Questions about America’s Motives and InterestsIn the early hours of January 2, the United States did something extraordinarily dangerous. Was it in our country’s national interest? Time will tell.
A foreign head of state—Nicolás Maduro—was seized, removed from his country, and transported to New York to face criminal charges. Shortly thereafter, President Trump took credit for the operation and publicly suggested the United States would “run” Venezuela for a time. He also announced some form of “takeover” of the country’s vast oil resources.
The official justification?
Drugs. Narco-terrorism. Criminal prosecution.
But that explanation raises more questions than it answers. If this were truly about drugs, we are left with an obvious question:
Why Venezuela—and why now?
The United States has, for years, accused the Maduro regime of corruption and drug trafficking. These allegations are nothing new.
Yet, over the years, they’ve never prompted this level of action.
The constant—what has always been the constant—is Venezuela’s oil.
Venezuela sits atop one of the largest proven oil reserves on the planet. For decades, access to—or exclusion from—that resource has shaped foreign policy, sanctions, and diplomatic pressure. When Venezuela aligned itself more closely with U.S. adversaries, its oil became not just an economic issue, but a strategic one.
Do these drug indictments simply provide legal cover for a takeover of the oil? A smokescreen to disguise our true motive, Oil?
This is not a novel pairing in American foreign policy. Criminal charges are tidy. Resource control is powerful. Together, they allow Trump to frame an intervention as law enforcement while pursuing geopolitical leverage.
The administration’s moral framing collapses under even modest scrutiny. If brutality, repression, or corruption were sufficient grounds for unilateral seizure of foreign leaders, then the United States would be confronting dozens of regimes around the globe—some of them allies.
But it doesn’t. Why?
Because dictatorial power or cruelty alone have never been the standards. Alignment, resources, and usefulness are. And while Venezuela fails the alignment test, it passes the resource test with flying colors.
That is the major difference.
To understand these actions, you must understand the man behind them.
Donald Trump is a narcissist. He likes to:
We’ve seen this pattern repeatedly:
This is not deliberative governance. It is ego-centric power. Viewed through this lens, Venezuela is a perfect fit.
A country that must be “run.”
An oil industry that needs to be “reshaped.”
A global audience that needs to be reminded who’s in charge.
And—crucially—a political moment for a narcissist to flex his muscles and project strength and power regardless of consensus, constitutional authority, or future consequences.
The power to seize foreign leaders, occupy territory, or assume control of another nation’s assets does not belong to the president alone, at least, not according to the Constitution.
These actions, like many others Trump has taken, were apparently made without congressional authority. Congress was informed after the fact. There was:
No declaration of war.
No authorization for use of military force tailored to regime removal.
No clear statutory authority to “run” a sovereign nation or “take over” its oil industry.
If that authority exists, the administration has not clearly articulated it.
And silence matters.
And what about international consequences?
Unilateral seizure of a head of state—outside of a declared war or UN mandate—does not reinforce a rules-based global order. It weakens it.
If the United States claims the right to do this, can’t others claim the same right? Haven’t we been supporting Ukraine for several years because a dictator from a foreign country crossed Ukraine’s border and tried to seize property?
Is there a real difference between these two acts?
I’m not defending Nicolás Maduro or excusing repression and corruption. But I am questioning motive:
Has the United States crossed a line—not for justice, but for power, optics, and oil?
Does this action reflect our national interest—or one man’s belief that strength is something you take, name, and control?
History suggests that when leaders confuse toughness with righteousness, the consequences are rarely confined to one country. Do you believe Trump considered the global consequences of his actions?
Nah.
Mark M. Bello is an attorney and award-winning author of the Zachary Blake Legal Thriller Series, ripped-from-the-headlines, realistic fiction that speaks truth to power and champions the rights of citizens in our justice system. These novels are dedicated to the social justice movement. They educate, spark discussion, and inspire readers to action. One of these novels, Betrayal High, was written in response to school shootings. For more information, please visit www.markmbello.com.
