5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Opinion
Until Democrats Confront the Lawlessness of Trump's Venezuela Assault, Expect More War
The primary focus of Congressional Democrats appears to be more with Trump’s failure to follow proper Constitutional procedures than his flagrant violation of the UN Charter and the brazenly imperialistic nature of the attacks and subsequent threats.
Jan 07, 2026
The US attack on Venezuela resulted from having an incredibly corrupt and autocratic-minded President using his office to enrich himself and his supporters, deploying the country’s armed forces against his own citizens, abusing the justice system to punish political opponents, and manipulating the electoral process to try to stay in power.
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has engaged in similar behavior as well.
While there is no denying Maduro’s authoritarian rule, mismanagement, and corruption, that is not why the United States invaded. President Donald Trump acknowledged that a key American goal was to regain control of Venezuelan oil, the largest known reserves in the world, saying, “We’re going to rebuild the oil infrastructure.” While acknowledging that it would require billions of dollars in investment by US oil companies to do so, he promised, “They will be reimbursed for what they’re doing.” As with many previous US military interventions, it is based on lies.
First of all, Maduro did not steal “our” oil, as Trump and other US officials have alleged. Even putting aside the question as to whether the United States somehow has the right to another country’s natural resources, Venezuela nationalized its oil industry back in the 1970s under the leadership of a pro-US centrist government at a time when dozens of other oil-producing nations were nationalizing their oil companies. Rather than confiscating the companies without compensation, Venezuela agreed to international arbitration and paid billions of dollars to ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and other US oil companies.
Nor is it because of Maduro’s authoritarianism. The United States remains the world’s biggest diplomatic supporter and arms supplier of dictatorial regimes around the world, many of which are even worse than Venezuela, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Azerbaijan.
Trump’s alleged concern about drug trafficking is also nonsense, particularly in light of his pardon of former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández, who was found guilty by a US jury of being responsible for supporting the shipment of 400 tons of cocaine into the United States. Hernández, like Maduro, was notoriously corrupt, suppressed pro-democracy protesters, and stole elections, yet the rightwing Central American leader received support from both Republican and Democratic administrations, which have criticized Maduro for similar behavior. Trump has also pardoned and released a significant number of other figures involved in drug trafficking while reducing support for public health responses to drug abuse.
Ironically, Venezuela is not a major player in drug trafficking. Despite administration claims to the contrary, Venezuela plays virtually no role in the manufacturing and smuggling of fentanyl, which largely comes through Mexico. Venezuela ranks well behind other Latin American countries in cocaine production and is not a major transshipment point of the drug to the United States.
Even if the indictment for drug trafficking against Maduro is legitimate, international law does not permit any nation to attack a foreign country and kidnap a criminal suspect. It also raises questions as to why it is that federal courts cannot hold a US President accountable for alleged crimes, but they somehow have the authority to hold foreign presidents accountable for theirs.
Indeed, Maduro’s alleged criminal activities are not really what the US attacks on Venezuela are about: The Trump Administration plans to take control of Venezuela, with Trump insisting “We’re going to stay until such time as a proper transition can take place.” He announced that the United States would “run the country,” that “we’re designating various people” to do so and “we’re going to make sure it’s run properly.”
When asked in a press conference exactly who would be running Venezuela, Trump said the “people that are standing right behind me, we’re going to be running it,” pointing at Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and General Dan “Raizin” Caine, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
But Venezuela still has a functioning government, with its vice president Delcy Rodríguez, who is seen to be more pragmatic and less authoritarian-minded than Maduro but is still a committed socialist and nationalist serving as acting president and apparently unwilling to cave to Trump’s demands. Trump explicitly declared that she could remain in power as long as she “does what we want.” Otherwise, Trump has threatened her and other government ministers, saying that if they defy his demands, “the United States retains all military options . . . . All political and military figures in Venezuela must understand: What happened to Maduro will happen to them.” Referring specifically to Rodríguez, Trump said, “If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro.”
