“Trump’s Venezuela Policy: Peace Rhetoric vs. Reality of Intervention”
Donald Trump presented himself in American politics as an unconventional, intervention-averse leader, openly critical of the so-called “forever wars.” He claimed that the United States should focus on its domestic issues rather than assuming the role of the world’s policeman. His slogan, “America First,” symbolized this mindset and convinced millions of Americans that Washington would abandon its policy of destabilizing other nations in pursuit of global dominance. In various media appearances, Trump repeatedly claimed that he had ended eight wars during his tenure and even suggested that he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.
However, Trump’s actions toward Venezuela revealed that these claims were not only politically deceptive but also dishonest toward the American people. The rhetoric of peace masked a policy that saw little genuine change. The attempt to forcibly remove Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was a clear violation of international law and exposed the moral bankruptcy of U.S. foreign policy. If any other country had attempted a military operation to abduct the head of state of a sovereign nation, the United States would have labeled it “terrorism” or “state-sponsored aggression.” Yet when Washington executes such actions, it is conveniently described as “law enforcement.”
Trump argued that his measures were intended to stop illegal drugs entering the U.S. from Venezuela and to curb the flow of “criminal” migrants. Echoing the logic used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq, critics also suggest that Trump was motivated by Venezuela’s vast oil and gas reserves, as repeated attempts to control the nation’s energy resources heightened suspicions of U.S. opportunism. His reliance on coercive measures mirrors the aggressive approach of leaders like Putin in Ukraine: both acted illegally against a neighboring country and attempted to remove its leadership. Similarly, China’s recent military exercises near Taiwan suggest that Trump’s precedent could one day encourage similar interventions.
Since returning to office a year ago, the so-called peace-seeking Trump has authorized bombings in Yemen, killed civilians through relaxed engagement rules, conducted airstrikes in Nigeria, Somalia, Iraq, and Syria, and exaggerated U.S. military success against Iran’s nuclear sites. He has even refused to reject the bombing of Greenland, a territory of NATO ally Denmark. Alongside Israel, his administration has facilitated the deaths of thousands of innocent Palestinians and pursued plans that forcibly displace them.
Trump’s Venezuela campaign relied on ambiguous and legally weak claims, such as accusations of “drug terrorism,” yet no concrete evidence has been presented. Maduro has neither been proven to engage directly in drug trafficking nor posed any immediate threat to the U.S. International law clearly states that the use of force is only justified in the face of a direct attack or imminent threat-conditions entirely absent in Venezuela’s case. Nevertheless, Trump invoked the U.S. Constitution to claim sweeping authority as commander-in-chief. This reasoning is not only weak but dangerous: if every president interpreted the Constitution at will, global order would operate solely on the law of force.
Linking Venezuela to the fentanyl crisis exemplifies Trump’s opportunistic politics. While fentanyl has wreaked havoc in the U.S., evidence indicates that the drugs primarily come via Mexico, with chemical precursors from China. Blaming Venezuela is a distortion aimed at redirecting public anger toward an external enemy. Similarly, allegations that Maduro threatened the U.S. through the criminal group Tren de Aragua are unfounded; the group has no military capacity, and the Maduro government has acted against it.
Trumps claim that Venezuela “stole” U.S. oil and land is historically inaccurate. Venezuela nationalized its oil industry in 1976, a sovereign right of any nation, and expanded state control under Hugo Chávez. Foreign companies were offered partnerships, some of which declined. Labeling this theft dismisses the principle of national sovereignty.
The real concern lies in the consequences of such interventions. Removing Maduro could create a power vacuum, spark civil unrest, and push Venezuela toward civil war. Latin American history demonstrates that U.S. interventions often lead not to democracy but to authoritarianism, chaos, and bloodshed.
Trump’s Venezuela adventure exposes the hollowness of his “end the forever wars” rhetoric. Once in power, he followed the same path as his predecessors: unchecked use of force, arbitrary legal interpretations, and viewing the world through the lens of U.S. interests. The issue is not Maduro’s character but principle: granting powerful nations the right to arrest leaders of weaker states at will risks transforming the global system into a jungle law. Trump’s Venezuela policy is a dangerous step in that direction-a step whose cost may extend far beyond Venezuela to the world at large.
