Naked and Wild Imperialism: MAGA as a Doctrine of “Peace by Force” as Proved by Venezuela Case

 

 

Prof. Dr. Firuz Demir Yaşamış

 

 

Abstract

This article develops the concept of Naked and Wild Imperialism (NWI) to capture a distinct modality of contemporary imperial practice that cannot be adequately explained by existing theories of classical or neo-imperialism. Challenging the widespread assumption that overt military imperialism has been replaced by economic and institutional forms of domination, the article argues that imperial power has re-emerged under certain conditions in a more explicit, less restrained, and weakly justified form. Naked and Wild Imperialism is defined by the abandonment of legitimacy production, the deliberate bypassing of institutional and procedural constraints, and the simultaneous suspension of international and domestic legal frameworks. The article makes three contributions to the literature on imperialism and international relations. First, it conceptualizes nakedness not as a deficit of legitimacy but as a qualitative shift in which justificatory labor is no longer treated as a governing imperative. Second, it theorizes wildness as a strategic mode of action characterized by unilateralism, speed, and procedural bypass rather than disorder or irrationality. Third, it introduces the notion of dual legal suspension, demonstrating how contemporary imperial interventions may temporarily displace both international norms and internal constitutional constraints within the intervening state. Empirically, the article employs a comparative threshold analysis of Iraq (2003), Libya (2011), and Venezuela to distinguish transitional interventions from full-fledged instances of Naked and Wild Imperialism. It argues that the intervention targeting the Venezuelan executive authority constitutes an ideal-type case in which the defining conditions of NWI converge with exceptional clarity. The article concludes that while Naked and Wild Imperialism does not replace other imperial modalities, it has become an increasingly available repertoire of power in a fragmented and post-liberal international order.

Keywords: Naked and Wild Imperialism; Imperialism Theory; Use of Force; Suspension of Law; Sovereignty; Executive Power; International Law; Post-Liberal Order; Performative Power; Foreign Intervention

 

Çıplak ve Vahşi Emperyalizm: MAGA, “Zor Yoluyla Barış” ve İdeal Tip Bir Örnek Olarak Venezuela

 

Özet

Bu makale, çağdaş emperyal uygulamaları açıklamakta klasik ve neo-emperyalizm yaklaşımlarının yetersiz kaldığı bir müdahale biçimini kavramsallaştırmak üzere Çıplak ve Vahşi Emperyalizm (Naked and Wild Imperialism – NWI) kavramını geliştirmektedir. Açık askeri emperyalizmin yerini bütünüyle ekonomik ve kurumsal baskı biçimlerinin aldığı yönündeki yaygın varsayıma karşı çıkan çalışma, belirli siyasal ve sistemsel koşullar altında emperyal gücün daha açık, daha sınırsız ve meşruluk üretiminden büyük ölçüde vazgeçmiş biçimlerde yeniden ortaya çıktığını ileri sürmektedir. NWI, meşruluk üretiminin terk edilmesi, kurumsal ve süreçsel sınırların bilinçli olarak aşılması ve uluslararası hukuk ile iç hukukun eş zamanlı olarak askıya alınmasıyla tanımlanmaktadır. Makale emperyalizm ve uluslararası ilişkiler yazınına üç temel katkı sunmaktadır. İlk olarak, çıplaklık kavramını yalnızca meşruluk eksikliği olarak değil, gerekçelendirme gereksinimin niteliksel olarak terk edilmesi şeklinde ele almaktadır. İkinci olarak, vahşilik kavramını düzensizlik ya da akıl dışılıktan çok, hız, tek taraflılık ve kurumsal devreden çıkarma üzerinden işleyen stratejik bir müdahale biçemi olarak kuramsallaştırmaktadır. Üçüncü olarak ise, çağdaş emperyal müdahalelerin hem uluslararası normları hem de müdahaleyi gerçekleştiren devletin kendi anayasal ve yasal sınırlamalarını geçici olarak devre dışı bırakabildiğini gösteren çifte hukuk askıya alma kavramını yazına kazandırmaktadır. Deneysel olarak çalışma, Irak (2003), Libya (2011) ve Venezuela (2026) örneklerini karşılaştırmalı bir eşik çözümlemesi çerçevesinde ele almakta ve Irak ve Libya’yı geçiş örnek olayları olarak konumlandırırken, Venezuela’daki müdahaleyi Çıplak ve Vahşi Emperyalizmin ideal tip örneği olarak değerlendirmektedir. Makale, NWI’nin diğer emperyal müdahale biçimlerinin yerini bütünüyle almadığını, ancak parçalanmış ve ‘post-liberal’ bir uluslararası düzende giderek daha erişilebilir bir güç kullanımı repertuvarı durumuna geldiğini ileri sürerek sonlanmaktadır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler: Çıplak ve Vahşi Emperyalizm; Emperyalizm Kuramı; Güç Kullanımı; Hukukun Askıya Alınması; Egemenlik; Yürütme Yetkisi; Uluslararası Hukuk; Post-Liberal Düzen; Performatif İktidar; Dış Müdahale

INTRODUCTION

The dominant literature on imperialism has long assumed that classical forms of military imperialism—characterized by territorial occupation, direct rule, and prolonged warfare—have largely been superseded. In their place, scholars have emphasized subtler and more institutionalized forms of domination, often conceptualized as neo-imperialism, relying on economic dependency, financial instruments, legal regimes, and international organizations. Within this framework, overt military interventions are typically treated either as historical anomalies or as normatively constrained by international law and liberal justificatory discourses.

This article challenges that assumption. It argues that imperialism has not disappeared, nor has it been fully transformed into exclusively economic or institutional forms. Instead, under specific political and systemic conditions, imperial power re-emerges in a more explicit, less restrained, and increasingly accelerated form. These practices cannot be adequately captured by the conceptual vocabularies of either classical imperialism or neo-imperialism. To address this gap, the article develops the concept of Naked and Wild Imperialism (NWI) as an analytical category for understanding contemporary forms of imperial intervention.

Naked and Wild Imperialism refers to a mode of imperial action in which the use of force is neither systematically embedded in long-term occupation nor consistently justified through elaborate normative or legal narratives. Nakedness denotes the erosion—or deliberate abandonment—of legitimacy-producing discourses such as humanitarian intervention, democracy promotion, or international security. Wildness, in turn, captures the conscious transgression of institutional, legal, and procedural constraints that have historically structured the use of force within both domestic and international legal orders. In such cases, law is not merely violated; it is suspended.

Importantly, this article does not treat Naked and Wild Imperialism as a moral accusation or a rhetorical device. Rather, it proposes NWI as a descriptive and analytical framework designed to identify a specific configuration of power, legality, and violence. The objective is not to normatively condemn particular interventions, but to make visible a pattern of imperial practice that existing theories struggle to conceptualize. NWI is analytically distinguished from classical imperialism, which relied on sustained territorial control; from neo-imperialism, which privileges economic and institutional mechanisms; and from liberal interventionism, which depends on justificatory narratives rooted in international norms.

Recent interventions—most notably those involving direct, targeted actions against foreign political leadership without prior authorization from either international institutions or domestic legislative bodies—provide a particularly clear illustration of this emerging imperial modality. Such cases demonstrate that contemporary imperial practices may involve not only the suspension of international legal norms, but also the deliberate bypassing of constitutional and statutory constraints within the intervening state itself. This dual suspension of legality constitutes a defining feature of Naked and Wild Imperialism and forms the central empirical and theoretical focus of this study.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Aim

This research aims to analyze the MAGA-era [1] foreign policy as a coherent doctrine of “peace by force”, exploring its ideological foundations, strategic applications, and implications for global power dynamics. The study seeks to situate this approach within the broader context of American imperialism, highlighting its departures from traditional liberal internationalist norms and its influence on contemporary international relations.

