The idea of Manifest Destiny as an ideology really took off in the mid-1800s. Today, it has reemerged into the political mainstream, thanks largely to the efforts of political heavyweights such as former President Donald Trump. This concept teaches that the United States is an exceptional nation. Or that God has called it to grow across the whole of North America. In history, we have seen it used to justify different kinds of expansionism. This has included the forced removal of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands and the expansion of slavery. The modern day ramifications of this doctrine are astounding, forcing us to ask hard questions about the direction of U.S. foreign policy and its historical legacy.
Manifest Destiny is the guiding ideology behind the Indian Removal policies of President Andrew Jackson. He vigorously advocated this philosophy. Jackson’s administration brutally enforced the policy of relocation on Indian Country. Most historians are in agreement that this act was largely the result of this undeniable belief in American exceptionalism. Understanding this historical context sheds tremendous light on Trump’s admiration for Jackson. He even displayed a portrait of Jackson in the Oval Office to feature it. Such admiration would be ironic if it weren’t a sign that aggressive expansionist sentiment is enjoying a significant revival in today’s political rhetoric.
The Justification of Expansionism
Manifest Destiny has a long history of being wielded to justify the United States’ unrelenting territorial grow and overseas army interventions. Historically, this ideology has served to justify violent wars against Native American tribes. Later still, it was used as a justification for annexing western territories such as Texas and California. This expansionist zeal sowed the seeds of deep social and political tumult throughout the 19th century.
The legacy of this pernicious ideology continues to echo in today’s debates over U.S. land holdings. Trump’s desire to purchase Greenland, an autonomous territory currently ruled by Denmark but historically colonized by the Norse and the Dutch, shows a contemporary use of these archaic ideas. Denmark has issued a strong statement that Greenland is not for sale. As evidenced by Trump’s continued bluster regarding U.S. interests in the region, the expansionist mindset of Manifest Destiny still impacts Trump’s thinking.
In addition, his racially incendiary comments on Gaza currently embroiled in a brutal war have drawn up global outrage. He suggested instead that the U.S. assume control of Gaza. This idea was met with continental outrage from Arab communities across the Middle East. Senator Lindsey Graham called the proposal “problematic at so many, many levels.” His words speak to the complicated, nuanced, and emotionally fraught nature of contested territory in war zones.
“We’ll see what the Arab world says, but you know that’d be problematic at many, many levels.” – Lindsey Graham
Historical Context and Contemporary Relevance
The resurgence of Manifest Destiny in today’s politics calls for a reexamination of America’s historical narrative. Throughout its history, expansionism has been justified through various means, often aligning with nationalistic sentiments. The annexation of Hawaii and the construction of the Panama Canal are two blatant examples in a long history of American imperialism and exploitation. While the Panama Canal was ultimately returned to Panama, it still has provisions that permit a U.S. military presence.
Critics counter that this mindset raises deep ethical and legal concerns. Adam Liptak, the Supreme Court reporter for the New York Times, explained the potentially alarming consequences of this kind of expansionist rhetoric in today’s world. In light of these constitutional principles and international law, the administration’s acceptance of these dangerous historical ideologies is deeply worrying.
“The logic and implications of the administration’s position can only be called deeply disturbing.” – Adam Liptak
As Trump continues to evoke ideas associated with Manifest Destiny, it sparks debates about national identity and global responsibility. The notion that America was destined to lead the world is perhaps the most inflammatory of America exceptionalism’s tenets. This modern day controversy is stoked by a long American history of violence and exploitation.
The Broader Implications
The conversations inspired by what was once a small focus of Trump’s agenda go beyond acquisition of land and assets to the substance of government and our national security. His statements on restricting foreign ownership of land combine country nationalism with a dash of militarism. This indicates an interest in military supremacy rather than pursuing political settlements.
Trump’s statements about criminals inside the U.S. echo his inflammatory rhetoric about immigration and public safety. As he said here, “We have homegrown criminals that are absolute monsters. I want that to be part of the list of people we need to deport. This strategy marks a dangerous precedent in showing an openness to merging national security with expansionist policies, like in the days of the Monroe Doctrine.
Additionally, on any discussion of U.S. actions abroad these days, inconvenient questions of ethical practices in foreign affairs are unavoidable. Nayib Bukele, a leader from El Salvador, provocatively questioned how one could “smuggle a terrorist into the United States,” hinting at concerns over security measures and immigration policies that stem from an expansionist ideology.
“How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? Of course, I’m not going to do it.” – Nayib Bukele
