According to the Cambridge Dictionary, a rogue state can be defined as a “nation that is considered very dangerous to other nations”. The United States termed North Korea, Cuba, Iran and Libya as rogue states threatening regional peace and security. However, in the recent past, it is the U.S. that has been called a rogue state because of its military intervention in different parts of the world; using force to quell opposition and expel illegal immigrants by deploying the National Guard. Threats under the Trump administration towards Greenland, Mexico, Panama and Iran, and its recent act of regime change in Venezuela, can be described as actions of a rogue state.
The Oxford Research Encyclopedia describes a rogue state as follows: “In their simplest form, ‘rogue states’ can be defined as aggressive states that seek to upset the balance of power of the international system either by acquiring weapons of mass destruction or by sponsoring international terrorism”. Furthermore, it notes that “the United States continues to define ‘rogue states’ based on their external characteristics, and this has contributed to the adoption of largely inconsistent policies that exacerbated their threat. Therefore, the contemporary use of the ‘rogue state’ label is essentially an American creation, a way for the United States to reassess the post–Cold War security environment and structure its foreign and national security policies. Most of the international community has avoided adopting this narrative and the policies that it justified.”
In the recent past, critics have argued that it is the United States itself which is behaving as a rogue state because of its blatant threats to occupy Greenland and to use force to change regimes in Colombia, Cuba and Iran. The rogue state characteristics under the Trump administration are also visible in the deployment of federal National Guard forces to forcibly oust illegal immigrants. The recent killing of a woman in Minnesota by the federal National Guard led to widespread outrage, with 1,000 demonstrations taking place against the colossal use of force against unarmed civilians.
Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has a track record of intervening in around 20 countries, ranging from Korea to Vietnam, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. There is no other power that has carried out massive military interventions across the world on a comparable scale. With military expenditure of around one trillion dollars and military and naval bases in more than 25 countries, the United States is accused of periodic attacks and occupations of states under the pretext of regime change.
American President Donald Trump, during both his first and second administrations, has openly justified toppling regimes that do not conform to U.S. policies. Violations of international law by the United States are accusations frequently levelled by states facing threats of military intervention and occupation.
If a country that claims to be the world’s leading democracy transforms into a rogue state, it indicates that the leadership of America no longer cares about adherence to international law and human rights, and that instead of multilateralism, it pursues a unilateral policy
If the United States is alleged to meet the conditions of a rogue state, then why do its NATO allies not take a stand? When the U.S. President openly calls for the occupation of Greenland—legally a part of Denmark and also a member of NATO—it suggests that America has crossed a line and is willing to embark on severe violations of international law. According to a write-up by the Foreign Policy Centre, “That phrase (rogue state) was the work of Anthony Lake, a national security adviser to Bill Clinton, who coined it in 1994 as part of the Clinton administration's definition of ‘backlash states’. In fact, the whole concept of the rogue state was invented in the United States.
Designed to isolate and demonise countries that would not go the American way, this name-calling approach emerged to fill the foreign-policy gap that appeared after the demise of the ‘evil empire’. And like those other catchy slogans—‘war on terror’ and ‘axis of evil’—it proved too simplistic to be useful.” One State Department official, John Limbert, commented in 1999: “The use of the term rogue state may make for a good sound bite, but it doesn't make for good policy.”
According to The Guardian issue of 4 January 2026, “amid the immense confusion surrounding the US strikes on Venezuela, the seizure of the president, Nicolás Maduro, and Donald Trump’s announcement that the US will ‘run’ the country and ‘take back the oil’, one thing is clear – they set a truly chilling precedent. The US has a grim history of interference, invasion and occupation in the region, but the early hours of Saturday saw its first major military attack on South American land. ‘American dominance in the western hemisphere will never be questioned again,’ Mr Trump declared. The decision to unilaterally attack another country and abduct its leader, days after he publicly sought an off-ramp, has still wider repercussions. It should alarm us all.”
If a country that claims to be the world’s leading democracy transforms into a rogue state, it indicates that the leadership of America no longer cares about adherence to international law and human rights, and that instead of multilateralism, it pursues a unilateral policy. Three reasons can be identified to explain why the United States may proceed along the path of a rogue state. First, under President Trump’s National Security Strategy 2025, the United States considers the Western Hemisphere as its sphere of influence.
The recent U.S. attack on Venezuela and the abduction of its President and First Lady provide clear evidence of how it can launch open aggression and escape accountability. Second, President Trump, who in his first term blamed the ‘deep state’ for conspiring against his policies, is in his second term utilising deep-state structures of the U.S., such as the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of War (formerly the Pentagon), and the military–industrial complex, to launch gunboat diplomacy against non-conformist states.
What is most troubling in Trump’s policy—tantamount to declaring America a rogue state—is the failure of civil society and human rights groups to exert pressure on the U.S. government to refrain from actions that could shatter the country’s global image. Except for Senator Bernie Sanders and the Mayor of New York, Zohran Mamdani, no American leader has openly criticised Trump for the manner in which he is transforming his country into a rogue state. Recently, however, the U.S. Senate has bound President Trump to seek congressional approval for carrying out further actions against Venezuela. The Democratic Party, which is in a position to challenge the Trump administration over its domestic and foreign policy adventures, remains in a compromising position.
The insecurity of President Trump, coupled with the possible backlash against his unpopular policy of deploying National Guard forces in major American cities against illegal immigrants, as well as his foreign policy adventures involving Venezuela and Greenland, has compelled him to express fears that if the Democratic Party wins the mid-term elections scheduled for November 2026, he may be impeached. It should be noted that President Trump has already been impeached twice by the House of Representatives.
While impeachment by Congress may remain a remote possibility, given the public mood against the Trump administration’s unpopular measures, there is a likelihood that Republicans may not win the mid-term polls, as occurred in November 2017 when Democratic Party nominee Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House of Representatives and posed significant challenges to President Trump.
Finally, if the United States does not become a rogue state, it will be because of elements within America that possess sufficient democratic commitment to prevent the Republican Party under President Trump from plunging the country into rogue behaviour. Trump knows that this is his last chance, as he cannot seek re-election in 2028. In that case, one may remain cautiously optimistic that America will not abandon its democratic identity and will not become a source of conflict within the First World or within NATO.