The U.S. MAGA-based new defense doctrine transforms the use of force from an extraordinary instrument into an intrinsic and legitimate element of foreign policy. By explicitly adopting the principle of “peace through strength,” this doctrine positions military, economic, and diplomatic coercion as an effective policy tool beyond mere deterrence. Consequently, international law, multilateralism, and normative legitimacy become secondary, while the executive branch’s discretionary authority expands, presenting the use of force not as a strategic option but as a doctrinal imperative. In this regard, the doctrine serves as a contemporary and illustrative example that concretely embodies the theoretical framework of Naked and Wild Imperialism (The White House, 2025).

Objectives

Conceptual Clarification: To define and critically examine the notion of “peace by force” and its historical precedents in U.S. foreign policy.

Doctrinal Analysis: To investigate the ideological underpinnings of MAGA-era foreign policy and how these reflect a shift toward coercive, interest-driven imperialism.

Policy Examination: To analyze concrete policy manifestations of this doctrine, including military interventions, economic coercion, and diplomatic strategies.

Comparative Assessment: To compare MAGA’s approach with previous U.S. foreign policy paradigms, highlighting continuities and ruptures.

Implications and Consequences: To evaluate the impacts of “peace by force” on global stability, alliances, and the international rules-based order.

Domestic-International Nexus: To examine how domestic political incentives, populist rhetoric, and electoral dynamics reinforce this doctrine.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Conceptual & Theoretical:

How can MAGA-era foreign policy be conceptualized as a doctrine of “peace by force”?

What historical precedents or ideological frameworks inform this approach?

Policy & Practice:

How is the doctrine of “peace by force” operationalized in MAGA-era U.S. foreign policy, including military, economic, and diplomatic strategies?

In what way does this doctrine diverge from or continue previous U.S. foreign policy paradigms?

Implications & Consequences:

What are the implications of this approach for global stability, international norms, and alliances?

How do domestic political dynamics, including populist rhetoric and electoral considerations, shape the adoption and sustainability of “peace by force” as a policy doctrine?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study employs a qualitative, doctrinal, and analytical approach to examine MAGA-era U.S. foreign policy as a form of naked and wild imperialism. The methodology combines conceptual analysis, historical comparison, and case-based examination to provide a comprehensive understanding of the doctrine of “peace by force.”

Conceptual Analysis: The study begins by defining the core concept of “peace by force” within the context of international relations theory and American foreign policy. Key terms, ideological foundations, and historical precedents (e.g., Roosevelt’s “big stick” diplomacy, Cold War coercion) are critically analyzed to establish a theoretical framework.

Doctrinal and Policy Analysis: MAGA-era policies are examined through a detailed review of official statements, executive orders, speeches, and legislative actions. Case studies include military interventions, economic coercion (trade wars, sanctions), and diplomatic maneuvers, illustrating the practical implementation of “peace by force.”

Comparative Historical Approach: The research compares MAGA-era practices with previous U.S. foreign policy doctrines, identifying continuities and ruptures. This historical-comparative lens helps contextualize the novelty and radicalism of the current approach.

Domestic-International Nexus: The analysis incorporates the interplay between domestic political dynamics (populist rhetoric, electoral incentives) and international strategy, highlighting how internal factors shape foreign policy decisions.

Data Sources: Primary sources: speeches, policy documents, official statements, executive orders, congressional records.

Secondary sources: scholarly articles, books, think-tank reports, and media analyses.

All sources are critically evaluated for credibility, bias, and relevance.

The study uses a thematic content analysis to identify recurring patterns, principles, and strategies within MAGA-era foreign policy. The findings are interpreted through the lens of international relations theory, particularly realist and neorealist perspectives, to situate “peace by force” within broader global power dynamics.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: NAKEDNESS, WILDNESS, AND THE SUSPENSION OF LAW

The concept of Naked and Wild Imperialism (NWI) is grounded in the observation that contemporary imperial interventions increasingly operate outside the justificatory and institutional frameworks that previously constrained the use of force. While existing theories of imperialism emphasize either direct territorial domination or indirect economic and institutional control, they tend to underestimate the analytical significance of interventions that are simultaneously short-term, openly coercive, and weakly justified. NWI addresses this blind spot by focusing on how power is exercised when legitimacy is no longer systematically produced and law is no longer treated as binding.

Nakedness: Beyond Legitimacy Deficits

In conventional analyses, the legitimacy of military intervention is typically assessed through the presence or absence of justificatory narratives—such as self-defense, humanitarian necessity, or the protection of international order. From this perspective, interventions are considered illegitimate when these narratives are absent, unconvincing, or demonstrably false. Naked and Wild Imperialism departs from this view by arguing that contemporary imperial practices increasingly dispense with the need for legitimacy altogether.

Nakedness does not merely refer to weak or implausible justifications. Rather, it denotes a condition in which the production of legitimacy is no longer treated as a necessary component of imperial action. In this sense, nakedness marks a qualitative shift: the problem is not that legal or moral arguments fail, but that they are no longer central to decision-making or public explanation. The abandonment of justificatory labor reflects a broader transformation in the relationship between power and normativity within the international system.

Crucially, nakedness must be distinguished from hypocrisy. Whereas earlier interventions often relied on elaborate—if misleading—normative claims, naked imperial practices increasingly operate through blunt assertions [2] of necessity, urgency, or executive prerogative. These assertions function not as legal arguments but as statements of sovereign decision, signaling that the question of legality itself has been displaced.

Wildness: Institutional Transgression and Procedural Bypass

If nakedness captures the erosion of legitimacy, wildness refers to the mode through which imperial power is exercised. Wildness denotes the deliberate transgression of institutional, procedural, and legal constraints that have historically mediated the use of force. This includes not only the violation of international norms but also the conscious bypassing of domestic constitutional and statutory mechanisms designed to limit executive authority.

Wildness should not be understood as chaos or irrationality. On the contrary, it is a strategic posture that privileges speed, surprise, and unilateral decision-making over deliberation and institutional coordination. Wild imperial practices are characterized by compressed timelines, minimal consultation, and a preference for faits accomplis. The objective is not to dismantle legal frameworks entirely, but to render them temporarily irrelevant.

This emphasis on procedural bypass distinguishes NWI from both classical imperialism—where domination was formalized and institutionalized—and liberal interventionism, which relies on multilateral authorization and legal sequencing. Wildness thus reflects a transformation in how power relates to institutions: not through overt rejection, but through selective suspension.

The Suspension of Law: A Defining Feature of NWI

At the intersection of nakedness and wildness lies the concept of law suspension, which constitutes the defining feature of Naked and Wild Imperialism. Unlike conventional violations of law, which implicitly reaffirm the authority of legal norms by acknowledging their breach, suspension entails the temporary removal of law from the field of relevance. In such cases, legal frameworks are neither complied with nor openly contested; they are simply set aside. This suspension operates on two levels. Internationally, it involves the disregard of norms governing the use of force, sovereignty, and non-intervention. Domestically, it manifests in the sidelining of legislative oversight, judicial review, and statutory constraints on executive power. The convergence of these two dimensions is analytically significant: NWI is not merely an external projection of power but a practice that reshapes the internal constitutional balance of the intervening state. By foregrounding the suspension of law, the concept of Naked and Wild Imperialism captures a form of imperial action that existing frameworks tend to misclassify or overlook. It is neither a return to nineteenth-century imperialism nor a deviation within neo-imperial governance. Rather, it represents a distinct modality of power, one that emerges in contexts where normative constraint is perceived as expendable and institutional mediation as obstructive.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This study situates MAGA-era foreign policy within a nuanced theoretical framework that differentiates between classical realism, traditional imperialism, and what is conceptualized here as Naked and Wild Imperialism (NWI). (Lenin, 1939).

Rooted in the works of Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Morgenthau, classical realism emphasizes state survival, the pursuit of national interest, and power politics as the guiding principles of international relations. Under realism, military force is a tool of deterrence or balance, not an ideological end in itself. Peace is maintained through equilibrium and strategic calculations, rather than explicit coercion for dominance. MAGA-era policies, while realist in some rhetoric (emphasizing “America First” and strategic advantage), transcend classical realism by embedding coercion and domination as normative instruments, not just strategic options. (Carr, 1939).

