At a podium in front of the National Association of Evangelicals on 8 March 1983, Ronald Reagan delivered a line which would become synonymous with the US’s view of the Soviet Union for the rest of the Cold War. Reagan called on the evangelicals not “to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire…” (National Archives, 1983).
Albeit the phrase is somewhat hidden and the speech’s focus varies from social issues such as teenage sex and drugs to the revival of traditional Christian values; undoubtedly the phrase had a lasting impact on the way ordinary Americans viewed the Soviet Union. Reagan’s rhetoric sought to delegitimise the political governance of the Soviet Union, which at the time stretched from Berlin to Vladivostok, Prague to the Sea of Japan.
It is important to note the context in which the speech was given — this provides clarity for the rhetoric Reagan used. Starting with the phrase “evil empire”, this was clearly derived from both the history of the Soviet Union, its scale and sphere of influence. As greater information about life inside the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc was becoming clearer in the 1980s, equally the Soviets held influence over 22 million square kilometres of territory.
From the same quotation the phrase “evil empire” derives, Reagan argues that calling “the arms race a giant misunderstanding and [you] thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil” (National Archives, 1983). Reagan made the argument that it is not the duty of American citizens to be passive or simply reactive to the developments of the Cold War; they had a moral obligation to defend Christian-American values and remain in the fight between good (America) and evil (Soviet Union).
Nearly 43 years have passed since this moral call-to-arms for the evangelicals and ordinary citizens of America to support Reagan and his crusade against the Soviet Union. This article argues that the rhetoric Reagan projected onto the Soviet Union in 1983 is now more applicable to the United States in 2026.
This article makes this argument based on recent decisions in American foreign policy to abduct Nicolás Maduro (president of Venezuela) and his wife Cilia Flores. Both were charged with “narco-terrorism conspiracy; cocaine importation conspiracy; possession of machine guns and destructive devices; conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices” (Sky News, 06.01.26). This article will also use evidence from the Trump administration’s aims to seize governance of Greenland.
Arguably, the US’s intervention in Venezuela and current rhetoric towards Greenland support the idea that the “evil empire” America sought to defeat over 40 years ago has been revived and exists behind the star-spangled banner and the colours red, white and blue.
Venezuela
The first striking piece of evidence against the current US administration in the charge of imperialism is its current actions and views towards Venezuela. Firstly, the abduction of the incumbent president and his wife. The consensus appears to be that such action was illegal and has broken international law. “Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg agreed, saying ‘international law bans invading another country and capturing its president’” (Sky News, 05.01.26).
Evidence for the illegality of this intervention by the US is displayed in the UN Charter which states — “any dispute, …shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means…” (United Nations). This supports the idea that US intervention was illegal as prior to their action, the US did not pursue any of the aforementioned methods of conciliation (that could have produced a peaceful outcome) and thus broke Article 33/1 of the UN Charter.
Secondly, the US’s current views towards Venezuela suggest that their unprecedented military intervention is entirely derived from imperialist goals. It has been reported that “The US will ‘run’ Venezuela until a ‘safe, proper and judicious transition’ can be ensured…” (BBC News, 03.01.26). Arguably, this is the US’s attempt to legitimise their action (and possible future presence) in the country — the practical and physical effects of which are yet to be seen.
However, Trump has stated that he will let US oil companies into Venezuela to “fix” the infrastructure and “start making money for the country” (BBC News, 03.01.26). Notably, the words “the country” could be both a reference to rebuilding Venezuela or the vast revenues the American government and oil companies would reap from the country’s natural resources.
Subsequently, both the current military action and rhetoric towards Venezuela’s future suggest that the US is on an imperialist march to further secure their access to natural resources and “national security”. The effect of which could lead to the US maintaining governance over Venezuela with few intentions of returning the country to democratically elected leaders, to ensure the long-term interests of US oil companies.
With the US having already broken international law with their action so far, there is no evidence to suggest they will cease operating beyond the realm of international law in the future — to preserve their international prestige, economic interests and, of course, national security.