And he was clear his demands would be enforced militarily, warning there would be a “second wave” of military action by the United States if Venezuelan government officials did not comply, saying, “We’re not afraid of boots on the ground.” Rubio added, “We’re going to make decisions based on their actions and their deeds in the days and weeks to come.”
Maduro made a lot of enemies in the international community during his twelve years in power, which helps explain why, despite few outright endorsements of the US intervention, opposition by some leaders in Europe and elsewhere has been somewhat muted. However, such flagrant violations of international law will inevitably harm the position of the United States internationally, particularly in Latin America, where many will view this as a return to the gunboat diplomacy that was the hallmark of US policy for much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Indeed Trump’s new National Security Strategy, released last month, calls for a revived Monroe Doctrine in which the United States would increase military deployments in the region to ensure that the United States will be able to control “critical supply chains” and to guarantee “continued access to key strategic locations” throughout the hemisphere. Trump himself has called it the “Don-roe Doctrine” and declared, “American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again.”
The United States currently maintains a large armada of about 15,000 military personnel in the Caribbean Sea, not only threatening Venezuela, but other countries as well. Trump has warned the democratically elected leftwing president of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, that he has to “watch his ass” and told Fox News that “something’s going to have to be done with Mexico,” also now under the leadership of a left-leaning president, Claudia Scheinbaum. Trump also said that “Cuba is going to be something we’ll end up talking about,” with Rubio adding, “If I lived in Havana, and I was in the government, I’d be concerned—at least a little bit.”
Meanwhile, the Trump Administration has been unable to explain how it will be able to control a country of nearly thirty million people, directly or indirectly. While many Venezuelans may be glad the unpopular autocratic leader is gone, like their counterparts in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, it does not mean they support US control of their country and its natural resources.
Unlike the US-made war on Iraq, another oil-rich country, there is not a sizable minority of Congressional Democrats on record supporting war in Venezuela. Indeed, most who have spoken publicly have been in opposition. However, the response to last week’s attack on Caracas and the seizure of Maduro has been disappointingly tepid. For example, instead of demanding that threats against Venezuela cease immediately and holding the Trump Administration accountable for the illegal intervention, the most House Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries could muster was that “the House and Senate must be briefed immediately and compelling evidence to explain and justify this unauthorized use of military force should be presented forthwith.”
There is indeed the very serious issue regarding the illegality of the United States attacking a foreign state without Congressional authorization or even notification, particularly with the threat of further war. However, the primary focus of Congressional Democrats appears to be more with Trump’s failure to follow proper Constitutional procedures than his flagrant violation of the UN Charter and the brazenly imperialistic nature of the attacks and subsequent threats.
Unless that is also challenged, the threat of further war in Venezuela and beyond will grow.
Keep Reading
Show Less
US Editorial Boards Just Can't Say No to Military Intervention
With his kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, President Donald Trump proved he is no less an imperialist than his predecessors, and that’s precisely why many of the nation’s leading editorial pages are hailing Maduro’s capture.
Jan 07, 2026
“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes,” Mark Twain allegedly quipped. On January 3, 1990, Panamanian Commander Manuel Noriega surrendered to US forces, who carried him off to face drug charges. Thirty-six years to the day later, US forces swooped into Venezuela, abducting President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, following decades of hostility between the oil-rich socialist country and the United States. The pretext offered: Maduro had to be taken to the US to face drug charges.
The coincidence is a reminder that the US has a long history of both covert and military intervention in Latin America: President Donald Trump, as extreme as he might be, isn’t an outlier among American presidents in this regard. And despite the right’s attempt to paint Trump as some sort of peacenik (Compact, 4/7/23; X, 10/14/25), he is no less an imperialist than his predecessors.
And that’s precisely why many of the nation’s leading editorial pages are hailing Maduro’s capture.
