Two Stories, One Presidency.
What Trump’s Moves on Venezuela and Greenland Reveal About Power, Principle, and Precedent.
As the Chief Executive of Parallel Histories, I spend my days immersed in contested and controversial historical narratives. Our mission is not to tell students what to think, but to show them how the same set of facts can generate radically different interpretations.
Few recent episodes illustrate this better than President Trump’s posture toward Venezuela and his extraordinary suggestion that the United States might purchase or even seize by force Greenland.
These moments—one involving a crisis ridden Latin American state, the other a vast Arctic territory—have been read in two sharply divergent ways. Each interpretation tells a coherent story. Each carries its own internal logic. And each reveals something about how Americans, and the world, understand power in the 21st century.
Interpretation One: A Blunt, Unvarnished Revival of the Monroe Doctrine
In this reading, Trump is not inventing a new foreign policy at all. He is reviving a very old one—and doing so with a candour that previous administrations preferred to cloak in multilateral language.
It can be argued based on history that the United States has long asserted a special sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere. For decades, Washington has intervened—covertly or overtly—to shape outcomes in Latin America. Mexico in 1914, Ecuador between 60 and 63, the Dominican Republic in 61, Brazil in 64, Bolivia in 71,Chile in 73, Argentina in 76, Panama in 89. The list is long.
What distinguishes Trump is not the policy but the tone: he advocates openly what others pursued discreetly.
His stance on Venezuela, including recognition of an alternative government and pressure on the Maduro regime, fits squarely within a long historical tradition.
Even the Greenland episode, bizarre as it seemed to many, reflects a strategic instinct: secure territory, resources, and influence before rivals do.
In this interpretation, Trump is not breaking with history; he is stripping away the diplomatic varnish. He is, in effect, saying the quiet part out loud.
For those who see the world through this lens, the question is not whether the United States should exert influence, but whether honesty about that influence is preferable to euphemism.
Interpretation Two: A Dangerous Erosion of the Rules Based International Order
The second interpretation views the same actions through a very different prism. Here, Trump’s conduct is not a return to tradition but a rupture—one that weakens global norms and emboldens authoritarian actors.
It can be advocated with conviction based on a historical understanding of international relations (and personally I do), that the post-1945 order rests on principles of sovereignty, non-intervention, and respect for territorial integrity.
Attempts to delegitimise a foreign government or to treat another nation’s territory as a real estate opportunity undermine those principles.
When the United States disregards international norms, it creates a permission structure for others—Russia, China, and regional strongmen—to do the same. And you can bet your life they will seize this.
Trump’s stance on Greenland risks the end of NATO.
The result is a much more dangerous world in which power, not law, determines outcomes.
In a real sense precedents set by the most powerful state are quickly copied by those with fewer scruples.
From this vantage point, Trump’s actions are not merely unconventional; they are destabilising. They signal that the guardrails of global conduct are optional, and that might once again make right.
And the added ingredient is Trump’s childlike tone, lack of empathy and scruples and sheer, damned utterly crude braggadocio.
Why These Competing Narratives Matter
At Parallel Histories, we teach that history is not a single story but a contested landscape. The debate over Trump’s approach to Venezuela and Greenland is not simply about one president’s decisions. It is about:
- How nations justify power,
- How norms are built or broken,
- And how the world interprets American leadership.
Both interpretations draw on real evidence. Both resonate with different audiences. And both shape how future generations will understand this moment.
Our task is not to choose between them. It is to equip people—students, citizens, policymakers—to interrogate the assumptions behind each narrative and to recognise that democratic debate depends on the ability to hold competing ideas in tension, analyse them, debate them and reach your own judgement.
In a world increasingly defined by polarisation, the discipline of parallel thinking is not a luxury. It is a necessity.