The Invasion of Venezuela
By Thomas McNamara - February 1st, 2026
Trump’s Approach: Might Makes Right
Trump’s main objective in invading Venezuela is to demonstrate that this hemisphere is the US sphere of influence, where we can do what we want. His references to Greenland, Cuba, and Colombia as next steps further demonstrate his intentions. It is a pure power move — I want it; I can do it; I will do it. It does not differ greatly from Putin’s motivation for going into Ukraine. With little prior planning for alternative and unexpected outcomes, Trump is also similar to Putin. He has accompanied this power play with crude, insulting language and an unrestrained delight in military combat. This “in your face” attitude predictably elicited negative reactions from Latin American and European friends and allies. Yet, a wise strategy would dictate statements encouraging their support, since many oppose Maduro and support the Venezuelan opposition.
It Departs Dramatically from Post-World War II Norms
Invasions like this one in Venezuela have become rare in the post WWII period. In ordering the invasion, Trump is rejecting the evolution of 125 years of US policy that built international institutions as mediating instruments in the international arena. In 1900, there were none of any consequence. Today, led by the US, there are dozens of institutions that have modified and moderated raw 19th century imperialism, which Trump (like Putin) wishes to revivify. His policies are directly contrary to those that made the USA the world’s most powerful, but not the most feared, nation. Trump is an authoritarian imperialist, like the one the Founding Fathers fought and defeated exactly 250 years ago.
We took the institution-building role in 1900 with hesitations and “felt our way” for decades before we fully understood and accepted the lead in 1950. The institutional approach has been enormously beneficial for the US and for most other nations. But Trump does not believe in win-win. For Trump, all actions are win-lose.
After WWII, those “present at the creation” did not build an “empire.” They envisioned and created an “enterprise” in which all nations – democratic, authoritarian, or dictatorial – could fully or selectively participate. The only requirement is to observe the agreed rules of each institution a nation joins. This is the rules-based order that has worked well for the last 90 years and is far better than the old imperialistic order.
Consequences for Venezuela
Earlier US invasions of Iraq, Grenada, and Panama had differing antecedents. “Operation Just Cause” in 1989-90, came after Panama declared war on the US (“the mouse that roared”) and killed and wounded US soldiers in the streets of Panama City. Grenada was done at the request of its neighbors. Iraq was a major strategic mistake. All were efforts to block dictatorship and support democracy. But those are not Trump’s objectives in Venezuela, although if that happens incidentally, Trump will not oppose it. In the end, Maduro’s departure may be good for Venezuela and the hemisphere, if it leads to democracy. But more likely, it will lead to disorder and bloodshed. Despite Trump’s bravado, the regime has leaders that can replace Maduro. Also, as Russia, China and others intervene, he cannot “run” Venezuela without boots on the ground.
Consequences for the International System
Trump’s rejection of a rules-based order in favor of an imperialistic, non-institutional, power-based order that he believes strengthens US national interests is both wrong and mistaken. Post-World War II international institutions were created to reduce the use of force as an early option for the more powerful nations. Trump, however, considers unilateral force justified as an early option. He has no use for institutions or allies unless they are subservient to his wishes. He would not think of going to the OAS or the UN first, or consulting with Mexico, Colombia, or Brazil before acting.
Trump’s policy adds up to saying that Putin can do as he pleases in Europe; China can do as it pleases in Asia — but not in the Pacific. If other European or other Asian nations push back, let them do it and establish their own spheres of influence. But we will not be involved. We will take care of our “sphere” in the Americas. That is why taking over Greenland does not worry Trump. If it means the end of NATO, so be it. NATO is not in the US sphere of influence.
This is the underlying issue that the American public has not yet grasped. Do we benefit from the rules-based order, or do we wish to restructure it into an imperial balance of power and spheres of influence system? That is THE QUESTION that we as a nation must debate and decide.