‘Hemispheric Hygiene’
The Wall Street Journal editorial board (1/3/26) called the abductions “an act of hemispheric hygiene,” a dehumanizing comparison of Venezuela’s leaders to germs needing to be cleansed.
For the Journal, the abductions were justified because they weren’t just a blow to Venezuela, but to the rest of America’s official enemies. “The dictator was also part of the axis of US adversaries that includes Russia, China, Cuba, and Iran,” it said. It called Maduro’s “capture… a demonstration of Mr. Trump’s declaration to keep America’s enemies from spreading chaos in the Western Hemisphere.” It amplified Trump’s own rhetoric of adding on to the Roosevelt Corollary, saying “It’s the ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine”—a nod to the long-standing imperial notion that the US more or less owns the Western Hemisphere.
The next day, the Journal editorial board (1/4/26) even seemed upset that the Trump administration didn’t go far enough in Venezuela, worrying that it left the socialist regime in place, whose “new leaders rely so much on aid from Cuba, Russia, China, and Iran.” “Despite Mr. Trump’s vow that the US will ‘run the country,’ there is no one on the ground to do so,” the paper complained, thus reducing “the US ability to persuade the regime.”
You’re writing from the country that has spent the past four months blowing up small craft in the Caribbean, and you think it’s Maduro who has “destabilized the Western Hemisphere”?
The Washington Post board (1/3/26) took a similar view to the Journal. “This is a major victory for American interests,” it wrote. “Just hours before, supportive Chinese officials held a chummy meeting with Maduro, who had also been propped up by Russia, Cuba, and Iran.”
The Post, which has moved steadily to the right since Trump’s inauguration a year ago, seemed to endorse extreme “might makes right” militarism. “Maduro’s removal sends an important message to tin-pot dictators in Latin America and the world: Trump follows through,” the board wrote. (Really? Did we miss when Trump “followed through” on his promise to end the Ukraine War within 24 hours? Or to take back the Panama Canal? Or make Canada the 51st state?) It belittled Democratic President Joe Biden, who “offered sanctions relief to Venezuela, and Maduro responded to that show of weakness by stealing an election.”
Like the Journal, the Post board (1/4/26) followed up a day later to push Trump to take a more active role in Venezuela’s future. It worried about his decision to leave in place “dyed-in-the-wool Chavista” Delcy Rodriguez and other “hard-liners” in Maduro’s administration.
The Post chided Trump for dismissing the idea of installing opposition leader María Corina Machado, who it deemed a worthy partner in imperial prospects: “She has a strong record of standing for democracy and free markets, and she’s committed to doing lucrative business with the US.” As with the Journal, the assumption that it’s up to the US to choose Venezuela’s leadership went unquestioned.
‘Fueled Economic and Political Disruption’
The New York Times editorial board (1/3/26), on the other hand, condemned the abductions, saying Trump’s attack “represents a dangerous and illegal approach to America’s place in the world.”
But the board only did so after the requisite vilifying, asserting that “few people will feel any sympathy for Mr. Maduro. He is undemocratic and repressive, and has destabilized the Western Hemisphere in recent years.”
You’re writing from the country that has spent the past four months blowing up small craft in the Caribbean, and you think it’s Maduro who has “destabilized the Western Hemisphere”?
Perhaps rather than worrying that US behavior will encourage some other country to behave lawlessly, US papers could be more concerned about their own country’s lawlessness.
Even as CBS News content czar Bari Weiss spiked a "60 Minutes" piece about the plight of Venezuelan migrants under the administration’s brutal round-ups, the Times editorial blamed Maduro alone for the humanitarian crisis at hand. “He has fueled economic and political disruption throughout the region by instigating an exodus of nearly 8 million migrants,” the editorial said. As is typical in US commentary on Venezuela (FAIR.org, 2/6/19), the word “sanctions” does not appear in the editorial, though US strictures have fueled an economic collapse three times worse than the Great Depression.
