HRES-1056-119
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on Financial Services, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Nydia Velázquez (D-NY)
What it does
This is a simple resolution expressing the "sense of the House" that the State Department should declare the Monroe Doctrine no longer U.S. policy and that the federal government should pursue a "New Good Neighbor" policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean. It lists specific policy goals—ending unilateral sanctions like the Cuba embargo, amending the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and National Emergencies Act to add congressional oversight, declassifying records on past coups, reforming the Organization of American States, and supporting IMF/World Bank changes—but does not itself enact binding law or appropriate funds.
Who benefits
Advocates for reduced U.S. sanctions and intervention in Latin America, including Cuban and Venezuelan civilians potentially affected by embargoes and sanctions, human rights researchers seeking declassified records, and diplomats favoring multilateral engagement. Latin American governments and regional organizations (OAS, CELAC, Mercosur) that seek reduced U.S. unilateral action would also see symbolic benefit.
Who is hurt
No group faces direct binding legal or financial harm since the resolution is non-binding, but interests favoring continued sanctions on Cuba or Venezuela, U.S. national-security officials who rely on unilateral sanctions authority, and firms with claims under existing free trade agreements' investor-state dispute settlement provisions could see their policy preferences opposed. Members of the executive branch may view the resolution as an intrusion on foreign policy discretion.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that decades of U.S. military interventions, coups, and sanctions in Latin America—documented from the 1846 Mexican War through recent actions in Venezuela and Honduras—have caused significant harm and undermined U.S. credibility, and that formally renouncing the Monroe Doctrine would signal a shift toward cooperative, sovereignty-respecting relations. They contend that ending unilateral sanctions and requiring congressional oversight of emergency economic powers would restore the constitutional balance Congress and the executive were meant to share over foreign policy.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that formally renouncing a longstanding doctrine could be read abroad as signaling reduced U.S. commitment to countering foreign adversarial influence in the hemisphere, potentially creating space for rival powers or destabilizing actors. They contend that broadly ending sanctions tools, including on governments like Cuba's or Venezuela's, could reduce leverage the U.S. has used to pressure human rights improvements, and that a non-binding resolution risks constraining future executive flexibility without the deliberative process required for a binding statutory change.
Constitutional context
As a simple House resolution, this measure does not carry the force of law and does not bind the executive branch, which under Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015) holds exclusive recognition and substantial foreign-affairs discretion; it also touches the ongoing separation-of-powers debate over IEEPA and National Emergencies Act sanctions authority, an area Congress has statutory but contested oversight over under Article I foreign commerce powers.
Checks and balances
The resolution reflects the House expressing a position to constrain or guide executive foreign policy discretion, but as non-binding it creates no enforceable check; any actual changes to sanctions authority or the IEEPA would require separate legislation subject to presidential veto.
Historical precedent
Secretary of State John Kerry's 2013 speech declaring "the era of the Monroe Doctrine is over" reflects a similar rhetorical shift, though no prior Congress has passed a resolution formally calling for its annulment.