Traditional imperialism historically involves territorial expansion, colonization, or direct political control over foreign populations. Economic exploitation and cultural hegemony often accompany territorial conquest. Traditional imperialism is largely structural and material, driven by resource extraction, markets, or strategic geography. MAGA-era foreign policy, by contrast, exhibits non-territorial imperialism: it relies on coercive diplomacy, economic leverage, and military intimidation without formal annexation. Thus, it is imperial in effect but not in classical form. (Hobson, 2012).

The concept of NWI, as articulated in this study, captures the unique combination of coercive force, populist ideology, and transactional diplomacy in MAGA-era policy. NWI is characterized by naked assertiveness meaning unambiguous use of force or threat as a primary instrument of international order and opportunistic flexibility meaning policies are highly situational and transactional, prioritizing short-term gains over long-term alliances or stability. (Mearsheimer, 2001). As for domestic political entanglement the foreign policy is deeply intertwined with domestic electoral incentives, media narratives, and populist legitimacy. For non-traditional imperial reach, influence is projected through economic sanctions, trade wars, and military posturing rather than territorial control. NWI is thus distinct from classical realism and traditional imperialism, merging coercive pragmatism with ideological performance and political expediency. (Gilpin, 1981)

ANALYSIS

Naked and Wild Imperialism in Practice: The Maduro Case as an Ideal-Type

This section examines a recent intervention involving direct action against the political leadership of a sovereign state as an ideal-type instance of Naked and Wild Imperialism. Rather than treating the case as an empirical anomaly or a contingent political episode, the analysis approaches it as a crystallization of the structural features outlined in the preceding conceptual framework. The objective is not to reconstruct events in detail, but to demonstrate how the intervention satisfies the defining conditions of NWI with an exceptional degree of clarity.

From Intervention to Ideal Type: Unlike earlier military interventions that relied on extended campaigns, coalition-building, or elaborate justificatory narratives, the intervention under consideration was characterized by speed, unilateralism, and minimal public justification. The operation targeted the executive authority of the affected state directly, bypassing both international authorization mechanisms and domestic legislative oversight within the intervening power. These features distinguish the case not merely in degree, but in kind. What renders this intervention analytically significant is not the scale of force employed, but the configuration of power, legality, and explanation that accompanied it. The action was not framed as part of a broader strategy of occupation or state-building, nor was it embedded within a multilateral institutional process. Instead, it was presented as a discrete, necessary act undertaken under exceptional conditions—conditions that were asserted rather than legally demonstrated.

Dual Suspension of Law: The Maduro case exemplifies the dual suspension of law that lies at the core of Naked and Wild Imperialism. At the international level, the intervention occurred in the absence of authorization by the United Nations Security Council and without a credible claim of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Sovereignty and non-intervention norms were not reinterpreted or contested through legal argumentation; they were effectively set aside. Equally significant, however, is the domestic dimension of legal suspension. Senior officials of the intervening state publicly acknowledged that legislative bodies were not informed prior to the operation, citing operational necessity and secrecy. This admission is analytically decisive. It indicates not a procedural oversight, but a conscious decision to bypass constitutional mechanisms designed to regulate the use of force. In this sense, the intervention did not merely violate legal norms; it temporarily displaced them as relevant constraints. The convergence of these two dimensions—international and domestic—distinguishes this case from many earlier interventions. [3] Whereas prior episodes often involved tension between international legality and domestic authorization, the Maduro case reveals a more radical configuration in which both legal orders are simultaneously rendered inoperative.

Nakedness Without Apology: The absence of sustained justificatory discourse further reinforces the classification of this intervention as an instance of Naked and Wild Imperialism. Unlike the Iraq invasion of 2003, which relied on extensive—if ultimately discredited—claims regarding weapons of mass destruction, or the 2011 Libya intervention, which was framed through humanitarian protection mandates, the Maduro case was accompanied by remarkably sparse normative explanation. Official statements emphasized urgency, necessity, and executive discretion rather than legality, proportionality, or international responsibility. These statements did not function as arguments in a legal or moral register; they functioned as assertions of authority. This rhetorical posture signals a shift from justificatory persuasion to performative decisionism, in which the act itself serves as its own explanation. Such nakedness should not be interpreted as communicative failure. On the contrary, it reflects a strategic recalibration in which the costs of justification are perceived to outweigh their benefits. In this configuration, legitimacy is no longer produced through adherence to norms, but through the demonstration of decisiveness and capacity.

Wildness as Strategic Modality: The operational characteristics of the intervention further underscore its wildness. The compressed timeline, limited consultation, and unilateral execution point to a deliberate preference for speed and surprise over procedural compliance. This approach does not reject institutions outright; it renders them temporarily irrelevant in the pursuit of immediate objectives. Wildness, in this sense, is not synonymous with disorder. It represents a calculated mode of action in which institutional mediation is treated as an obstacle rather than a resource. The intervention thus exemplifies a form of imperial practice that is agile, targeted, and unconcerned with long-term governance arrangements—hallmarks of Naked and Wild Imperialism as a distinct modality of power.

Why the Maduro Case Matters: The analytical value of the Maduro case lies in its clarity. Whereas earlier interventions can be interpreted as transitional or ambiguous, this episode satisfies the necessary and sufficient conditions of NWI with minimal interpretive strain. It demonstrates how imperial power can be exercised without occupation, without coalition-building, and without sustained legitimation, while simultaneously reshaping the internal legal order of the intervening state. As such, the case functions not merely as an empirical illustration, but as a theoretical benchmark. It reveals the extent to which contemporary imperial practices have moved beyond both the institutionalized domination of classical imperialism and the indirect governance mechanisms of neo-imperialism. In doing so, it confirms the analytical necessity of Naked and Wild Imperialism as a distinct conceptual category.

Situating MAGA within NWI

To delineate the theoretical innovation of Naked and Wild Imperialism (NWI), it is essential to contrast it with the two preceding forms of imperialism that have historically shaped the exercise of global power: classical imperialism and neo-imperialism. Each represents a distinct phase in the evolution of coercive statecraft: shifting from territorial domination to institutional dependency, and now to performative coercion.

MAGA-era foreign policy exemplifies NWI by operationalizing “peace by force”: asserting dominance not for deterrence alone, but to create compliance and transactional advantage. This framework allows for an analytical lens that captures both the ideological audacity and practical mechanisms of contemporary U.S. foreign policy, distinguishing it from prior doctrines and illuminating its global implications. (Hamid, 2018).

Table 1:   From Imperialism to Naked and Wild Imperialism: A Comparative Overview
Dimension	Classical Imperialism	Neo-Imperialism	Naked and Wild Imperialism (NWI)
Primary Aim	Territorial expansion, resource extraction	Global economic dominance via dependency	Performative coercion and transactional control
Mechanism of Power	Military conquest and direct rule	Economic leverage, institutions (IMF, WB)	Public threats, proxy coercion, rhetorical normalization of force
Ideological Justification	Civilizing mission, nationalism	Liberal internationalism, democracy promotion	National greatness, populist exceptionalism
Mode of Operation	Colonies, protectorates	Trade regimes, conditional aid, bases	Short-term, high-visibility coercive acts without occupation
Relation to Domestic Politics	Elite-driven expansionism	Technocratic globalism	Populist performance targeting domestic audiences
Legitimacy Narrative	Empire as destiny	Liberal order as moral duty	“Peace by force” as patriotic realism

 

Thus, NWI departs from earlier forms of imperialism by discarding both the liberal and civilizing justifications that historically accompanied coercion. It replaces them with a populist and performative logic that merges domestic spectacle with global intimidation, reasserting imperial behavior stripped of its normative disguise. NWI diverges from its predecessors in both form and purpose. While classical imperialism relied on physical occupation and neo-imperialism on economic or institutional dependency, NWI employs rhetorical domination and performative coercion as its principal instruments. It operates without the pretense of moral universalism or liberal benevolence, instead drawing legitimacy from domestic populist sentiment and national exceptionalism. In this sense, NWI represents the re-barbarization of imperial logic, an unapologetic reversion to raw coercive power, yet mediated through modern communication, media spectacle, and populist political theater. The doctrine of “peace by force” encapsulates this transformation: coercion becomes not only a foreign policy tool but also a performative reaffirmation of national identity and will.

