Trump’s Venezuela seizure and the dangerous precedents of American intervention
The sudden extraction of Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela and his detention in New York, followed by President Donald Trump’s declaration that the United States would now “run” the country, marks one of the most extraordinary moments in modern international politics. Yet while the spectacle is shocking, it is not unprecedented. On the contrary, this episode fits squarely within a long tradition of American interventionism, failed regime-change strategies, and authoritarian political logic. To understand what is unfolding, it is essential to examine four historical precedents that illuminate the deeper meaning of Trump’s Venezuela operation-beyond the fog of propaganda, nationalism, and performative outrage.
The first and most obvious precedent is the long history of US intervention in Latin America. For more than a century, Washington has operated under an implicit assumption that it possesses a special right to determine who governs the region. From Guatemala in 1954 to Chile in 1973, and from Panama in 1989 to Honduras in 2009, American administrations have repeatedly interfered-covertly and overtly-in the political affairs of sovereign states.
During the Cold War, such interventions were typically justified under the banner of anti-communism. The rhetoric emphasized democracy and freedom, even as the United States supported or installed military juntas, autocrats, and repressive regimes so long as they aligned with US strategic and economic interests. The contradiction between rhetoric and reality was often obscured by the claim that stopping communism was synonymous with defending democracy.
What distinguishes the current intervention in Venezuela is not its novelty, but its bluntness. There is no longer even a pretense that democracy is the guiding principle. Maduro’s theft of the 2024 presidential election is a documented and serious crime against Venezuelan voters. Yet instead of focusing on that reality, the Trump administration has centered its case on charges of “narco-terrorism”-a label that, while politically useful, is far more........