And it comes after the Times opinion page gave space calling for regime change in Venezuela. “Washington should approach dismantling the Maduro regime as we would any criminal enterprise,” wrote Jimmy Story (New York Times, 12/26/25), a former US ambassador to Venezuela. Right-wing Times columnist Bret Stephens wrote a piece simply headlined “The Case for Overthrowing Maduro” (11/17/25).
The Times didn’t mention the recent seizures of ships carrying Venezuelan oil (BBC, 12/21/25; Houston Public Media, 12/22/25)—or the issue of Venezuela’s oil at all, though even the paper’s own news section (1/3/25) admitted that oil was “central” to the kidnapping. “They stole our oil,” Trump dubiously claimed in his public address, bragging that the door to the country was now open to have “very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars… and start making money for the country.”
These are glaring oversights by the Times board, even if it ultimately waved its finger at the administration for its military action. Contrast this to the editorial board of the Houston Chronicle (1/3/26), which serves a huge portion of the energy sector:
Even now we’re still asking: Why? Why is the US taking such drastic military action? Is it to “take back” our oil? To deport Venezuelans en masse? To fight drug trafficking? To send a message to Cuba?
Perhaps this cloud of justifications just conceals the truth—there is no real reason. Trump seems to be doing this because he can.
‘Not a Guarantee’
Elsewhere in the press, the operation against Maduro won support from editorial boards that also reserved the right to say, “I told you so.” “Maduro Had to Be Removed,” said the Dallas Morning News editorial board (1/3/26) in its headline, adding in the subhead, “But the US Cannot ‘Run’ Venezuela.”
And the Miami Herald editorial board (1/3/26), which serves a large anti-socialist Latin American population, said that while Maduro out of power was “obviously cause for enormous joy,” this was “not a guarantee for democracy.” “Is Trump’s true interest to see democracy in Venezuela,” it asked, “or to install a new leader who’s more friendly to the US and its interests in the nation’s oil reserves?”
The Chicago Tribune editorial board (1/5/25) heaped paragraphs of praise on the Maduro mission—”we don’t lament Maduro’s exit for a moment”—and scoffed at “left-wing mayors” who “howled in protest at the weekend actions.” But it saw a moral dilemma:
What moral authority does the US now have if, say, China, removes the Taiwanese leadership, deeming it incompatible with Chinese interests? Not much. And this action surely weakens the moral argument against Vladimir Putin, though Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is now hoping Russia’s leader is the next authoritarian Trump takes out.
The New York Times editorial board (12/21/89) said something similar 36 years ago, when the US invaded Panama. While justifying the invasion, it asked, “What kind of precedent does the invasion set for potential Soviet action in Eastern Europe?”
Perhaps rather than worrying that US behavior will encourage some other country to behave lawlessly, US papers could be more concerned about their own country’s lawlessness. By kidnapping a foreign head of state, the Trump administration is saying that international law doesn’t apply to the United States. That’s a sentiment most American editorialists are all too ready to applaud—despite the danger it poses for Americans, and for the world.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Somali-American Day-Care Hysteria Is Latest Attempt To Distract Americans with Hate
It's 2025. No one should have to point out how evil and irrational it is for elected officials to smear an entire race or ethnic group because of the alleged criminals among them.
Jan 07, 2026
It happens almost every year.
An overblown, exaggerated, or manufactured controversy involving people of color, immigrants, Muslims—or all three at once—suddenly consumes America’s political discourse.
Remember the summer of 2010? Every media outlet spent the month of August in a frenzy over a Florida pastor's planned burning of the Quran in Florida and the expansion of Park51, a Muslim community center falsely branded the “Ground Zero mosque."
The flames of that controversy were stoked by fringe anti-Muslim bigots who were then elevated from the dark corners of the internet to cable news shows and weaponized by politicians ahead of the 2010 midterm elections.
When will we stop falling for this?