Justification for the Concept of Naked and Wild Imperialism (NWI)

The concept of NWI is introduced to capture a mode of state behavior that is distinct from both classical realism and traditional imperialism. While classical realism emphasizes the pursuit of national interest and power balance, and traditional imperialism focuses on territorial conquest and structural domination, MAGA-era U.S. foreign policy demonstrates a hybrid form of coercive, ideologically performative   and opportunistically transactional imperialism. (Humire, 2024; Butler, 2021)

Economic Coercion as a Tool of Dominance: The 2018–2019 U.S.-China trade war exemplifies NWI’s logic. Tariffs were used not merely as retaliatory measures but to extract concessions, project power, and signal resolve, even at domestic economic cost. Unlike classical realism, which treats economic leverage as a strategic instrument for long-term stability, NWI weaponizes economic tools for immediate political and strategic gain.

Military Posturing Without Direct Occupation: MAGA-era threats toward Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea demonstrate coercive force without territorial conquest. Unlike traditional imperialism, which relies on structural control or annexation, NWI emphasizes psychological dominance, signaling, and transactional threat, achieving influence without formal occupation. (Agnew, 2017)

Transactional Diplomacy and Opportunistic Alliances: The renegotiation of NAFTA into USMCA, coupled with pressure on NATO allies to increase contributions, illustrates the transactional and opportunistic nature of NWI. Alliances are treated as tools for immediate leverage, linked to domestic political legitimacy rather than enduring international commitments.

Ideologically Performative Assertion of Power: MAGA rhetoric emphasizing “peace through strength,” the unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, and the unconditional support for Israel including unprecedented military and technological aid to demonstrate normative power projection.  NWI captures this performative and ideological aspect, where policy is both a signal to the world and a domestic political performance.

Geopolitical Opportunism and Resource Extraction: Examples such as the attempted purchase of Greenland and the focus on rare earth elements in Ukraine showcase audacious opportunism. NWI projects influence opportunistically, seeking material and strategic advantage without permanent territorial occupation.

Extreme Coercion in Palestine: Policies undermining the two-state solution, supporting displacement, enabling atrocities, and envisioning Gaza as a commercialized resort area illustrate the unapologetic coercion and normative reordering of territories and populations. This approach reflects NWI’s willingness to reshape global spaces and populations in line with ideological and strategic objectives.

Redefinition of International Norms

NWI operates beyond established rules of sovereignty, multilateral negotiation, and human rights, emphasizing unilateral action and dominance. By linking domestic populist narratives to global coercive strategies, NWI exemplifies the fusion of ideological performance with raw power projection. (Nye and Keohane, 1977).

MAGA-era foreign policy under NWI demonstrates that contemporary U.S. power is naked in its assertiveness, wild in its opportunism, and ideologically performative. It is coercive and transactional, projecting influence without the structural or territorial trappings of classical imperialism. NWI therefore fills a critical explanatory gap, offering a conceptual lens that captures the methodology, ideology, and audacity of modern American statecraft. (Waltz, 1979).

Table 2:   Mapping MAGA-era Policies to NWI Characteristics
NWI Characteristic	Concrete Example	Analytical Insight
Naked Assertiveness	Threats of military action against Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea	Force and intimidation are used directly to achieve compliance without territorial conquest.
Opportunistic Flexibility	Attempted purchase of Greenland; focus on rare earth elements in Ukraine	Influence and resources are pursued opportunistically, not through permanent occupation.
Transactional Diplomacy	NAFTA to USMCA renegotiation; NATO funding pressure	Alliances and agreements treated as short-term tools to extract concessions.
Ideologically Performative Power	Withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal; MAGA rhetoric “peace by strength”; unconditional Israel support	Policy serves both strategic purposes and domestic/populist signaling; ideology and image matter.
Non-traditional Imperial Reach	Economic coercion via tariffs in the U.S.–China trade war; sanctions on adversaries	Influence projected globally without formal annexation or colonies; control via economic leverage.
Extreme Coercion and Reordering	Denial of Palestinian two-state solution; forced displacement; vision of Gaza as a resort area	Populations and territories are reshaped to align with U.S. strategic and ideological objectives.
Domestic-Political Entanglement	Linking foreign policy to protecting American workers and populist messaging	Domestic politics directly drives international coercive strategies, amplifying performativity.
Redefinition of International Norms	Unilateral actions overriding multilateral norms and agreements	Challenges traditional rules of sovereignty, diplomacy, and human rights, reshaping global order.

 

CROSSING THE THRESHOLD: FROM TRANSITIONAL INTERVENTION TO NAKED AND WILD IMPERIALISM

A central challenge in theorizing contemporary imperial practices lies in distinguishing between interventions that represent continuity with earlier forms of imperialism and those that signal a qualitative transformation. Without such differentiation, the concept of Naked and Wild Imperialism risks collapsing into either a restatement of classical military intervention or an overly elastic category encompassing all coercive foreign policy. This section addresses that challenge by developing a threshold-based comparative analysis, situating Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011) as transitional cases and Venezuela (2026) as a threshold-crossing instance.

Transitional Imperial Practices: Iraq and Libya

The 2003 invasion of Iraq is often cited as evidence that classical military imperialism never truly disappeared. While the intervention involved large-scale force, territorial occupation, and regime change, it nonetheless remained embedded within a dense—if deeply flawed—web of justificatory narratives. Claims concerning weapons of mass destruction, links to terrorism, and the promotion of democracy functioned as legitimacy-producing devices aimed at both domestic and international audiences. These narratives, however implausible in retrospect, indicate that justification still mattered. From the perspective of Naked and Wild Imperialism, Iraq represents a transitional case. The intervention stretched legal norms to their limits, but it did not dispense with them entirely. Law was manipulated, selectively interpreted, and instrumentalized, yet it remained central to the political and rhetorical architecture of the intervention. Importantly, domestic legal processes—however constrained—were formally engaged, preserving the appearance of constitutional compliance. The 2011 intervention in Libya occupies an even more ambiguous position. Authorized initially under a United Nations Security Council mandate to protect civilians, the operation quickly exceeded its stated legal parameters and evolved into a campaign of regime change. Here, the erosion of legality occurred not through outright rejection, but through mandate expansion and interpretive drift. Libya thus exemplifies legal overreach rather than legal suspension. Both cases share a crucial feature: despite their normative failures, they relied on institutional sequencing, multilateral frameworks, and justificatory labor. They strained the limits of legitimacy but did not abandon it altogether. As such, they fall short of the threshold that defines Naked and Wild Imperialism.

Threshold Conditions for Naked and Wild Imperialism

The transition from these earlier interventions to Naked and Wild Imperialism occurs when several conditions converge. First, the production of legitimacy ceases to function as a governing imperative. Justificatory narratives are no longer elaborated, defended, or refined; instead, they are replaced by assertions of necessity, urgency, or executive discretion. Second, legal constraints—both international and domestic—are not merely violated or reinterpreted but consciously bypassed. Third, institutional mediation gives way to unilateral decision-making characterized by speed and surprise. What distinguishes this threshold is not the scale of violence or the ambition of the intervention, but the relationship between power and legality. Once law is treated as optional rather than contested, and once justification becomes performative rather than argumentative, imperial practice enters a qualitatively different register.

Venezuela as a Threshold-Crossing Case

The intervention targeting the Venezuelan executive authority marks the point at which these threshold conditions are fully met. Unlike Iraq and Libya, this case involved neither extended justificatory discourse nor multilateral authorization. The absence of prior legislative consultation within the intervening state, publicly acknowledged after the fact, further underscores the extent to which constitutional constraints were rendered irrelevant. In this configuration, legality was not eroded gradually or ambiguously; it was suspended outright. International norms of sovereignty and non-intervention were neither reinterpreted nor balanced against competing legal claims. Domestically, procedural safeguards designed to regulate the use of force were consciously set aside. This dual suspension differentiates the case not only from earlier interventions but from most established categories within imperialism studies.

