Political polarization in the United States and Donald Trump’s policies are raising concerns far beyond the country’s borders. Reports from Venezuela and Australia examine the influence of Trump-aligned right-wing movements on elections and democracy in Latin America, as well as the consequences of US decisions on military, trade and humanitarian issues and toward Iran. These topics reflect concerns about the risk of escalating conflicts, economic shocks and the future role of the United States in the world. This review draws on material from the US Department of Energy (Australia) and the University of Veracruz (Venezuela).
GeoVision: US experience informs Australia’s geothermal strategy
The US Department of Energy’s GeoVision program sees geothermal energy as a major but still underused domestic resource. The department describes it as a source of reliable, flexible and renewable energy that can provide electricity, as well as heating and cooling, regardless of weather or time of day.
GeoVision’s central argument is that geothermal resources are widespread across the United States, but their practical development remains limited. According to the program, only a “small fraction” of the potential has been tapped because of “technical and non-technical barriers.” Key challenges include the complexity and cost of drilling, geological uncertainty, the need to improve technology, and the need for more favorable market and regulatory conditions.
Although this is an official US government webpage, not an analysis of Australian policy, its conclusions may also matter to Australia. The country is actively expanding solar and wind generation, energy storage, grid infrastructure and exports of critical minerals. Geothermal energy, however, remains on the fringes of the national energy agenda, despite promising geological areas, including in South Australia and the continent’s inland regions.
The American approach highlights the importance of what is known as firm, or dispatchable, renewable capacity. Geothermal plants can operate “always on,” without depending on sunlight, wind or the time of day. This is particularly relevant for Australia as coal-fired power stations close and debate continues over which technologies can ensure grid reliability when solar and wind output is low.
GeoVision recommends assessing the industry’s prospects not only through individual demonstration projects, but also with quantitative models. These models can compare geothermal technologies, market scenarios, resource-development costs, potential constraints and contributions to the power system. Such a comprehensive approach could be useful in Australia, where fuel availability, grid conditions, distances to consumers and the economic viability of new energy projects vary from region to region.
Geothermal energy can be considered not only as a source of electricity. The US program also covers heating and cooling, opening up a wider range of possible applications: industrial heat supply, energy for remote settlements, building cooling and support for local power systems. In a country with a vast landmass and many remote communities, this could become a distinct area of energy policy.
In Australia, barriers to developing the geothermal industry could include the high costs of exploratory and production drilling, the risk that expected geological characteristics will not be confirmed, limited access to capital for early-stage projects, and competition from rapidly falling-cost solar and wind power. Other factors may include the lack of stable incentives, difficulties connecting to the grid and limited experience with commercial applications of the technology.
Thus, GeoVision does not announce a new government decision or a specific energy project, but sets out a long-term US vision. For Australia, its significance is comparative: the American experience suggests geothermal energy can be viewed not as a narrow niche, but as a potential component of energy security, industrial development and decarbonization.
Monroe Doctrine revives anxieties across Latin America
US policy in the Western Hemisphere is once again the subject of heated debate in Latin America. In a publication by Mexico’s University of Veracruz, historian Felipe Arturo Ávila Espinosa links contemporary political shifts in the region to a long tradition of American expansionism, as well as the influence of big business, digital platforms and conservative ideological circles.
Ávila Espinosa, who heads Mexico’s National Institute for Historical Studies of the Revolutions of Mexico, argues that during Donald Trump’s second term, the Monroe Doctrine is taking on “new forms.” In his view, this involves economic, political and military pressure on countries in the region, as well as Washington’s efforts to maintain influence over the strategic resources of Latin America and the Caribbean.
The historian recalls that the Monroe Doctrine’s slogan, “America for the Americans,” was initially proclaimed as a warning to European powers against interfering in the affairs of the continent. Later, however, he argues, it became an ideological justification for territorial expansion and American hegemony. He cites Mexico’s history as one of the clearest examples: the separation of Texas, the Mexican-American War of 1846–1848 and the loss of more than half of the country’s territory.
Although the publication was produced in Mexico and does not focus directly on Venezuela, its interpretation echoes official Venezuelan rhetoric about sovereignty and foreign interference. For Caracas, relations with Washington have for many years been marked by sanctions, diplomatic isolation and international disputes over the legitimacy of the government. In this context, the claim that the logic of the Monroe Doctrine is being revived is seen not only as a historical analysis, but also as an explanation of current pressure on states with oil and mineral resources and an independent foreign policy.
Venezuelan authorities regularly describe US sanctions and support for opposition forces as interference in the country’s internal affairs. The Mexican researcher places such concerns in a broader historical context: under this view, the direct military expansion of the 19th century may in the 21st century be giving way to financial restrictions, diplomatic pressure, political isolation and competition for control of energy and raw-material resources.
At the same time, Ávila Espinosa does not explain the rise of conservative and far-right forces solely in terms of external influence. He urges progressive movements to engage in self-criticism, acknowledge their own mistakes, strengthen state and civil-society institutions, and respond more effectively to citizens’ needs—especially those of young people. This conclusion is also important for Venezuela, where anti-American rhetoric remains a significant political tool but does not eliminate domestic challenges: prolonged economic hardship, emigration, distrust of institutions and deep political polarization.
Thus, the University of Veracruz publication is not a neutral news report, but a critical, anti-hegemonic interpretation of regional politics. It views American influence as a continuation of the historical logic of the Monroe Doctrine and the growth of right-wing forces as the result of both external pressure and progressive governments’ failure to meet social expectations. This framework is especially familiar in Venezuela, where independence, oil, resources and national sovereignty remain central to public and political debate.
