punishment without trial." This has become a key precedent for other PMLA accused.  

2. The Right to Know "Grounds of Arrest" (Pankaj Bansal Case)

The Vijay Madanlal ruling said the ED only needs to "inform" the accused of the grounds of arrest. However, in the Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023) case, the Court tightened this:  

The Change: The Court made it mandatory for the ED to provide the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused.

Impact: This was a significant check on the ED’s power, ensuring that the accused has a fair chance to challenge their detention immediately.

3. "Bail is the Rule" Re-established (Sanjay Singh & Hemant Soren)

Sanjay Singh (AAP): In April 2024, the Court granted him bail after the ED conceded they no longer needed his custody. Crucially, the Court warned that if it had to rule on "merits," it might have to record a finding that he was prima facie not guilty, which would have weakened the ED's entire case.  

Hemant Soren (Jharkhand CM): After his arrest, the Jharkhand High Court and later discussions in superior courts emphasized that the "proceeds of crime" must be clearly linked to the accused. Soren was eventually granted bail (June 2024) after the High Court found there were no "reasonable grounds" to believe he was guilty of the specific land-grabbing charges linked to PMLA.

4. Recent 2025 Trends: The "Oxygen" of a Predicate Offence

In early 2025, the Supreme Court clarified a vital point from Vijay Madanlal:

The Ruling: The Court described the "predicate offence" (the original crime like corruption or fraud) as the oxygen for a PMLA case.

Effect: If the accused is acquitted in the original crime, the PMLA case must "die a natural death." The ED cannot continue a money laundering probe if the underlying crime is no longer legally valid.

The judgment was criticized by civil rights activists for granting the ED "draconian" powers and diluting the rights of the accused. However, the Court justified these measures by stating that money laundering is a "heinous" crime that threatens the sovereignty and financial integrity of the nation.

#ED moves to #Calcutta HC for obstructing investigation, hearing scheduled for tomorrow

Bidhannagar commissionerate of West Bengal police has registered F.I.R s against the ED officers for unlawfully trespassing and theft from the Ipac office

#ED has moved to  #CalcuttaHC, on the ground of #WestBengal CM #MamataBanerjee obstructed investigation, forcibly moved evidence from search location. 

Calcutta HC has given nod to file case, hearing is likely to be held tomorrow.

On the ED raids at the IPAC office in Kolkata, West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee says, "... I heard that ED's Forensic Team had come and they transferred some data. They took our hard disk, our financial papers, political papers... BJP has lakhs and crores of property, but CBI and ED not caught anyone..."

According to the ED, Mamata Banerjee, accompanied by a large contingent of police officials, personally entered the residential premises of Prateek Jain and removed crucial evidence, including physical documents and electronic devices.

The CM’s convoy then proceeded to I-PAC’s office, where Mamata Banerjee, her aides, and state police personnel forcibly seized documents and electronic evidence linked to an ongoing investigation.

These actions, as stated by the ED, amount to direct obstruction of a lawful investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

According to a official statement made by TMC party, What has unfolded is deliberate and politically motivated. This is yet another attempt by the BJP to capture Bengal through unethical means.

Unable to fight democratically, the BJP is now using the ED as a weapon, trying to forcibly seize party documents, internal strategies, candidate-related details, and crucial papers. 

The raid is a part of this larger conspiracy, orchestrated through the ED under the direction of an authoritarian Home Minister.

Hon’ble Chairperson Mamata Banerjee has made it absolutely clear, that this conspiracy will be resisted at every step and will never be allowed to succeed.

ED Headquarters Unit is conducting search action at 10 premises (6 in West Bengal and 4 in Delhi) under PMLA in connection with coal smuggling syndicate led by Anup Majee used to steal and illegally excavate coal from ECL leasehold areas of West Bengal. The search action was undertaken in a peaceful manner till the arrival of Chief Minister of West Bengal along with Police personnel and Officers of West Bengal administration who forcibly removed physical documents and electronic evidences in 2 of the premises. It is clarified that the search is evidence based and is not targeted at any political establishment. No party office has been searched. The search is not linked to any elections, and is part of regular crackdown on money laundering. The search is conducted strictly in accordance with established legal safeguards.

#ED raids at the #IPAC office in #Kolkata, WB CM #Mamata breathes fire against HM #Shah

ED raids at the IPAC office in #Kolkata.
WB CM Mamata Banerjee accused HM Amit Shah of stealing her party documents.