From Exception to Modality

Crucially, the Venezuelan case should not be interpreted as an isolated excess or a deviation attributable solely to individual leadership style. Rather, it reveals a broader transformation in the exercise of imperial power. The speed, directness, and unapologetic character of the intervention suggest the emergence of a distinct modality, one in which legitimacy is no longer produced through adherence to norms but through demonstrations of decisiveness and capacity. By situating Iraq and Libya as transitional cases and Venezuela as a threshold-crossing instance, this section clarifies the analytical boundaries of Naked and Wild Imperialism. The concept thus avoids both historical reductionism and conceptual inflation. It identifies a specific configuration of power that becomes visible only when justification collapses and law is suspended simultaneously across domestic and international domains.

CONCEPTUALIZING MAGA-ERA FOREIGN POLICY AS “PEACE BY FORCE”

Unlike classical imperialism, MAGA-era policies do not require structural occupation; influence is opportunistically exercised over resources, trade, and strategic leverage points (for example, Greenland and rare earth elements in Ukraine). However, in Venezuela, occupation appears to be certain. During a press conference regarding Venezuela, Trump, who announced that the U.S. would “temporarily govern” the country, stated: "We will govern the country until a safe, proper, and sensible transition is carried out. We do not want the same situation to occur again with someone else coming to power. For now, it will be under our administration. We want peace and justice for the people of Venezuela." Trump provided some details on who would be involved in governing Venezuela. He announced that several high-level U.S. officials—including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine—would take part in the country’s administration. The U.S. President added: "This team will govern for a while. They will ensure that Venezuela is properly managed. Trump also stated that American oil companies would operate Venezuela’s oil and that the profits would be spent within Venezuela (Hürriyet, 2025).

The concept of NWI is introduced to capture a mode of state behavior that is distinct from both classical realism and traditional imperialism. While classical realism emphasizes the pursuit of national interest and power balance, and traditional imperialism focuses on territorial conquest and structural domination, MAGA-era U.S. foreign policy demonstrates a hybrid form of coercive, ideologically performative, and opportunistically transactional imperialism. The 2018–2019 U.S.–China trade war exemplifies NWI’s logic. Tariffs were used not merely as retaliatory measures but to extract concessions, project power, and signal resolve, even at domestic economic cost. Unlike classical realism, which treats economic leverage as a strategic instrument for long-term stability, NWI weaponizes economic tools for immediate political and strategic gain. MAGA-era threats toward Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea demonstrate coercive force without territorial conquest. Unlike traditional imperialism, which relies on structural control or annexation, NWI emphasizes psychological dominance, signaling, and transactional threat, achieving influence without formal occupation. The renegotiation of NAFTA into USMCA, coupled with pressure on NATO allies to increase contributions, illustrates the transactional and opportunistic nature of NWI. Alliances are treated as tools for immediate leverage, linked to domestic political legitimacy rather than enduring international commitments.

MAGA-era policy is uniquely performative. Former President Trump’s statement: “We won the WWI and we won the WWII. That’s why I changed the name of Secretary of Defense to Secretary of War” epitomizes the normative militarization and rhetorical audacity central to NWI. By invoking historical victories and renaming a key institution, the statement signals domestic and international authority, reinforcing the ideological and symbolic dimension of power projection. Other examples include the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, denying the right of statehood for Palestine and unconditional support for Israel, which similarly intertwine performative signaling with strategic coercion.

Examples such as the attempted purchase of Greenland and the focus on rare earth elements in Ukraine showcase audacious opportunism. NWI projects influence opportunistically, seeking material and strategic advantage without permanent territorial occupation. Policies undermining the two-state solution, supporting forced displacement, and envisioning Gaza as a commercialized zone illustrate the unapologetic coercion and normative reordering of territories and populations. NWI operates beyond established rules of sovereignty, multilateral negotiation, and human rights, emphasizing unilateral action and dominance. By linking domestic populist narratives to global coercive strategies, NWI exemplifies the fusion of ideological performance with raw power projection.

Consequently, MAGA-era foreign policy under NWI demonstrates that contemporary U.S. power is naked in its assertiveness, wild in its opportunism, and ideologically performative. It is coercive and transactional, projecting influence without the structural or territorial trappings of classical imperialism. Including the rhetorical dimension (Trump’s explicit celebration of military dominance) underscores that NWI is not merely a set of strategic actions but a performative doctrine, combining audacious signaling, domestic political entanglement, and normative coercion. NWI thus fills a critical explanatory gap, offering a lens to understand the methodology, ideology, and audacity of MAGA-era statecraft.

MAGA-era foreign policy can be conceptualized as a doctrine of “peace by force” because it treats coercion, domination, and transactional leverage as the primary instruments for maintaining international order. Unlike classical realism, where military and economic power are tools for deterrence or balance, peace by force transforms power into a normative and performative mechanism: compliance is achieved through fear, intimidation, and the threat of unilateral action, rather than mutual agreement, negotiation, or international consensus. Key features include the following:

Military threats, economic sanctions, and aggressive diplomacy are not merely strategic tools but they are normative instruments intended to compel behavioral change. The example is to use military force against Iran or Venezuela without direct occupation demonstrate that the goal is compliance, not conquest. Policies are highly situational, opportunistic, and transactional. The U.S. does not seek structural control or permanent territorial gain but leverages circumstances for immediate advantage. Example is the attempted purchase of Greenland or pressure on NATO allies for financial contributions illustrates the use of coercion opportunistically. Foreign policy acts as a performative tool, signaling power to both domestic audiences and international actors. Example is the unconditional support for Israel and rhetoric emphasizing “peace through strength” demonstrate ideological assertion intertwined with coercive strategy.

MAGA-era foreign policy aligns with domestic political goals. Coercion and force projection serve both strategic objectives abroad and populist legitimacy at home. Example is the tariffs on China were framed not only as strategic but as protection for American workers, linking international coercion with domestic electoral incentives. Peace is redefined not as stability achieved through cooperation or justice, but as the absence of resistance enforced through fear and dominance. Compliance and acquiescence are prioritized over negotiation or norm-based agreements.

Thus, MAGA-era foreign policy embodies “peace by force” because it systematically uses coercion, opportunism, and ideological performativity to achieve order. This differs fundamentally from classical realism, which emphasizes balance, and traditional imperialism, which emphasizes structural domination. Instead, the doctrine operates in a fluid, non-territorial, and performatively assertive manner, making it a distinct contemporary paradigm in international relations, a clear manifestation of NWI.

HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS AND IDEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS INFORMING MAGA-ERA FOEIGN POLICY

Thinkers like Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hans Morgenthau emphasized the centrality of power, survival, and national interest in international relations. MAGA-era policies reflect realist logic in rhetoric such as prioritizing American interests, maximizing relative power, and using coercion as a tool of influence. The U.S. acts to maintain dominance and prevent rivals from gaining disproportionate power.

Theodore Roosevelt’s adage “speak softly, but carry a big stick” exemplifies military threats as instruments of influence. MAGA-era military posturing mirrors this logic but differs in audacity and opportunism because threats are often public, performative, and transactional rather than restrained.

U.S. strategies during the Cold War combined economic leverage, military presence, and ideological projection to contain rivals. MAGA-era policy inherits this toolkit of coercion, but unlike Cold War strategies, it targets both allies and adversaries opportunistically and prioritizes immediate gains over strategic consistency.

Post–Cold War interventions (Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2001) emphasized ideology-driven assertive policies, including democracy promotion and moral framing of U.S. power. MAGA-era doctrine shares the performative, ideological dimension, but unlike classical neo-conservatism, it operates with transactional pragmatism rather than normative internationalist ambition.

Traditional U.S. imperialism involved territorial expansion, resource extraction, or formal spheres of influence (e.g., Philippines, Latin America). MAGA-era policy represents a non-territorial, opportunistic form of imperialism (the core of NWI) where coercion, economic leverage, and performative dominance replace structural occupation.

MAGA-era foreign policy is informed by realist and imperialist traditions, but it transforms them into a new, audacious paradigm: Naked meaning overt, unapologetic use of power, wild meaning opportunistic, flexible, transactional, and domestically performative. It is also ideologically performative meaning signaling strength for domestic legitimacy and global deterrence simultaneously. This combination of historical precedent and ideological adaptation cannot be fully explained by classical realism or traditional imperialism, justifying the conceptual introduction of NWI.

