In a new Fox News opinion essay, tech strategist Aaron Ginn calls for a digital-era Monroe Doctrine—urging the U.S. to assert hemispheric control over artificial intelligence hardware and alliances to counter China’s growing tech influence.
At a Glance
- Original Monroe Doctrine (1823) asserted U.S. dominance over Western Hemisphere affairs
- Essay proposes a modern version focused on AI: chips, alliances, and supply chain sovereignty
- Author criticizes current export controls for weakening U.S. market share in China
- Proposes three pillars: global hardware saturation, hemispheric nearshoring, Indo-Pacific reinforcement
- Warns of Chinese efforts to build an independent AI ecosystem
From Hemispheric Hegemony to Hardware Diplomacy
The Monroe Doctrine originally warned European powers to stay out of the Americas. Ginn argues the U.S. must now defend global leadership in artificial intelligence by saturating the world with American-designed chips—becoming the technological backbone of democratic systems.
Citing the failures of current export controls, he says restrictions have backfired, prompting Chinese tech giants like Huawei to accelerate development of indigenous AI platforms.
Watch a report: Should the U.S. Enforce an AI Monroe Doctrine?
Three Strategic Pillars for Tech Dominance
U.S.-made chips should become the default infrastructure in democratic nations, similar to the role of the dollar in global finance. This widespread adoption would foster trust, ensure compatibility, and enhance soft power.
To build a resilient supply chain that extends beyond China’s influence, it is proposed to relocate labor-intensive AI hardware assembly to Latin America while retaining high-value work in the U.S.
Additionally, reinforcing alliances with Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan is crucial for maintaining access to premier fabrication facilities and software ecosystems, thereby ensuring that American systems are recognized as global standards.
Avoiding Digital Overreach—or Repeating It?
Ginn distances his vision from imperial precedent, claiming his proposed AI Monroe Doctrine is about defense and deterrence—not domination. Still, comparisons to the Roosevelt Corollary raise questions about future interventions under a tech umbrella.
With AI increasingly seen as the foundation of economic and national security, his argument suggests the U.S. must lock in dominance now—or risk ceding control to a competing digital bloc.
Would you like a side-by-side breakdown of the original Monroe Doctrine versus this AI-era version?
