In a move that stunned foreign policy observers and sparked global debate, President Donald Trump said the United States is "going to run" Venezuela following the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.
Maduro is expected to face drug and weapons charges in New York.
University of Michigan expert Jonathan Hanson said the unprecedented news raises political questions about legitimacy, democratic transitions, U.S. power abroad, and the consequences for Venezuela and the broader international order.
In general, what was your reaction to the news?
Shock, though maybe it shouldn't have been given the series of airstrikes on boats and the military buildup in the region. To invade another country and capture its president, especially without any prior consultation with Congress, is an audacious act that is inconsistent with international law and with Trump's claimed desire to avoid overseas conflicts and entanglements.
From a political legitimacy standpoint, what does it mean for an external power to claim it will "run" another country during a transition?
Let's keep in mind that the stated justification for this action was to bring Maduro to stand trial on drugs and weapons charges, but the result is U.S.-led regime change and the imposition of control over the country. That U.S. officials will just "run" Venezuela, as Trump stated Saturday, is an imperialist idea, and it's not clear that the administration has any plan for how this would work. Trump was, however, very transparent in describing his aims for U.S. oil companies to make major investments in Venezuelan oil infrastructure and start selling oil. It seems like he's saying the quiet part out loud when it comes to motivations for this action.
What precedent does this set for political norms in Latin America, a region with a long history of U.S. intervention? Could this revive old patterns of distrust or reshape regional alliances and political movements?
The United States does have a long history of interventionism in Latin America. On Saturday, Trump explicitly referenced the Monroe Doctrine and reasserted his belief in American dominance of the Western Hemisphere. His comments will resonate throughout the region, such as his statement that he wants to surround America with "good neighbors." He referred explicitly to Cuba as being "something we will talk about," said that the Colombian president "needs to watch his ass," and also said that "something is gonna have to be done with Mexico." Earlier this year, the administration started a trade war with Brazil over the prosecution of former President Bolsonaro, a Trump ally, for leading a coup attempt. Relations within the hemisphere are likely to be much more antagonistic going forward.
Does this put U.S. rivals on notice?
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that these actions were a "message to the world." Rivals, especially those too weak to respond, surely will take notice that the administration feels unconstrained in its use of military power. At the same time, vigorous assertion of the right to intervene militarily throughout our region makes it harder to take the position that countries like Russia and China have no right to do the same. Leaders in Ukraine, the Baltics and Taiwan surely cannot be too happy about this kind of hegemonic thinking coming from U.S. leaders, though it's already been clear that Putin has Trump's ear when it comes to Ukraine.