HISTORICAL ROOTS AND EMERGENCE OF NWI

MAGA-era foreign policy is deeply rooted in historical traditions of U.S. power projection yet simultaneously represents a radical departure from classical paradigms. Drawing on classical realism, the U.S. continues to prioritize national interest, relative power, and strategic advantage, reflecting an enduring concern for survival and influence in the international system. Similarly, the historical practices of Roosevelt’s big stick diplomacy and Cold War coercion provide clear precedents for the use of threats and leverage to shape outcomes without necessarily resorting to permanent occupation.

However, MAGA-era policies differ in scope, audacity, and operational logic, giving rise to a distinct mode of imperialism. Unlike traditional imperialism, which relied on territorial expansion and structural control, and unlike classical realism, which emphasizes calculated balance, MAGA-era policy employs coercion as a normative instrument, intertwining military threats, economic leverage, ideological performativity, and domestic political incentives. The administration’s transactional and opportunistic diplomacy—illustrated by actions such as the attempted purchase of Greenland, aggressive trade wars, unconditional support for Israel, and the reordering of Palestinian territories exemplifies this new logic.

This convergence of historical precedent and radical innovation justifies the introduction of Naked and Wild Imperialism (NWI) as a conceptual framework. NWI captures the naked assertiveness of MAGA-era strategies, their wild opportunism, and the performative intertwining of domestic politics and international coercion. In this sense, MAGA-era foreign policy is both a continuation of America’s historical coercive toolkit and a novel transformation, producing a doctrine aptly described as “peace by force.”

NWI explains the non-territorial, audacious, and ideologically performative dimensions of MAGA-era foreign policy. It highlights the feedback loop between domestic political incentives and international assertiveness. It situates MAGA-era policy within the broader continuum of U.S. imperialism while demonstrating a clear qualitative departure that existing theories fail to fully capture.

Operationalization of “Peace by Force” in MAGA-era U.S. Foreign Policy

The doctrine of “peace by force” under MAGA-era U.S. foreign policy is operationalized through the integrated use of military, economic, and diplomatic strategies, all of which are coordinated to produce coercive compliance, ideological signaling, and transactional advantage. This operational logic is distinct from classical realism or traditional imperialism because it emphasizes performative audacity, domestic legitimacy, and opportunistic flexibility rather than structural occupation or balance-of-power calculations.

Military threats, posturing, and selective deployments exemplify coercive leverage without permanent occupation. Examples are the threats of direct action against Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea and increased U.S. military presence in strategic regions to signal dominance and deter adversaries. These actions are often highly performative, designed to signal strength to both domestic audiences and international actors, as illustrated by Trump’s rhetoric celebrating historical military victories.

Economic tools are weaponized to extract concessions, assert influence, and reinforce domestic political narratives. Examples are the tariffs and trade wars, particularly against China, framed as protection for American workers and sanctions imposed on adversarial states to coerce compliance without direct military engagement. Economic coercion under MAGA demonstrates transactional opportunism, using leverage in targeted, sometimes unilateral, ways rather than relying on multilateral institutions or long-term strategic planning.

Diplomacy is conducted transactionally, emphasizing short-term gains, ideological alignment, and performative signaling. Examples are renegotiation of NAFTA into USMCA to assert leverage and domestic legitimacy, pressure on NATO allies to increase contributions, linking alliance commitments to immediate concessions and unconditional support for Israel, redefining U.S. engagement in the Middle East to signal loyalty, power, and normative dominance.

MAGA-era foreign policy operationalizes coercion through ideological performativity, aligning foreign policy actions with populist domestic narratives. Example is Trump’s renaming of the Secretary of Defense to Secretary of War which exemplifies the fusion of rhetoric, institutional symbolism, and military signaling, reinforcing the doctrine as both strategic and performative.

The synergistic combination of military threats, economic leverage, and transactional diplomacy, amplified by performative rhetoric, constitutes the operational core of “peace by force”.  Compliance and influence are achieved not through formal occupation, structural domination, or negotiated settlements but through audacious, opportunistic, and ideologically infused pressure, consistent with the conceptual logic of Naked and Wild Imperialism (NWI).

A recent empirical illustration of the performative and ambiguous coercion central to NWI occurred when President Trump publicly warned Hamas that “if Hamas continues to kill people in Gaza… we will have no choice but to go in and kill them.” The comment, issued on a public platform, both dramatizes the normalization of lethal coercion as public policy rhetoric and exemplifies the indirect operational logic of NWI: the president subsequently clarified that U.S. ground forces would not themselves be the intervening party and suggested action would occur “under our auspices” by proximate actors. This sequence (blunt public ultimatum followed by operational ambiguity) encapsulates how NWI converts rhetorical audacity into leverage while avoiding the costs of formal occupation, thereby reshaping norms, constraining multilateral arrangements, and pressuring regional partners to act under U.S. political cover.  (Butler, 2021). 

DIVERGENCES AND INNOVATIONS

MAGA-era foreign policy represents both a continuation of historical U.S. power projection and a qualitative departure from earlier paradigms. MAGA-era strategies inherit the U.S. tradition of using military, economic, and diplomatic instruments to maintain influence, echoing classical realism and Cold War deterrence logic. The overarching goal remains the preservation and assertion of U.S. dominance in the international system. As in historical contexts, alliances continue to be leveraged to maximize strategic advantage.

Unlike classical imperialism, MAGA-era policy does not require structural occupation; influence is asserted opportunistically, targeting resources, trade, and strategic leverage (e.g., Greenland, rare earth elements in Ukraine).

Policies are publicly audacious and rhetorically amplified, exemplified by statements celebrating historical wars and institutional renaming (Secretary of War). This performativity signals power domestically and internationally.

Unlike previous administrations that often-separated foreign policy from immediate electoral concerns, MAGA-era strategies are deeply entwined with populist narratives, voter mobilization, and domestic legitimacy (e.g., framing tariffs as protection for American workers).

Traditional respect for sovereignty, multilateral agreements, and negotiated settlements is selectively bypassed, reflecting a naked willingness to reshape norms in line with U.S. interests.

Consequently, the fusion of audacious rhetoric, opportunistic strategies, and performative coercion constitutes a new operational logic, distinguishing MAGA-era foreign policy from both classical realism and traditional imperialism. These divergences justify the conceptualization of Naked and Wild Imperialism (NWI), which captures the audacity, flexibility, and ideological performativity of this contemporary form of power projection.

MAGA-era foreign policy is therefore simultaneously continuity and rupture: it continues the U.S. pursuit of global dominance but operationalizes it through transactional, ideologically performative, and audaciously coercive means, establishing NWI as a distinct conceptual framework. Thorsten Wojczewski. (2020).

As a recent example, Trump declared on 16 October 2025 that “if Hamas continues to kill people in Gaza, we will have no choice but to go in and kill them.” The statement, later clarified as referring to indirect action “under our auspices,” reflects the performative and ambiguous operational logic of Naked and Wild Imperialism (NWI), where coercion is both dramatized and externalized. (Beaulac, 2019)

This episode encapsulates the NWI doctrine’s central tension: coercion is expressed through public spectacle and strategic ambiguity, reinforcing U.S. hegemonic dominance while blurring the line between deterrence and provocation. (Trump 2025; Reuters 2025; Associated Press, 2025; The Times of Israel, 2025)

IMPLICATIONS OF NWI FOR GLOBAL STABILITY, INTERNATIONAL NORMS VE ALLIANCES

The operational logic of NWI has profound and multifaceted implications for the international system, extending beyond immediate strategic gains to affect global stability, normative frameworks, and alliance structures.

NWI produces a form of conditional and coercively enforced stability. Compliance by other states is often secured through fear, intimidation, or transactional concessions, rather than through consensus or shared rules.

While short-term order may be achieved, the risk of miscalculation, escalation, or sudden rupture increases, as adversaries may respond unpredictably to audacious, opportunistic moves (e.g., threats to Iran or Venezuela, unilateral resource grabs).

