The Deadly Paradox: US-Venezuela Relations Between Repatriation Flights and Unlawful Strikes

The Facts: A Tale of Two Policies

In a development that reveals the complex and contradictory nature of current US-Venezuela relations, the Venezuelan government announced on Tuesday its approval of a United States request for migrant repatriation flights. This decision comes just days after President Trump declared Venezuelan airspace “closed in its entirety” - a move that Venezuela’s government rightly characterized as a “colonialist threat” without legal basis under international law.

The Transportation Ministry of Venezuela stated that it had received and approved the US request to restart migrant repatriation flights, highlighting how communication channels between the two adversarial governments remain open despite heightened tensions. This cooperation on human repatriation represents one of the few functional aspects of the relationship, with nearly 14,000 Venezuelans having returned to their homeland through such flights since the Trump administration began its immigration crackdown earlier this year.

However, this humanitarian cooperation exists alongside a deeply troubling military campaign. The US military has been conducting strikes against small boats in the Caribbean, primarily targeting vessels departing from Venezuela. The Trump administration claims these boats are involved in drug smuggling, yet has provided no clear evidence to support these accusations. The human cost has been devastating: since early September, at least 83 people have been killed in 21 strikes across the Caribbean and Pacific Ocean.

The Legal and Ethical Crisis

The legality of these military strikes is now facing mounting investigations, placing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth under increasing scrutiny. A broad range of legal experts has described these actions as illegal under laws governing the military use of lethal force. Even more alarmingly, lawmakers from both American political parties have suggested that US military officials might have committed war crimes during one particular attack that involved ordering a follow-up strike specifically to kill two survivors.

This situation represents a profound ethical crisis for American democracy. While the administration coordinates with Venezuela on the humane repatriation of migrants, it simultaneously conducts lethal operations that experts characterize as potential war crimes. The contradiction is staggering: one hand extends in humanitarian cooperation while the other unleashes deadly force without due process or clear evidence.

The Broader Context: Diplomacy Amidst Threats

President Trump has adopted a schizophrenic approach to Venezuela, mixing threats against President Nicolás Maduro with the possibility of diplomatic solutions. The two leaders actually spoke by phone last month and discussed a potential meeting, indicating that channels for peaceful resolution exist alongside the rhetoric of confrontation and military action.

This dual-track approach raises serious questions about the administration’s strategic coherence and commitment to democratic principles. On one hand, there’s engagement on human repatriation and diplomatic outreach; on the other, there’s unilateral declaration of closed airspace (an action without legal precedent or authority) and lethal military operations that may violate international law.

The Moral Reckoning: America’s Soul at Stake

What does it say about our nation when we simultaneously facilitate the safe return of migrants while conducting extrajudicial killings that experts describe as illegal? This paradox strikes at the very heart of America’s moral authority and commitment to the rule of law.

The founding principles of our nation - liberty, justice, and due process - are being undermined by these actions. When we abandon the very legal frameworks that distinguish democratic societies from authoritarian regimes, we lose the moral high ground and jeopardize the international order that America helped build after World War II.

The Trump administration’s declaration of Venezuelan airspace as “closed in its entirety” represents a dangerous departure from international norms and law. No nation has the authority to unilaterally close another country’s airspace - such actions hearken back to colonial-era power dynamics that the modern international system was designed to prevent.

The Human Cost: 83 Lives and Counting

Behind the numbers - 83 killed in 21 strikes - lie human beings with families, dreams, and rights. The administration’s failure to provide clear evidence supporting these lethal actions constitutes a fundamental violation of the principles of transparency and accountability that underpin democratic governance.

The fact that bipartisan lawmakers are raising concerns about potential war crimes should alarm every American who cares about our nation’s moral standing. When experts across the political spectrum describe military actions as illegal, and when elected officials from both parties suggest war crimes may have occurred, we face not just a policy disagreement but a constitutional and moral crisis.

The Path Forward: Reclaiming American Principles

This moment demands a return to first principles. America must:

1. Immediately suspend all lethal military operations that lack clear evidence and proper legal authorization
2. Subject all such actions to rigorous congressional oversight and judicial review
3. Provide full transparency regarding the evidence supporting military strikes
4. Respect the sovereignty of other nations and operate within established international legal frameworks
5. Pursue diplomatic solutions through established channels rather than unilateral actions

The cooperation on migrant repatriation demonstrates that productive engagement with Venezuela is possible. This humanitarian success should serve as a model for broader diplomatic efforts rather than being overshadowed by unlawful military actions.

Conclusion: America’s Choice

We stand at a crossroads: will we continue down a path of extrajudicial killings and unilateral actions that undermine international law and our moral authority? Or will we return to the principles of due process, transparency, and respect for sovereignty that have made America a beacon of democracy?

The choice is not between strength and weakness, but between lawful democracy and reckless authoritarianism. We can protect national security while respecting human rights and international law. We can confront adversaries while maintaining our moral compass. The repatriation flights show that cooperation is possible; the unlawful strikes show how far we’ve strayed from our values.

It’s time for Americans of all political persuasions to demand better from our government. We must insist on policies that reflect the best of American values rather than the worst of imperial overreach. Our Constitution, our laws, and our moral standing in the world depend on it.