Courtesy | Unsplash
Assistant Professor of History Miles Smith’s recent Opinions article (“Reject brazen interventionism,” Jan. 22) helpfully warns against the perils of toppling foreign governments. However, the article fails to address the most important justification for the Venezuela operation: self-defense. President Donald Trump’s decision to remove Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro is entirely consistent with both his 2016 platform and the foreign policy of the Founders.
To set the record straight, Trump has never campaigned for strict “non-interventionism.” He famously remarked during the 2016 campaign that he would “bomb the shit” out of ISIS and that “you have to take out their families.” Since 2011, Trump has repeatedly stated that Iran must be stopped from developing a nuclear weapon “by any and all means necessary.”
What Trump has consistently opposed is not “interventionism” as such, but rather, entanglements in faraway places like Iraq and Afghanistan that lack a clear goal, drag on for years, and waste American lives and resources. Around 7,000 servicemen and 8,000 military contractors died in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s estimated that around $1.6 trillion in direct congressional appropriations went toward the conflict, with the total cost reaching around $8 trillion.
The capture of Maduro was a precise mission that accomplished a limited, achievable objective with no loss of American life, demonstrating American hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. The muscular foreign policy on display during Trump’s second term is not a repudiation of his original platform.
The Founders’ foreign policy principles are easy to state, though sometimes difficult to put into practice. In short, sovereign states are obligated by the law of nations to treat one another as equals whenever possible. Consequently, the Founders’ foreign policy prohibits nation-building, but permits aggressive actions whenever foreign powers threaten the safety and happiness of the American people.
This includes countries so badly governed that they constitute a threat to our national defense. For example, James Monroe justified Andrew Jackson’s 1818 invasion of Florida on the basis of Spain’s inability to govern its territory, thus allowing it to become a base for piracy and hostile Indian raids. A similar situation existed in Venezuela. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio clearly stated on several occasions, Maduro actively facilitated a steady flow of deadly narcotics into the U.S. that has caused the deaths of many thousands of American citizens. Furthermore, his regime’s disastrous domestic policies created the second-largest population displacement in modern history (behind Syria). Over the last decade, nearly 20% of Venezuelans left their country, including large numbers of violent criminals whom Maduro intentionally released from prison.
Smith himself has acknowledged Maduro’s responsibility for facilitating mass migration, posting on X in January 2025 that “if Trump really wants to play warlord and invade somewhere that would 1) help democracy and 2) mitigate the immigration crisis, Venezuela would be a good option.” I agree.
Far from causing chaos or betraying his voters, Trump’s decision to remove Maduro from power is yet another example of him keeping his promise to “Make America Safe Again.” The Venezuela operation does not herald another Iraq or the establishment of a Trumpian “neo-mercantilist” empire. Rather, it was an act of self-defense entirely consistent with his campaign platform and the principles that shaped our nation’s early foreign policy.
Joshua T. Waechter is a Ph.D. candidate at the Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship.