NWI undermines established principles of sovereignty, multilateral diplomacy, and negotiated settlements. By prioritizing unilateral action and performative coercion, it challenges the normative frameworks that have historically underpinned international relations. Examples are the denial of the Palestinian two-state solution, coupled with forced displacement policies and recasting Gaza as a commercialized territory reflects a norm-redefining audacity incompatible with traditional human rights and sovereignty norms.

Persistent adoption of NWI could erode the legitimacy of international law and multilateral institutions, encouraging similar behavior among other powers.

Under NWI, alliances are treated transactionally rather than as durable, trust-based commitments. Examples are the pressure on NATO allies to increase contributions and conditional support or leverage over trade partners (e.g., USMCA renegotiation).

While such transactional tactics may achieve short-term concessions, they weaken long-term trust and cohesion, potentially destabilizing traditional alliances and prompting adversaries to form counterbalancing coalitions.

NWI is uniquely reinforced by the integration of domestic political, economic and financial imperatives such as big domestic and international debt burden and enormous budget deficits. Policies designed to appeal to domestic constituencies amplify performative and audacious strategies internationally. (Wojczewski, 2020b).

This feedback loop may intensify aggressive behavior, as international coercion is continually legitimized and reinforced by domestic political gain. (Department of Defense, 2018).

Therefore, NWI generates a new logic of global order, where stability is enforced by audacious coercion rather than negotiated rules, norms are redefined according to strategic opportunism, and alliances are instrumentalized rather than trusted. While effective in projecting power and securing short-term compliance, NWI increases systemic risk and challenges the long-term sustainability of international institutions and normative frameworks. (Othman, 2024). 

he MAGA-era doctrine of “peace by force”, operationalized through NWI has profound implications for the international system, affecting stability, normative frameworks, and alliance structures. (National Security Service, 2017).

Stability under NWI is conditional and coercively enforced, rather than negotiated or consensual. Compliance by other states is secured through threats, intimidation, or transactional concessions, increasing the risk of miscalculation or escalation. Examples are the threats against Iran and Venezuela, unilateral military posturing, and audacious resource grabs illustrate that short-term order may be maintained, but systemic unpredictability grows, making crises more volatile. (Satoru, 2025).

NWI challenges long-established norms such as sovereignty, self-determination, multilateralism, and negotiated settlements. Examples are the denial of the two-state solution in Palestine and support for forced displacement, reframing Gaza as a commercialized zone, undermining human rights and customary norms and shutting the eyes for ongoing massacres and acts widely condemned as violations of international humanitarian law” and even supporting them. By prioritizing unilateral action and performative coercion, NWI erodes the legitimacy of international law, potentially encouraging similar behavior among other powers. (Verbeek, Bertjan and Andrej Zaslove, 2017).

Alliances are instrumentalized transactionally, rather than treated as durable, trust-based commitments. Examples are pressure on NATO allies to increase contributions and USMCA renegotiation framed as domestic political leverage. This transactional approach weakens long-term cohesion and trust, prompting allies to hedge or form counterbalancing coalitions, thereby reshaping traditional alliance dynamics. (Wojczewski, 2020a).

Domestic political imperatives reinforce NWI internationally: populist rhetoric legitimizes audacious strategies, which in turn enhance domestic support, creating a feedback loop that sustains coercive and performative policies. NWI generates a new logic of global order, where stability is maintained through audacious coercion, norms are selectively redefined, and alliances are leveraged opportunistically. While effective for projecting power and securing short-term compliance, this approach increases systemic risk, undermines multilateral norms, and destabilizes alliance networks, signaling a fundamental shift in U.S. global strategy.

DOMESTIC POLITICAL DYNAMICS AND THE SUSTAINABILITY OF “PEACE BY FORCE”

The adoption and persistence of the MAGA-era doctrine of “peace by force” are deeply intertwined with domestic political dynamics, particularly populist rhetoric, electoral incentives, and the cultivation of a loyal support base. These domestic considerations do not merely accompany foreign policy; they actively shape its formulation, operational logic, and ideological performativity, reinforcing the characteristics of NWI.

MAGA-era foreign policy is framed through rhetoric emphasizing strength, national pride, and historical victories, signaling to domestic audiences that the administration is assertively defending U.S. interests. Example is Trump’s renaming of the Secretary of Defense to Secretary of War, coupled with references to World Wars, frames militarized action as both natural and heroic, creating political legitimacy for audacious international strategies. This rhetoric serves to normalize coercion and opportunistic behavior, making aggressive actions palatable and even desirable for domestic constituencies. (McManus and friends, 2025)

Foreign policy under MAGA is closely tied to electoral narratives. Coercive actions, trade wars, and alliance pressure are framed as benefits for domestic populations, linking international dominance with voter satisfaction and political loyalty. Example is the tariffs on China which are presented as protecting American jobs and industry, integrating international coercion with domestic economic narratives. By linking foreign policy to short-term domestic gain, the administration creates a feedback loop that reinforces both the adoption and the sustainability of coercive strategies. Audacious, performative, and ideologically assertive policies serve to mobilize a loyal electorate, rewarding displays of strength with political support.

Sustaining NWI requires continuous performative signaling, where rhetorical audacity, military threats, and opportunistic diplomacy are used as tools to maintain domestic legitimacy and reinforce the perception of decisive leadership.

Domestic political imperatives amplify performative international behavior. Conversely, audacious foreign policy successes or threats reinforce domestic support, creating a self-sustaining cycle. This feedback loop ensures that “peace by force” is not merely a strategic choice but a structurally embedded doctrine, continually reinforced by domestic political dynamics. MAGA-era foreign policy demonstrates that domestic politics and international coercion are mutually constitutive under NWI. Populist rhetoric, electoral incentives, and the cultivation of a loyal support base enable and legitimize audacious, opportunistic, and ideologically performative policies, ensuring the adoption, operationalization, and long-term sustainability of “peace by force.”

OVERALL ASESSMENT AND CONCLUSION

This study has examined MAGA-era U.S. foreign policy through the lens of Naked and Wild Imperialism (NWI), conceptualizing it as a doctrine of “peace by force”. The findings indicate that this approach represents both a continuity and a rupture in American international strategy, combining historical practices of coercion with audacity, opportunism, and performative ideology.

MAGA-era foreign policy operationalizes “peace by force” through the integrated use of military, economic, and diplomatic tools, reinforced by domestic political imperatives. NWI captures this logic by emphasizing three defining characteristics: naked assertiveness, wild opportunism, and ideologically performative action. Unlike classical realism or traditional imperialism, NWI accounts for transactional flexibility, rhetorical audacity, and domestic electoral feedback loops.

MAGA-era strategies draw on historical precedents, including Roosevelt’s “big stick” diplomacy, Cold War coercion, and neo-conservative assertiveness, reflecting a longstanding U.S. emphasis on power projection. Divergences occur in the operationalization of influence, which is opportunistic, normatively flexible, and directly linked to domestic populist narratives.

Military coercion is projected through threats, posturing, and selective deployments. Economic leverage is applied via tariffs, sanctions, and resource-focused opportunism. Diplomacy is transactional, performative, and opportunistic, while rhetorical strategies, exemplified by Trump’s renaming of the Secretary of Defense to Secretary of War, legitimize and amplify aggressive policy domestically and internationally.

For global stability, NWI produces conditional order, maintained through coercion but subject to miscalculation and escalation. For international norms, NWI challenges sovereignty, multilateralism, and human rights principles, potentially undermining established international law. For alliances, transactional manipulation weakens trust and cohesion, prompting partners to hedge or counterbalance.

Populist rhetoric, electoral incentives, and the cultivation of a loyal support base reinforce the adoption and sustainability of NWI. A feedback loop between domestic approval and performative foreign policy ensures the structural embedding of “peace by force” as a policy doctrine.

NWI provides a novel framework for understanding MAGA-era foreign policy, bridging gaps left by classical realism, traditional imperialism, and neo-conservative paradigms. It explains the integration of rhetoric, opportunistic strategy, and domestic political imperatives in U.S. global behavior, offering insights into the evolving logic of contemporary power projection.