ED raids at the IPAC office in #Kolkata.WB CM Mamata Banerjee accused HM Amit Shah of stealing her party documents.

It's ED vs TMC all out in open. Whole IPAC office is surrounded by Police Forces amidst the ongoing raids. CM Mamata Banerjee is also present here now.
West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee visits I-PAC Director Prateek Jain’s residence after an ED raid and says, “Is it the duty of Home Minister Amit Shah and the ED to take away all my party documents? If I go to the BJP party office, what will be the result? Under the SIR, 5 lakh names have been deleted. Just because there is an election, they are taking away all my party’s documents.”
She also said, "Why did you raid our party's IT sector and take all our papers?... Why did you delete 94 lakh names from the voters' list using an App that is not credible?... Whatever the Election Commission is doing is according to the actions of the BJP... More than 72 people have died, some died by suicide due to the SIR. Who is responsible for this? How can they raid the IPAC office? If I raid their party's IT office, will it be alright?... You have crossed all the limits. You have taken all the data from our party's IT Office. Our SIR data, our party policy data, our candidate list, our booth president list, our future strategy. The IPAC is not operating privately. They are authorised by the AITC. They work on our name according to the agreement... Collecting data from any IT sector at any time is it not a crime? Is it not the murder of democracy... We will wait here until IPAC chief Pratik Jain comes here and settles all of this..."

According to a press statement made by ED "The search is evidence-based and is not targeted at any political establishment. The search is ongoing at 10 places (6 in West Bengal and 4 in Delhi). The case relates to illegal coal smuggling. The search covers various premises linked to the generation of cash, hawala transfer, etc., in that case. No party office has been searched. The search is not linked to any elections and is part of a regular crackdown on money laundering. The search is conducted strictly in accordance with established legal safeguards. Certain persons, including constitutional functionaries, have come to 2 premises (out of 10), intruded illegally by misusing their position and snatched away the documents.It's ED vs TMC all out in open. Whole IPAC office is surrounded by Police Forces amidst the ongoing raids. CM Mamata Banerjee was also present at the spot.

West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee visited I-PAC Director Prateek Jain’s residence after an ED raid and said, “Is it the duty of Home Minister Amit Shah and the ED to take away all my party documents? If I go to the BJP party office, what will be the result? Under the SIR, 5 lakh names have been deleted. Just because there is an election, they are taking away all my party’s documents.”

She also said, "Why did you raid our party's IT sector and take all our papers?... Why did you delete 94 lakh names from the voters' list using an App that is not credible?... Whatever the Election Commission is doing is according to the actions of the BJP... More than 72 people have died, some died by suicide due to the SIR. Who is responsible for this? How can they raid the IPAC office? If I raid their party's IT office, will it be alright?... You have crossed all the limits. You have taken all the data from our party's IT Office. Our SIR data, our party policy data, our candidate list, our booth president list, our future strategy. The IPAC is not operating privately. They are authorised by the AITC. They work on our name according to the agreement... Collecting data from any IT sector at any time is it not a crime? Is it not the murder of democracy... We will wait here until IPAC chief Pratik Jain comes here and settles all of this..."

According to a press statement made by ED "The search is evidence-based and is not targeted at any political establishment. The search is ongoing at 10 places (6 in West Bengal and 4 in Delhi). The case relates to illegal coal smuggling. The search covers various premises linked to the generation of cash, hawala transfer, etc., in that case. No party office has been searched. The search is not linked to any elections and is part of a regular crackdown on money laundering. The search is conducted strictly in accordance with established legal safeguards. Certain persons, including constitutional functionaries, have come to 2 premises (out of 10), intruded illegally by misusing their position and snatched away the documents.

#Trump clears proposed bill to levy 500% tariff on imports from #India #China #Brazil

The proposed US legislation, if passed, would impose a 500% tariff on imports from countries like India and China that continue to buy Russian energy products. 

India has been the second-largest buyer of Russian oil after China. 

The Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025 is a major piece of bipartisan U.S. legislation (introduced as S. 1241 in the Senate and H.R. 2548 in the House) designed to exert maximum economic pressure on Russia and its trading partners.

The bill gained significant momentum throughout 2025 and was recently "greenlit" by the Trump administration in early January 2026 to serve as a "diplomatic hammer" in ongoing peace negotiations.