Greenland
The ambitions of the US do not end seemingly with the peaceful transition to democracy in Venezuela nor with a guarantee of oil company rights in the country, as the administration has repeatedly indicated their desire to acquire Greenland as the 51st state.
As early as August 2019, it was reported that the Trump administration wanted to purchase Greenland from Denmark (Forbes, 2019). This desire to annex Greenland was reignited in early 2025 when “President Donald Trump said the U.S. will ‘go as far as we have to go’ to get control of Greenland” (ABC News, 2025).
The first question that must be answered in response to this American approach to foreign policy must be: why? Unlike Venezuela, Greenland does not have a corrupt president who has overseen an economic recession of over 80% of GDP, nor is the Danish prime minister Mette Frederiksen likely to be charged with narco-terrorism offences against the United States. Therefore, why does the US wish to annex Greenland from Denmark?
The current US administration has claimed that they “…need Greenland for national security and international security” (ABC News, 2025); however, this seems unlikely for multiple reasons. Firstly, Greenland with Denmark is already a NATO member; therefore, there should be no doubt upon Greenland’s loyalty within the international community and, should the US be attacked by a foreign power, would most likely honour their obligation under Article 5 of NATO.
Therefore, there must be a secondary reason to explain the desperate need for the Trump administration to annex Greenland. This article would argue that like Venezuela, it is the vast natural resources Greenland has that is attracting the US government and is the core reason for the current rhetoric towards the territory. Examples of the natural resources the US would gain from the territory would be: lithium, nickel and cobalt (used in EVs); uranium (nuclear power/weapons); and freshwater (10% of the world’s, within the Greenlandic ice).
Subsequently, the current rhetoric from the US towards Greenland suggests that if any physical action was taken (e.g. “boots on the ground”) not only would it breach Article 33/1 of the UN Charter but also Article 5 of NATO. The latter of which may have more severe consequences, as that would imply that all other NATO members should come to the defence of Greenland against the aggressor. Albeit this is unlikely, any form of illegal or underhand tactics to seize Greenland (including the deployment of US troops) would lead to a comprehensive and irreversible splintering of NATO.
US to USSR
This article believes that the US is heading in a foreign policy direction which would see itself morph into a position similar to the USSR in the 1980s. That “evil empire” the US was seen to combat during the Cold War is now the foreign policy space the US is entering.
As the Reagan administration displayed during the 1980s by supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the USSR’s invasion (1979–1989), the Reagan administration supported the principle of national sovereignty against an aggressive power (attempting to secure their interests in a region). Much to the opposite of the current foreign policy of the US, as they themselves are now the aggressor trying to secure their interests in a particular region by force rather than through international arbitration.
Therefore, in answer to the question of this article — Has the United States become an “evil empire”? The answer is: no. However, the evidence presented in this article suggests the US may be becoming an “evil empire”. Like the USSR did in 1979, the US has used illegal military force on a sovereign nation for the sake of preserving their own interests.
In the case of the USSR this was political — to forcefully uphold the Communist Party in Afghanistan. In the case of the US this is economical — securing the oil rights in Venezuela to the benefit of American oil companies as well as Greenland’s lithium, nickel and cobalt American manufacturers need to outcompete their Chinese competitors in the production of EVs.
Arguably, comparing the USSR’s war in Afghanistan to the actions of the US now may seem ill-informed. However, in order to “run” Venezuela as Trump has said, the US will have to put troops in the country, which if not by definition is an invasion (“…country uses force to enter and take control of another country” (Cambridge Dictionary, 2026)), then that word has lost all substance.
To conclude, the US has not yet fully morphed into the dreaded “evil empire” the Reagan administration did so much to combat over 40 years ago. However, the US seems to be on a dangerous path it may not be able to turn back from; in which it recklessly uses its military force to preserve its own interests and does so under the banner of democracy — and with this, the rules-based international order that has existed since 1945 disintegrates.
The current direction of US foreign policy has seemingly unleashed a Pandora’s box filled with the consequences to questions such as: what happens to NATO if the US invades Greenland? Will the Chinese be encouraged to annex Taiwan to preserve their interests? Does Russia now have legitimacy to abduct Zelenskyy?
