The Venezuelan Intervention: A Betrayal of American Principles and the Rule of Law
Published
- 3 min read
Introduction: A Shocking Military Escalation
In a stunning development that has sent shockwaves through the international community, elite U.S. military forces captured former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife in Caracas over the weekend. The operation, conducted without congressional consultation or declaration of war, represents one of the most significant unilateral military interventions in recent American history. Maduro now faces drug trafficking charges in New York while the Trump administration asserts control over Venezuela’s government and oil industry, claiming “the United States will be running the country.” This bold assertion of power, justified through White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller’s disturbing philosophy that the world is “governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power,” marks a dangerous departure from democratic norms and constitutional principles.
The Facts: Military Action Without Authorization
The operation unfolded with military precision but democratic deficiency. According to reports, U.S. forces captured Maduro on Saturday, leading to his not guilty plea Monday on cocaine trafficking charges. What distinguishes this action from typical law enforcement operations is the administration’s subsequent claims of control over Venezuela’s sovereignty. Miller’s interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper revealed the administration’s true intentions: a de facto military takeover justified through raw power rather than legal authority. Meanwhile, Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez was sworn in as interim president, creating a contested political landscape that the U.S. now claims to control.
The administration’s actions have drawn immediate criticism from Nevada’s Democratic congressional delegates, who note the stark contradiction between Trump’s campaign promises and current actions. In 2016, Trump condemned “nation-building and regime change” as “a proven, absolute failure,” yet his administration now engages in precisely these policies. The intervention also highlights troubling inconsistencies in the administration’s approach to international justice, particularly given Trump’s pardon of former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who was convicted on similar drug trafficking charges.
Congressional Response: Bipartisan Concerns Ignored
The article reveals a striking divide in political responses. Nevada’s sole Republican congressman, Mark Amodei, remained conspicuously silent, while Democratic representatives voiced profound concerns about constitutional violations and precedent-setting dangers. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto acknowledged Maduro’s brutality but warned that “using American service members to overthrow a foreign leader it has criminally indicted under U.S. law sets a dangerous precedent.” Her colleague, Senator Jacky Rosen, emphasized that only Congress has the power to declare war, calling the operation “illegal” and warning it risks “destabilizing the region, dragging us into additional military conflicts.”
Representative Dina Titus, drawing on her expertise as a former political science professor, contextualized this intervention within America’s troubled history of Latin American regime change, noting that such actions have consistently damaged regional relationships and increased violence. Representative Susie Lee echoed these concerns, stating that taking control of Venezuela constitutes “an act of war, not a law-enforcement activity, and requires Congressional authorization.” These substantive objections contrast sharply with the praise from Republican challengers, who largely applaud Trump’s “decisive leadership” without addressing the constitutional implications.
The Dangerous Precedent: Power Over Principles
This intervention represents nothing less than an abandonment of America’s founding principles and a embrace of might-makes-right authoritarianism. The administration’s justification, as articulated by Stephen Miller, openly rejects international law and democratic norms in favor of raw power. This philosophy is antithetical to everything this nation stands for—a dangerous ideology that corrupts our moral authority and undermines global stability.
The constitutional violations here are profound and multiple. The War Powers Resolution clearly requires congressional authorization for sustained military engagements, yet the administration acts unilaterally. The assertion that the U.S. will “run” Venezuela’s government and economy constitutes an unprecedented claim of imperial authority that has no basis in American law or tradition. When our government acts outside its constitutional boundaries, it ceases to be a democratic government and becomes something more resembling the authoritarian regimes it claims to oppose.
The Hypocrisy of Selective Justice
The administration’s approach to international justice reveals troubling inconsistencies that undermine its moral standing. While prosecuting Maduro for drug trafficking, Trump pardoned former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez for identical charges. This selective application of justice suggests that the administration’s motives have less to do with combating drug trafficking than with advancing political and economic interests, particularly control over Venezuela’s substantial oil resources. As Representative Titus correctly noted, the action “is clearly based largely on the desire to take over Venezuela’s oil,” making this intervention appear more like economic imperialism than principled policy.
This hypocrisy doesn’t just damage our credibility—it actively empowers America’s adversaries. When China considers invading Taiwan or Russia continues its aggression in Ukraine, they can now point to America’s Venezuelan intervention as justification. Titus’s warning that this action “opens the door for Xi Jinping to do the same in Taiwan and lends legitimacy to Vladimir Putin’s goals in Ukraine” is precisely correct. By abandoning our principles, we sacrifice our ability to critique authoritarian actions elsewhere.
The Human Cost and Democratic Erosion
Beyond the immediate geopolitical implications, this intervention threatens profound human costs. History shows that regime change operations rarely produce stability or freedom—instead, they often lead to prolonged conflict, humanitarian crises, and increased authoritarianism. The administration’s vague plans for Venezuela’s future, coupled with its assertion of control, suggest a prolonged occupation that could drain American resources while harming Venezuelan citizens.
Domestically, this action represents another erosion of congressional authority and democratic accountability. The framers of the Constitution deliberately placed war powers with Congress to prevent exactly this kind of unilateral executive action. Each time a president bypasses this system, they weaken our democratic foundations. The administration’s refusal to provide details or seek authorization demonstrates contempt for constitutional processes that protect against authoritarian overreach.
Conclusion: Reclaiming American Principles
This Venezuelan intervention represents a pivotal moment in American foreign policy—one where we must choose between power and principle. The administration’s actions, while dressed in the language of combating drug trafficking and opposing tyranny, in practice constitute an abandonment of the very democratic values that make America worth defending. The silence from most Republican officials, contrasted with the thoughtful concerns raised by Democratic representatives, suggests troubling partisan divisions over fundamental constitutional principles.
As citizens committed to democracy and liberty, we must demand better. We must insist that our government operate within constitutional boundaries, respect international law, and uphold the democratic principles that distinguish us from authoritarian regimes. The path of unilateral military intervention and regime change has consistently failed—in Vietnam, in Iraq, and now potentially in Venezuela. It’s time to return to a foreign policy based on cooperation, diplomacy, and respect for sovereignty, not brute force and economic exploitation.
The capture of Nicolas Maduro may provide temporary satisfaction to those who oppose his regime, but the means used to achieve this end threaten to corrupt America’s soul. True strength lies not in military power alone, but in moral consistency, legal integrity, and democratic accountability. If we abandon these principles in pursuit of short-term victories, we may find that in defeating foreign adversaries, we have destroyed what made America worth defending in the first place.