1. Key Provisions of the Act

The bill is often referred to as an "economic bunker buster" because it targets not just Russia, but any nation that continues to provide it with a financial lifeline.

The "500% Tariff": The most aggressive provision requires the U.S. to impose a 500% tariff on all imports from any country that continues to purchase Russian oil, natural gas, petroleum products, or uranium. This is specifically aimed at major buyers like China and India.

Banking Isolation: It mandates blocking access to financial services for Russian banks and seeks to disconnect them from international systems similar to SWIFT.

Nuclear Restrictions: A total ban on uranium imports from Rosatom (and its subsidiaries), extending to third-party countries that trade in Russian-origin nuclear materials.

Investment Bans: Prohibits U.S. investment in Russian state-linked entities and bans Russian companies from being listed on U.S. stock exchanges.

2. Strategic Purpose

Unlike previous sanctions, this Act is explicitly tied to Russia's conduct in peace talks. The penalties are triggered or escalated if the President determines that Russia:

Refuses to negotiate a peace agreement with Ukraine in good faith.

Violates any existing or future peace agreement.

Initiates a new military invasion or escalation in Ukraine.

3. Legislative Status (as of January 2026)

Senate: S. 1241 was introduced by Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT). It currently has over 80 bipartisan co-sponsors, a supermajority capable of overriding a presidential veto.

House: A companion bill (H.R. 2548) is led by Representative Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and has similar broad support.

Current Action: Following a meeting between Senator Graham and President Trump on January 7, 2026, the bill is expected to move to a final floor vote this month to strengthen the U.S. hand in current diplomatic effort.

Country Estimated Impact

India : Has already begun reducing Russian oil imports (down 13% in late 2025) to avoid the threat of these reciprocal tariffs.

China : Faces the highest risk of the 500% tariff, which would effectively halt its exports to the U.S. if it continues energy purchases from Moscow.

EU/UK : Generally aligned with the U.S., focusing on phasing out Russian gas entirely by 2027.

1,74,386 candidates pass AIBE XX

The gender-wise result data shows that female candidates outperformed male, recording a 71.01% pass rate.

Results of the All India Bar Examination XX (AIBE XX) has been declared by the Bar Council of India (BCI) . The pass percentage stands at 69.21%. 2,51,968 candidates appeared for the exam. Only 1,74,386 have qualified AIBE XX.

AIBE XX was conducted on November 30, 2025 across 399 centres.
A Monitoring Committee considered objections from candidates and has withdrawn 5 out of the total 100 questions in AIBE XX. The Committee has decided to award full marks to candidates who opted for either of the two answers for two questions that had two options that were correct answers. The result will now be based on 95 marks.
Qualifying marks for General and OBC category candidates is 43 (45% of 95 marks). For the SC/ST/PwD categories, the qualifying mark is 38.
Qualified candidates will be issued a Certificate of Practice (CoP) by the Bar Council of India, which will be sent to their respective State Bar Councils. One can also track/view a digital version via the AIBESCOPE app.
As per the AIBE result data shared by the BCI :
Highest Qualification Rate: Tamil Nadu and Puducherry led with an 86.49% pass rate, followed closely by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at 84.59%. Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, and Kerala also reported high pass rates.
Highest Number of Qualified Candidates: Uttar Pradesh had the largest volume of successful candidates, with 23,911 individuals qualifying.
Out of 4056 candidates appeared from West Bengal 2997 have qualified and 1059 failed to qualify.

#Census first phase to be held from April 1 to September 30

• First fully digital census with mobile app and online self-enumeration.
• To include caste enumeration for all communities.
• More than 35 lakh field functionaries to be trained across India.
• Cabinet had approved the scheme of Conduct of Census of India 2027 at a cost of Rs.11,718.24 crore

The first phase of the decennial Indian Census, officially known as Census 2027, is scheduled to take place this year across India between April 1 and September 30, 2026.

After being delayed from its original 2021 timeline due to the pandemic, the notification for formal schedule for the exercise was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on January 7, 2026. 

Phase 1: House-listing and Housing Census

The first phase focuses on the infrastructure and assets of households rather than individual population counts.

Timeline: It will be conducted across India between April 1 and September 30, 2026.

Execution: Each State and Union Territory (UT) will choose a specific 30-day window within this six-month period to carry out the operations.

