How Trump’s stance on Venezuela exposes a dangerous return to the politics of ‘might is right’

DCM Editorial Summary: This story has been independently rewritten and summarised for DCM readers to highlight key developments relevant to the region. Original reporting by The Irish Times, click this post to read the original article.

In a bold move, former President Donald Trump described the U.S. military action in Venezuela as a law enforcement effort rather than a traditional military operation. He stated the objective was to apprehend Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who he labeled a “fugitive of American justice.” Trump argued that because this was not a military attack, he did not need Congressional approval, even though the operation involved 15,000 U.S. troops and an aircraft carrier stationed off the Venezuelan coast over three months.

You’ll notice that Trump is unlikely to face much resistance from a Republican-led Congress, which is expected to support him retroactively. His loyal voter base, still firmly behind the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, also remains largely uncritical. However, the operation raises significant legal concerns under both international and U.S. law. The United Nations Charter, which is part of the U.S. Constitution’s “supreme law of the land,” prohibits the use of force on another country’s territory without UN Security Council approval or valid self-defense—conditions not met in this case.

Trump’s justification, claiming Maduro’s reelection in 2024 was illegitimate, doesn’t provide a legal basis for the invasion. Only a legal court can determine the legitimacy of a national leader—not a foreign government. U.S. intelligence has also discredited claims that Venezuela is a leading fentanyl exporter to the U.S., further weakening the rationale for action. You’re essentially witnessing a return to the historical U.S. practice of interventionism in Latin America, reminiscent of the era when America frequently overthrew governments it opposed.

Trump’s goal appears to be not just removing Maduro but also managing Venezuela until a new government can be installed—one that might open the country’s vast oil reserves to U.S. companies. This not only signals a shift back to gunboat diplomacy but also hints at re-establishing American dominance in the Western Hemisphere. Whether democratic allies in NATO will support or remain silent on this aggressive posture remains uncertain as global powers like Russia and China watch the developments with interest.

The political situation in Venezuela remains complicated. Interim leader and former Vice President Delcy Rodriguez has condemned the U.S. action, although Washington may still believe she will align with its interests. For you, this scenario reflects far more than a routine legal case—it raises broader concerns about international law, regional stability, and America’s evolving global strategy.