The hysteria over Park51 paved the way for a series of racially charged moral panics in the following years: the Obama “birther” conspiracy that culminated in 2011, the migrant caravans poised to invade the southern border in 2018, the viral videos that claimed to show Black election workers stealing the 2020 election, the stories about Haitian refugees eating pets in Ohio in 2024.
Since 2025, much of the manufactured outrage has targeted American Muslims. Anti-Muslim conspiracy theories that died out years ago have been resurrected by the usual suspects on social media along with politicians like Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.). Even Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard claimed that Americans Muslims are on the verge of imposing "sharia law" on Paterson, New Jersey, of all places.
Why this renewed obsession with Muslims?
A poll commissioned last year by the Israeli Foreign Ministry found that the best way to restore support for Israel among Western populations upset about the Gaza genocide was to distract those populations with fear of Islam and Muslims.
Hence why the Israeli government and its supporters have been whipping up anti-Muslim hysteria over the past year. They hope to achieve various goals at once: smearing American Muslims who criticize Israel First policies, shoring up Israel’s eroding support among political conservatives, and distracting the broader public from real issues, whether the Epstein files or the billions of US taxpayer dollars being poured into Israel’s war crimes.
Most recently, this campaign of hate against Muslims has taken the form of racist hysteria targeting Somali Americans, driven by a dishonest and largely debunked video circulated by a conservative social media influencer.
It's also important to recognize that the crimes Americans increasingly care about do not involve Somali-American day-care centers.
That influencer has shown up at Somali-run day-care centers and declared some of them fraudulent because they were empty after hours or because the staff refused to allow random men with cameras to come inside and see the children in their care. The consequences have been real and dangerous. Somali-run day-care centers and businesses have received threats. White supremacist copycats have appeared at childcare facilities demanding access to more children. Millions of dollars in federal childcare funding have been suspended, harming innocent families across Minnesota who rely on those services.
When will we stop falling for this?
Every one of these hate-driven campaigns follows the same pattern. A racist or bigot posts something inflammatory that goes viral. Media outlets amplify it. Politicians exploit it. Then, once the story collapses under scrutiny, the arsonists who started the fire walk away without accountability, only to search for the next group to target.
In this case, the Somali day-care hysteria may have crossed a legal line. While law enforcement has investigated and prosecuted legitimate cases of childcare fraud in Minnesota for years, many of the centers smeared in viral videos have never been accused of wrongdoing and are operating lawfully. Branding them as criminals and exposing them to threats could subject these social media influencers turned amateur detectives to lawsuits for defamation.
In the meantime, the rest of us must refuse to play along with this tired, racist scheme.
It's 2025. No one should have to point out how evil and irrational it is for elected officials to smear an entire race or ethnic group because of the alleged criminals among them. During the peak of the fight against the mafia, no president called for the expulsion of all Italian Americans. It would have been just as racist and insane to subject all Jewish American businessmen to extra scrutiny for the crimes of Bernie Madoff.
It's also important to recognize that the crimes Americans increasingly care about do not involve Somali-American day-care centers. Any Somali Americans and others who actually engaged in fraud are already facing investigation, and some were convicted years ago. Meanwhile, the corrupt officials funneling our taxpayer dollars overseas to support Israel's genocide in violation of federal law and the officials hiding documents related to Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes in violation of federal law are all walking free.
That is the real scandal—and the one that deserves our immediate attention.
Keep Reading
Show Less
It Was Trump, Not America: The Criminal Abduction of Venezuela’s President
Nicolás Maduro, regardless of how one views his politics, was the sitting head of state and therefore entitled to full diplomatic immunity under international law. The United States, under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, has no jurisdiction to prosecute foreign heads of state captured through force.
Jan 07, 2026
The world watched in disbelief as US military forces stormed Venezuelan territory in the early hours of 2026 and abducted sitting President Nicolás Maduro. This act was not merely a foreign policy misstep. It was a flagrant violation of international law. And let’s be clear about one thing: this was not the United States acting as a lawful democracy. This was the Trump administration acting unlawfully while mis-using America’s name.