Key Data Collected: Enumerators will collect information on housing conditions (building materials, number of rooms), available amenities (drinking water, electricity, toilets), and household assets (TVs, vehicles, internet access).

Self-Enumeration: For the first time, citizens have a self-enumeration option. This allows you to fill in your details digitally via a mobile app or portal during a 15-day window immediately preceding the house-to-house visit in your area.

Key Highlights of the 2027 Census

First Digital Census: Data will be collected via mobile apps (Android/iOS) instead of paper forms.

Caste Enumeration: The upcoming census will include a count of caste identities for the first time in independent India.

In April 2025, the Cabinet Committee had decided to include caste enumeration in the upcoming Census, which is the 16th official population count in India and the eighth after after independence.

 Approximately 30 lakh (3 million) enumerators and supervisors (mostly government teachers) will be involved.

Snow-Bound Areas In remote areas like Ladakh and parts of Himachal Pradesh/Uttarakhand, enumeration starts earlier (October 2026).

The Second Phase (Population Enumeration)—where actual population data like age, religion, education, and occupation are recorded—is scheduled for February 2027, with the official reference date being March 1, 2027.

The Indian Census is the largest single source of various statistical information on various characteristics of the people of India. With a history of more than 150 years, this reliable, time-tested exercise is bringing in a real insight into population data every 10 years.

Beginning in the year 1872, the first census was conducted at different times in different parts of India. The Indian Census has been a useful source of data for scholars and researchers in demography, economics, anthropology, sociology, statistics and many other disciplines. The rich diversity of India's people is revealed by the decadal census, which has become a tool for understanding and studying India.

Consumer court orders Hotel Leela Palace #Udaipur to pay ₹10 lakh competition for breach of privacy of guest

In the case of SN v. Schloss Udaipur Private Limited (Decided: December 16, 2025), the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North) delivered a significant verdict on the liability of luxury hotels for privacy breaches.
This case highlights the increasing accountability of five-star luxury brands towards "dignified and safe" consumer experiences, specifically regarding safety lapses during high-value celebrations.
The complainant, a Chennai-based advocate, had booked a room at The Leela Palace, Udaipur (managed by Schloss Udaipur Pvt. Ltd.) for ₹55,500 in January 2025. While the complainant (who was pregnant at the time) and her husband were in the room, a housekeeping staff member entered using a master key. Despite the couple reportedly shouting "No service," the staff member entered, causing a severe invasion of privacy.
The Court's Detailed Observations
The Commission made several "standard-setting" remarks for the premium hospitality industry:
Standard of Privacy: The court ruled that "privacy is the core of hospitality," especially in the luxury segment. The hotel’s reliance on internal SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) could not override a guest's fundamental right to dignity and privacy.
The "Master Key" Misuse: The Commission observed that entering an occupied room with a master key shortly after ringing a bell—without waiting for a response—was unreasonable and intrusive.
Vulnerability Factor: The court took specific note of the complainant’s pregnancy, stating that the hotel had a heightened duty of care to ensure she was not subjected to sudden shocks or mental trauma.
Infrastructure Failure: The court also addressed allegations regarding a "peeping" incident due to faulty washroom door fittings, further establishing "deficiency in service."
Compensation Breakdown
The Commission ordered a substantial payout to serve as both compensation and a deterrent:
Head of Compensation Amount Awarded
Mental Agony & Deficiency in Service ₹10,00,000 (10 Lakhs)
Room Tariff Refund ₹55,500
Interest on Refund 9% per annum (from Jan 2025 until payment)
Litigation Costs ₹10,000
This case is being cited in 2026 as a primary example of "Privacy as a Guaranteed Service." It moves away from the old standard where hotels could escape liability by blaming a single "errant staff member." Instead, it holds the corporate entity (Schloss Udaipur) vicariously and strictly liable for the emotional distress caused by a breach of the "sacred space" of a hotel room.
Feature Impact of the Case
Strict Liability : It reinforces that luxury hotels are strictly liable for the security of their guests' rooms.
Non-Financial Damages : Proves that mental agony and "loss of dignity" are valid grounds for high compensation in the hospitality sector.
Privacy as a Service: The judgement recognizes "privacy" as an essential part of the service contract in the hotel industry.

