The Venezuelan Intervention: A Dangerous Return to Imperial Overreach

The Facts of the Intervention

President Trump has ushered in what can only be described as a radical departure from established international norms by declaring that the United States will “run” Venezuela for an indefinite period following the military capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. The operation, executed by U.S. forces who seized the Venezuelan leader from his bedroom, represents an unprecedented extension of American power in Latin America. Trump explicitly stated that the U.S. would issue orders to Venezuela’s government and exploit the country’s vast oil reserves, claiming these resources had been “stolen” from American corporations during previous administrations.

The administration installed Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s former vice president, as the interim leader with the explicit condition that she “does what we want.” However, Rodríguez immediately contradicted this narrative by delivering a national address asserting that Maduro remained Venezuela’s legitimate head of state and condemning Washington’s actions as “barbarity.” Despite this defiance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated the administration would withhold judgment based on Rodríguez’s future actions.

Trump’s declaration came with ominous threats of further military action, stating that while there were no American troops on the ground initially, a “second wave” would follow if resistance emerged. He pointed to key administration figures—Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dan Caine—as those who would effectively govern Venezuela. The legal justification cited was a refreshed drug trafficking indictment against Maduro and his wife dating to 2020, though this provided no basis for seizing control of an entire sovereign nation.

Historical Context and Precedents

This action represents a stark return to 19th and early 20th century gunboat diplomacy, recalling America’s imperial military efforts in Mexico, Nicaragua, and other Latin American nations. The parallels to President William McKinley’s era—whose portrait Trump displays in the White House—are particularly chilling, given McKinley’s presidency oversaw the military seizure of the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Trump himself has previously mused about annexing Canada, Greenland, and Panama, suggesting this intervention aligns with a broader pattern of expansionist thinking.

The administration carefully avoided describing the action as an occupation, instead framing it as a “guardianship” arrangement where the U.S. would provide vision and expect compliance under threat of further military intervention. This linguistic maneuvering cannot obscure the fundamental reality: the United States has effectively declared dominion over a sovereign nation of 30 million people without international mandate or clear legal authority.

The Dangerous Precedent of Resource-Driven Intervention

What makes this intervention particularly alarming is the explicit connection to resource extraction. Trump openly declared that regaining access to oil rights constituted a “key American goal,” framing Venezuela’s nationalization of resources as theft from American corporations that previous administrations failed to address. This naked resource grab undermines any pretense of humanitarian or democratic motivation and exposes the intervention as fundamentally economic imperialism.

The administration’s approach raises profound questions about how this guardianship will function practically. Will the U.S. need an occupying military force to protect oil infrastructure? Will American officials run Venezuelan courts and determine resource allocation? What happens if democratic elections produce leaders with different visions for their country? These questions point toward the very “forever wars” that Trump’s political base has historically rejected.

The Assault on Democratic Principles and Sovereignty

As a firm believer in democratic principles and constitutional governance, I find this intervention deeply troubling on multiple levels. The foundation of international order rests on respect for national sovereignty and the principle of self-determination. By forcibly overthrowing a government and declaring intention to “run” another country, the United States has violated these fundamental norms in a manner that echoes the worst excesses of historical imperialism.

The administration’s actions establish a dangerous precedent that weaker nations everywhere must view with alarm. If the United States can unilaterally decide to remove foreign leaders and control their countries based on economic interests dressed in legalistic camouflage, what prevents other powerful nations from doing the same? This represents not strength but profound weakness—the weakness of a nation that has abandoned its moral authority and constitutional principles in pursuit of resource dominance.

The humanitarian justification often cited for intervening in Venezuela—the country’s economic crisis and political repression—becomes suspect when paired with explicit resource claims. True humanitarian intervention requires international legitimacy, clear exit strategies, and prioritization of local self-determination rather than external control. None of these conditions appear present in this case.

The Constitutional and Legal Abyss

The legal basis cited—a drug trafficking indictment—provides no justification for seizing control of a sovereign nation. This represents an extraordinary expansion of executive power that should concern every constitutional conservative and civil libertarian. The framers of our Constitution created a system of checks and balances precisely to prevent such unilateral assertions of power, particularly in matters of war and foreign intervention.

The administration’s vague references to a “transition period” under American direction with the threat of military force if compliance isn’t forthcoming sounds more like colonial administration than democratic partnership. This approach fundamentally misunderstands that sustainable democracy cannot be imposed at gunpoint or through external coercion—it must emerge organically from within societies through legitimate political processes.

The Geopolitical Implications

Venezuela’s size and complexity—twice that of Iraq—suggest this intervention could easily become the kind of quagmire that previous administrations struggled with in the Middle East. As Venezuela scholar John Polga-Hecimovich noted, any democratic transition requires buy-in from both pro-regime and anti-regime elements, particularly the Venezuelan armed forces. If the military splinters, violence could easily escalate beyond control.

Furthermore, Trump’s simultaneous threat to Colombia’s president regarding drug trafficking suggests this intervention may represent the beginning of broader regional coercion rather than an isolated action. This aggressive posture risks alienating traditional allies and undermining America’s moral standing in the hemisphere and beyond.

The Path Forward: Principles Over Power

True American leadership should embody democratic values rather than override them. Instead of unilateral intervention and resource extraction, the United States should work through multilateral institutions to support democratic processes in Venezuela. This would involve supporting free elections, humanitarian aid, and diplomatic engagement rather than military coercion and economic domination.

The spectacle of an American president boasting about running another country while threatening neighboring leaders represents a catastrophic abandonment of the principles that made America a beacon of freedom. We must remember that the strength of our nation comes not from our ability to dominate others but from our commitment to constitutional governance, rule of law, and respect for human dignity—principles that this intervention dangerously undermines.

As Americans who cherish liberty and self-determination, we should recognize that these values cannot be consistently defended at home while being violated abroad. The path to sustainable security and influence lies not in resurrecting 19th century imperialism but in championing 21st century cooperation, democracy, and respect for international norms. Our nation’s greatness has always been measured by our moral authority, not our capacity for coercion—and on that measure, this intervention represents a profound failure of leadership and principle.