This article has argued that contemporary imperial practices cannot be adequately understood through the prevailing dichotomy between classical military imperialism and neo-imperial forms of economic or institutional domination. While much of the literature assumes a linear transition away from overt coercion toward indirect governance, recent interventions suggest a more uneven and contingent trajectory. Under certain political and systemic conditions, imperial power reasserts itself in forms that are simultaneously more explicit, less restrained, and less invested in legitimacy production.

To capture this configuration, the article introduced the concept of Naked and Wild Imperialism (NWI). Unlike earlier imperial modalities, NWI is defined not by territorial occupation or long-term domination, but by the abandonment of justificatory labor and the suspension of legal and institutional constraints. Nakedness refers to the erosion of legitimacy as a governing imperative, while wildness denotes the deliberate bypassing of procedural and legal limits in favor of speed, unilateralism, and executive discretion. At their intersection lies the defining feature of NWI: the simultaneous suspension of international and domestic law.

The comparative analysis demonstrated that not all contemporary interventions meet this threshold. Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011) were shown to be transitional cases—marked by legal manipulation and normative erosion, but still embedded in justificatory narratives and institutional frameworks. The intervention targeting the Venezuelan executive authority, by contrast, crossed the threshold into Naked and Wild Imperialism. Its analytical significance lies not in its scale or duration, but in the clarity with which it reveals a form of imperial action that no longer treats law or legitimacy as central constraints.

Importantly, the article does not suggest that Naked and Wild Imperialism has replaced all other forms of imperial practice. Nor does it claim that legitimacy and law have ceased to matter universally. Rather, NWI identifies a distinct modality that emerges when normative constraint is perceived as expendable and institutional mediation as obstructive. In this sense, NWI should be understood as situational and conditional, yet increasingly available as a repertoire of power in a fragmented and post-liberal international order.

The implications of this shift are significant. When imperial power operates without sustained justification and with minimal regard for legal constraint, the boundary between external intervention and internal constitutional transformation becomes blurred. The suspension of law abroad is mirrored by its suspension at home, reshaping not only international norms but also domestic balances of authority. Naked and Wild Imperialism thus points to a deeper reconfiguration of the relationship between power, legality, and accountability in contemporary global politics.

By conceptualizing this reconfiguration, the article contributes to imperialism studies, international relations theory, and debates on the erosion of legal constraint in global governance. Future research may explore the conditions under which Naked and Wild Imperialism becomes politically viable, its reception by domestic and international audiences, and its long-term consequences for international order. What is clear, however, is that imperialism has not disappeared. What has changed is the extent to which it now operates without apology, without patience, and increasingly without law.

As conclusion, MAGA-era U.S. foreign policy represents a radical evolution of coercive statecraft, combining historical continuities with bold departures. Conceptualizing this approach as Naked and Wild Imperialism provides a theoretically rigorous and empirically grounded explanation of how “peace by force” is conceived, operationalized, and sustained, offering a critical perspective for analyzing U.S. strategy and emerging patterns of global power projection.

 

 

 

REFERENCES

 

Agnew, John. (2017) Globalization and Sovereignty: Beyond the Territorial Trap. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 978-1538105191

Associated Press. (2025).  “Trump Threatens Hamas over Gaza Violence.” Associated Press, October 16, 2025. https://apnews.com/

Beaulac, Stephane. (2019) The Power of Language in the Making of International Law: The Word Sovereignty in Bodin and Vattel and the Myth of Westphalia (Developments in International Law, vol. 21) By Stephane Beaulac. Leiden; Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers

Butler, Judith. (2021).  Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. New York: Routledge, 1997. ISBN 9780367705244

Butler, Judith. (2021).  Trump and the Bureaucracy of America First. Foreign Affairs 97, no. 3 (2018): 46–54.

Carr, E. H. (1939). The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. London: Macmillan,

Department of Defense (2018). Summary of the National Defense Strategy Sharpening the American Military’s Competitive Edge. https://media.defense.gov/2020/May/18/2002302061/-1/-1/1/2018-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY-SUMMARY.PDF

Gilpin, Robert. (1981) War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hamid, Shadi. (2018). Deconstructing Trump’s foreign policy. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/deconstructing-trumps-foreign-policy/

Hobson, John M. (2012). The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760–2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hobson, John M., and Leonard Seabrooke, eds. (2007). Everyday Politics of the World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Humire, Joseph M. (2024). The Foreign Policy Foundations of Trumpism. June 2024. NORTEAMERICA, Ano 19, numero 1, enero-junio de 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/cisan.24487228e.2024.1.675

Lenin, Vladimir I. (1939). Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. New York: International Publishers.

McManus, Allison, Ryan Mulholland and Andrew Miller. (2025) 100 Days of the Trump Administration’s Foreign Policy: Global Chaos, American Weakness, and Human Suffering.  https://www.americanprogress.org/article/100-days-of-the-trump-administrations-foreign-policy-global-chaos-american-weakness-and-human-suffering/

Mearsheimer, John J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

National Security Service. (2017). National Security Strategy of the United States of America. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf

Nye, Joseph S., and Robert O. Keohane. (1977). Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown.

Othman, Rose. (2024).  Analyzing Trump's Foreign Policy Expectations. https://ssrn.com/abstract=5075540 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5075540

Reuters. (2025). “Trump Warns Hamas: Stop Killing Gazans or ‘We Will Go In and Kill Them.’” Reuters, October 16, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/

Satoru, M. (2025). The Second Trump Administration’s Foreign Engagement and Its Geostrategy Toward the Four Regions. Asia-Pacific Review, 32(1), 54–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/13439006.2025.2513207

The Times of Israel. (2025). Trump: If Hamas doesn’t stop killing Gazans, ‘we will have no choice but to go in and kill them’. https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-if-hamas-doesnt-stop-killing-gazans-we-will-have-no-choice-but-to-go-in-and-kill-them/

The White House. (2025). National Security Strategy. Washington, DC: U.S. Government. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf

Trump, Donald J. (2025). Truth Social post, October 16, 2025, quoted in “Trump Threatens Hamas over Gaza Violence,” Associated Press, October 16, 2025, https://apnews.com/

Verbeek, Bertjan, and Andrej Zaslove. (2017). 'Populism and Foreign Policy', in Cristobal Rovira Kaltwasser, and others (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Populism, Oxford Handbooks (2017; online edn, Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198803560.013.15.

Waltz, Kenneth N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Wojczewski, T. (2020a). Trump, Populism, and American Foreign Policy, Foreign Policy Analysis, Volume 16, Issue 3, July 2020, Pages 292–311, https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orz021

Wojczewski, T. (2020b). Statement on the Development of the 2025 National Defense Strategy. https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/article/4172735/statement-on-the-development-of-the-2025-national-defense-strategy/

 

---

[1] MAGA = Make America Great Again.

[2] Indeed, the U.S. seeks to base the Venezuela raid, which occurred without Congressional approval, legally on the authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to the President to protect U.S. personnel, in order to justify the protection of DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) personnel engaged in the war on drugs.

[3] From a domestic legal standpoint, the President has circumvented Congress, effectively suspending legislative oversight. Such actions may constitute an overreach of executive authority, potentially precipitating a constitutional crisis and raising the prospect of impeachment under U.S. law. This scenario exemplifies a classic expansion of the ‘unitary executive’ doctrine. Under international law, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter establishes the general prohibition against the use of force by one state against another. The recognized exceptions are the exercise of legitimate self-defense (Article 51) and actions authorized by the UN Security Council. In the case of Maduro, Venezuela did not engage in an armed attack against the United States, nor is there any Security Council resolution providing authorization. Accordingly, prima facie, the use of force appears inconsistent with international law. The assertion by Senator Rubio that ‘circumstances required it’ does not constitute a recognized exception under international law. Rather, it reflects the language of the state of exception, in which legal norms are temporarily suspended. In the Carl Schmittian framework, ‘the sovereign is he who decides on the exception.’ In this context, legal constraints are effectively set aside, leaving the decision to the discretion of political authority.