Article 21 vs Section 43D(5) of #UAPA in the context of 2020 #Delhi Riots case

The central issue on the bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and others, was how to balance the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 with the strict statutory restrictions on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
The Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria observed that while constitutional safeguards protected against unconscionable detention but they did not authorize a mechanical override of laws designed to protect national security.
Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is one of the most significant and debated provisions in Indian criminal law. It creates a high legal barrier for obtaining bail, effectively reversing the standard "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" principle for those accused of terrorism-related offenses.
Section 43D(5) states that a person accused of offenses under Chapters IV (Terrorist Acts) and VI (Terrorist Organizations) of the UAPA cannot be released on bail if:
The Public Prosecutor has not been given an opportunity to be heard.
The Court, after reading the case diary or the police report (charge sheet), believes there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true.
The "prima facie true" requirement is a very low bar for the prosecution but a very high wall for the accused.
No Mini-Trial: Under the landmark Watali Judgment (2019), the Supreme Court ruled that at the bail stage, courts should not examine the evidence in detail or cross-examine witnesses. They must essentially take the prosecution's case at face value.
Burden of Proof: Unlike regular crimes where the state must justify detention, here the accused must often prove that the allegations are "prima facie" false based only on the documents the police provide.
Because this section can lead to years of imprisonment without a trial, the Supreme Court has introduced "safety valves" through various rulings:
NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) Established that courts must accept the prosecution's version as true for bail purposes and cannot conduct a "mini-trial" to test evidence.
Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) Ruled that constitutional courts can still grant bail if the trial is unduly delayed. The court held that the right to a speedy trial (Article 21) overrides the restrictions of Section 43D(5).
Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024) Reaffirmed that "jail is the rule and bail is the exception" under UAPA, and mere delay is not always enough to grant bail if the charges are grave.
Delhi Riots Case (Jan 5, 2026) In a very recent ruling (today), the Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, stating that Section 43D(5) applies because the material suggested a "central and directive role" in a larger conspiracy.

As of today, January 5, 2026, the Supreme Court has emphasized a "proportional and contextual balancing" test. While it granted bail to some co-accused in the Delhi Riots conspiracy case (noting their roles were "subsidiary"), it maintained the strict application of 43D(5) for those it deemed "ideological drivers" or "masterminds."
Note: For an accused to get bail under this section now, they typically need to show either that the prosecution's story is inherently contradictory or that their continued detention violates their fundamental right to liberty due to an endless trial delay.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is often described as the "heart and soul" of fundamental rights. It is surprisingly brief but has been expanded by the Supreme Court into a vast reservoir of human rights.
The text reads:
"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."
Initially, the court took a narrow view, but the landmark Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) case changed everything.
Procedure Established by Law: Originally, this meant that as long as there was a validly enacted law, the state could take away your liberty.
Due Process of Law: The Court ruled that the "procedure" must not be arbitrary. It must be just, fair, and reasonable. This effectively imported the American concept of "Due Process" into India.
In the latest rulings regarding the 2020 Delhi Riots, the Supreme Court is currently debating whether "prolonged incarceration" is an absolute right to bail or if it must be balanced against "state security."

Attacks on Bengali Hindus continue in #Bangladesh 💔

Hindu journalist killed in Jessore

Unidentified motorcycle-borne assailants shoot dead Hindu journalist Rana Pratap in Jessore District.

According to local reports, 45-year-old Rana Pratap Bairagi was fatally shot by attackers in Kopalia Bazar, Manirampur, Jashore district. He collapsed at the spot and died before he could be taken to hospital. Police are investigating and trying to identify the culprits.
This marks the fifth reported killing of a Hindu man in Bangladesh in just three weeks — a deeply worrying pattern of violence affecting the Hindu minority.

Aggressive revival of Monroe Doctrine by #Trump

President Donald Trump said yesterday that the US operation in Venezuela, which involved strikes on the capital and the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, fell under what he called the “Don-roe Doctrine.” Trump stated that Venezuela under Maduro hosted “foreign adversaries in our region and acquiring menacing offensive weapons that could threaten U.S. interests and lives, and they used those weapons last night.”

“All of these actions were in gross violation of the core principles of American foreign policy, dating back more than two centuries, and not anymore,” Trump said, The Hill reported. “All the way back, it dated to the Monroe Doctrine. And the Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we’ve superseded it by a lot, by a real lot. They now call it the ‘Don-roe Doctrine," he added.

The Monroe Doctrine is one of the most influential principles of United States foreign policy. Announced by President James Monroe during his annual message to Congress on December 2, 1823, it essentially declared the Western Hemisphere "off-limits" to European colonization.  