The distinction is of extreme importance.
Venezuela is a sovereign member of the United Nations. To seize its head of state by force—without consent, without UN authorization, without even congressional approval—was an illegal act under virtually every international and constitutional standard. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. No Security Council resolution authorized this action. No imminent threat justified it.
The world responded accordingly. Nations across Latin America, Europe, Asia, and Africa condemned the operation. Spain, Mexico, Brazil, China, Russia, and even the United Nations Secretary-General labeled the act what it was: a violation of international law, a dangerous precedent, a kidnapping.
The Trump administration did not speak for the United States. It acted against it.
And yet, Donald Trump—flanked by civilian “advisors” and media personalities-turned-warmongers—defended it as a “law enforcement action.”
It was nothing of the sort.
This was not about counter-narcotics. This was not about defending American lives. This was about regime change—unilateral, unsanctioned, and unconstitutional. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, among others, correctly described the operation as unauthorized and un-American, pointing out that it bypassed Congress, violated the War Powers Resolution, and risked plunging a nation of 30 million into chaos.
Trump’s motives? Political theater, perhaps. Big Oil interests, likely. But justice? Security? Democracy? Not even close.
Those operating under the Trump administration’s orders—including US Navy units enforcing the unlawful blockade and the special forces executing the raid—must not be cloaked in the authority of the United States of America. These are not actions carried out on behalf of the American people, under lawful authorization or in defense of national interests. They are acting solely in service to Trump’s personal agenda. If their mission must bear a flag, let it be emblazoned not with the Stars and Stripes—but with the “Trump” brand. The Department of Justice, too, must recognize this distinction. It knows the law, and it knows better. The prosecution of Nicolás Maduro—based on an act that violated head-of-state immunity and flouted international norms—must be dismissed.
Let’s look at the law.
Nicolás Maduro, regardless of how one views his politics, was the sitting head of state and therefore entitled to full diplomatic immunity under international law. The United States, under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, has no jurisdiction to prosecute foreign heads of state captured through force. The Trump administration knew this—or should have. But they went ahead anyway.
The Department of Justice should dismiss the indictment against Maduro on precisely these grounds. Legal scholars point out that this isn’t just about a single operation—it’s about the integrity of US law and the global rules-based order. If we allow this precedent to stand, then we normalize lawless invasions and the collapse of international norms that have, for decades, prevented global war.
Let’s also be honest: this isn’t new. The US has a long and ugly history of regime change efforts—Chile, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Honduras, and now Venezuela. But past mistakes cannot justify future crimes. As Professor Jeffrey Sachs told the United Nations Security Council, the difference between a lawful world and an anarchic one lies in our willingness to enforce the rules—especially when our own leaders break them.
That’s why we must say it again, loudly and without hesitation: this was the Trump administration’s crime—not America’s.
To conflate the two is to abandon the Constitution, the rule of law, and every principle that defines the legitimate exercise of American power. Congress was never consulted. The American people never consented. The action was hidden behind vague pretexts and carried out with overwhelming military force. This is not how a constitutional republic behaves. This is how an imperial presidency acts when left unchecked.
The Trump administration did not speak for the United States. It acted against it.
Now, it is up to the American people, lawmakers, and the judiciary to reclaim that distinction—and to ensure accountability for what may be one of the most reckless acts of foreign policy in modern US history.
We ask the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice the following:
(1) Direct the DOJ to dismiss the criminal indictment against President Nicolás Maduro on the basis of head of state immunity and the FSIA; and
(2) Issue a recommendation to the Executive Branch that any future actions involving the use of force or the apprehension of foreign officials be fully consistent with international law and obtain prior congressional approval as mandated by the War Powers Resolution.
Because if we fail to act, then the next crime won’t just be Trump’s—it will be ours.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular