Have the recent actions of the United States government betrayed the MAGA movement and the America First doctrine by embracing foreign interventionism, regime change abroad, and getting closer and closer to the globalist and neoconservative figures of the traditional US political elite, as is the case with Marco Rubio?
It is possible that the recent measures taken by the U.S. government go beyond the limits previously defined by the “Make America Great Again” movement and the “America First” doctrine. I emphasize possible because the answer is complex and dialectical. Moreover, I am fully aware of the term’s problematic historical origins, including its racialized and discriminatory connotations. However, what these issues currently reveal is a rift within the movement and within the social base that supports President Trump’s political power.
These actions are often labeled ‘globalism,’ but that term is only a euphemism. It really means imperialism, interventionism, and high public spending. This shift directly contradicts Trump’s 2017 inaugural address: “We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow.” It’s important to remember how America First has defined its own foreign policy. According to its guiding principles, America First opposes involvement in unnecessary military conflicts and warns against long-term nation-building abroad:
“This premise offers the surest path to working productively with other nations in a manner that advances Americans’ interests and security while avoiding economic overreach and unnecessary military conflicts. This approach entails a focused and judicious use of military power not only to deter adversaries, but, if deterrence fails, to fight and win our Nation’s wars. Utilizing the U.S. military for its intended purpose ensures America does not become entangled in prolonged efforts such as nation-building exercises abroad.”
America First, as a political philosophy, and MAGA’s fundamental principles were clear: secure the borders, withdraw from foreign wars, and implement nationalist and protectionist economic policies capable, however difficult, of reversing the deindustrialization caused by neoliberal policies and trickle-down economics that devastated the real economy and the working class in the United States.
Decades of neoliberal globalization hollowed out US industry, destroyed entire regions through offshoring and austerity. From a material standpoint, the renewed America First doctrine emerged as a reaction to that process. It promised reindustrialization, economic recovery, and an end to endless wars. But the military aggressions against Iran (aggressions that were met with a response), billions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine and Israel, and now the renewed aggressions against Venezuela place the US Government in direct contradiction with the MAGA movement.
Senator Rand Paul sounded the most urgent alarm, cautioning that intervention in Venezuela would unravel MAGA’s foundational commitment to non-intervention, declaring: “If he [Trump] invades Venezuela (…) his movement will dissolve.”
Non-interventionism is not a circumstantial or incidental addition to the America First doctrine or to the MAGA movement. In both cases, it is a constitutive element. Abandoning this core tenet, shared by the movement and its doctrine, would therefore mark the collapse of one of MAGA’s defining principles.
Puerto Rico and the Wasting of Billions in Public Funds
This brings us to Puerto Rico. With the rise of interference in foreign conflicts and the escalation against Venezuela, Puerto Rico is once again trapped as the stage for military exercises and training that involve diverting millions of dollars of US public money to invest in infrastructure and labor in a country (Puerto Rico) that is, in fact, foreign, although it remains a US territory. But the real question is not, What role does Puerto Rico play in the reactivation of the Monroe Doctrine or in the aggression against Venezuela?
At this point, that question is obsolete.
The real issue is that the only way to prevent the remilitarization of the archipelago and its consolidation as a military platform is through a process of decolonization leading to independence, similar to that experienced by the Philippines through the Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934. There is no reformist shortcut around this reality. Colonial status makes Puerto Rico structurally available for militarization and excessive public expenditure. In this sense, MAGA supporters and America First sympathizers must confront an uncomfortable truth: if they are serious about non-interventionism, anti-globalism, and opposition to neocon war hawks embedded in the US political elite, then Puerto Rican independence is not a threat to their project; it is aligned with it.
The contradictions produced by recent US actions are not limited to external effects. These effects extend internally, revealing a growing conflict within the United States itself. The recent statements by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) calling on Congress to advance Puerto Rico statehood are not gestures of democratic inclusion but irresponsible political provocations. As DNC chair Ken Martin put it: “When we get into power next time (…) we damn well better make sure (…) that Puerto Rico is a state.”
The DNC knows full well that the only way to admit Puerto Rico as a state is through coercion and undemocratic measures, as it knows that neither the majority of Puerto Ricans nor US public opinion clearly supports it. Forcing the annexation of Puerto Rico would exacerbate internal polarization and, in practice, constitute a declaration of political and cultural war with no immediate resolution. Furthermore, after 127 years under US sovereignty, Puerto Rico has consistently demonstrated that its Latin American identity—language, culture, and traditions—remains unshakable. The idea that Puerto Ricans will assimilate into the American way of life will remain an illusion, and forcing their annexation will cause the irreversible dissolution of American identity and culture.
Independence, on the other hand, dismantles an important globalist and liberal agenda, and also undermines the Democratic Party’s irresponsible strategy of forced annexation. Independence also eliminates Puerto Rico as a key node from which military power is projected, and enormous public resources belonging to the American people and their working class are lost. According to reports, the
“estimated total daily operational cost of US military operations, primarily naval, currently centered in the Caribbean, is at least $18 million per day. Since its initial deployment in late August, this naval force has already cost US taxpayers more than $600 million. This sum will only continue to grow. The deployment and enormous expense have not served to curb the actual flow of drugs into the United States, while vital domestic food aid hangs in the balance. The naval force ready to invade Venezuela consumes hundreds of millions while people in the United States go hungry.”
This massive expenditure is not an isolated episode nor a temporary deployment, but part of an expanding and institutionalized military investment in Puerto Rico: “The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2026 includes multimillion-dollar military construction projects in Puerto Rico, authorizes $66.5 million for the replacement of the Ramey Unit School at Punta Borinquen in Aguadilla, and extends the authorization for the construction of engineering and maintenance workshops at the Joint Maneuver Training Center at Camp Santiago until October 1, 2026.”
These are not abstract numbers. They represent the material contradiction of a nation, the United States, where people struggle to survive while millions of dollars are burned daily to sustain endless, senseless, and irrational military actions abroad that have repeatedly harmed the United States itself.
If America First means anything beyond slogans, it must mean dismantling policies that drain resources and reproduce the very globalist logic MAGA claims to oppose. From that perspective, Puerto Rican independence is not a concession to the Left. It is a logical outcome of a genuine non-interventionist and nationalist-American project.