At its heart, the doctrine established four basic points that defined the relationship between the "Old World" (Europe) and the "New World" (The Americas):  

Non-Colonization: The American continents were no longer open to new European colonization.  

Two Spheres: The political systems of Europe (monarchies) were fundamentally different from those of the Americas (republics), and they should remain separate.  

Non-Intervention (by Europe): Any attempt by European powers to oppress or control newly independent nations in the Americas would be viewed as a hostile act against the U.S.  

Non-Interference (by the U.S.): In exchange, the United States pledged not to interfere in the internal affairs of European nations or their existing colonies.  

 Historical Context

The doctrine was largely drafted by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams. At the time, several Latin American nations had recently won independence from Spain and Portugal. The U.S. feared that European monarchies (specifically the "Holy Alliance") might help Spain reclaim its lost colonies or that Russia might expand southward from Alaska.  

Interestingly, when it was first issued, the U.S. lacked the military power to actually enforce it. It was primarily the British Royal Navy that gave the doctrine teeth, as Britain also wanted to prevent other European powers from dominating trade in Latin America.  

Evolution and Impact

While originally intended as a defensive "hands-off" warning, the doctrine evolved significantly over the next two centuries:  

Manifest Destiny (Mid-1800s): It was used to justify U.S. westward expansion and the annexation of Texas.  

The Roosevelt Corollary (1904): President Theodore Roosevelt added a "corollary" stating that the U.S. had the right to intervene in Latin American nations to maintain stability (the "Big Stick" policy). This shifted the doctrine from a defensive shield to an interventionist tool.  

The Cold War: It was invoked to justify opposing Soviet influence in the Americas, most notably during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.  

Modern Day: In recent years (including 2025-2026), the doctrine has seen a resurgence in political rhetoric, often cited as a reason to limit the influence of non-hemispheric powers like China or Russia in Latin America.

While the Monroe Doctrine (1823) was originally a "keep out" sign for Europe, the Roosevelt Corollary (1904) turned the U.S. into the region's "policeman."

The key difference is the shift from a defensive posture to an interventionist one.

The Roosevelt Corollary was the theoretical backing for Roosevelt’s "Speak softly and carry a big stick" philosophy.

Notable Interventions:

Dominican Republic (1905): After the nation defaulted on its debts, the U.S. took control of its customs houses to ensure European creditors were paid, preventing a European naval invasion.

Cuba (1906–1909): The U.S. established a provisional government to restore order after a rebellion, citing the need for regional stability.

Nicaragua: Periodic interventions occurred to protect U.S. economic interests and prevent foreign-funded canals from competing with the Panama Canal.

 Legacy and Shift

By the 1930s, the aggressive nature of the Corollary had deeply damaged U.S.-Latin American relations. This led Franklin D. Roosevelt to eventually renounce the policy in favor of the "Good Neighbor Policy," which emphasized non-intervention and cooperation.

In 2025 and 2026, the Monroe Doctrine has experienced its most aggressive revival in over a century. Under the current U.S. administration, the policy has moved beyond historical debate and into active military and diplomatic application, specifically targeting the influence of China and Russia in the Western Hemisphere.

Containment of China: The U.S. is actively pressuring Latin American nations to reject Chinese investments in critical infrastructure (like 5G networks, ports, and the Panama Canal), framing these as security threats to the hemisphere.

Operation Absolute Resolve (January 2026): In a dramatic escalation of the doctrine, U.S. forces launched a military operation in Venezuela on January 3, 2026, capturing President Nicolás Maduro. The administration justified this by citing Maduro’s ties to foreign adversaries and his "violation" of hemispheric stability.

Securing Supply Chains: The doctrine is being used to prioritize "near-shoring," pushing American companies to move manufacturing from Asia to "friendly" Western Hemisphere nations like Mexico, Argentina, and El Salvador.

 Regional Reactions

The revival of the doctrine has deeply split the Americas:

Supporters: Leaders like Javier Milei (Argentina) and Daniel Noboa (Ecuador) have praised the move, seeing it as a way to strengthen security and economic ties with the U.S.

Critics: Leaders such as Gabriel Boric (Chile) have condemned recent interventions as a violation of sovereignty, arguing that the "policeman of the Americas" approach belongs in the 19th century, not the 21st.