No to Wars of Conquest in Venezuela and Beyond

President Donald Trump’s military attack in Venezuela not only risks entangling the United States in a new costly war but also opens the door to a world in which interstate wars of economic conquest and expansion are common practice. In the wake of the attack, Trump previewed such as he threatened military action against Greenland, Colombia, Cuba, and even Mexico. Continuing down this path will lead to a more violent global environment and surely put Americans at greater risk – especially in an increasingly multi-polar world with unconstrained nuclear weapons. If we want to avoid that future, we must come together now, raise our collective voices, and say no to these new wars of imperial conquest. 

Trump has launched an illegal military action to kidnap Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro and has asserted that the U.S. will now “run” the country.  The intervention is supposedly a response to narco-terrorism, yet there is little indication that Maduro’s arrest will slow narcotics trafficking. Indeed, as many have pointed out, only a small amount of the most dangerous illicit drugs entering in the United States originate in or transit Venezuela. The primary purpose of this move, stated boldly in imperialist terms, is to gain access to Venezuela’s oil. Trump has ordered Venezuelan authorities to cut oil trade with Russia, China and Cuba and is seeking indefinite U.S. control over Venezuelan energy resources. 

Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are exerting control of Venezuelan affairs with diplomatic pressures and a total embargo on oil exports, but they are prepared to use military force again if necessary. Trump made it explicit. “We are not afraid of boots on the ground if we have to.” 

Trump’s military attack in Venezuela violates the U.S. Constitution and is contrary to U.S. laws that require congressional consultation and impose limits on the use of force abroad. It is also a clear violation of the UN Charter and is contrary to core principles of international law and international humanitarian law. As Michael Hirsh explains in Foreign Policy, the attack sets a dangerous precedent that could provide a green light for other powerful countries to engage in wars of conquest and aggression. The attack – and Trump’s subsequent threats to attack more countries – threatens to accelerate the unraveling of international norms established to keep the peace after two world wars.  

The U.S. public reaction to the overthrow of Maduro so far is mixed. Few lament the removal of a repressive dictator, but many question Trump’s blatant disregard for the law and the lack of congressional oversight  An initial Washington Post poll found respondents evenly split on approving or disapproving the military capture of Maduro, 63% agreeing that the operation should have congressional approval, and 94% agreeing that the Venezuelan people should choose their own future leaders. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found 33% in favor of the operation and 72% concerned about the U.S. becoming too heavily involved in Venezuela. 

Many Venezuelan exiles have applauded Trump’s military action, understandably. They have suffered from tyranny, corruption, and economic collapse, and are hoping that Maduro’s removal will bring national renewal. It is right to acknowledge and support the democratic aspirations of the Venezuelan people. It would be naïve, however, to believe that the Trump administration is actively interested in supporting democratic rights in Venezuela. While the U.S. supported Venezuelan democracy activist Maria Corina Machado for the Nobel Peace Prize and backed the campaign of her party’s presidential nominee, Edmundo González, in last year’s stolen election, Trump has dismissed opposition leaders as “lacking respect” within Venezuela. 

Trump’s interest is oil, not democratic freedom. He seeks to give American energy companies control over Venezuela’s oil production. It’s about the money. 

For the moment the administration has indicated its willingness to work with Venezuelan Vice President, now acting President, Delcy Rodriguez. The structures of the country’s government and armed forces remain in place. Whether and how Venezuelan officials will do Trump’s bidding remains uncertain. A lot of things could go wrong in this scenario. There are many cautionary lessons from past U.S. attempts to stabilize countries following military invasions, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya, but it is doubtful the Trump team cares about such.

In this moment, as envisioned by the country’s founders, Congress’ role is critical. Lawmakers must exercise their constitutional war power to ensure the United States does not use force rashly without weighing the significant potential consequences for the American public in the short- and long-term. Congress has the power of the purse to halt funding for any further use of force in, over or off the shores of Venezuela, and also to prevent threatened military action against other countries. Legislative debate and votes on these issues are underway in Washington. Grassroots activists and concerned citizens can make a difference by raising their voices and demanding that legislators (and candidates for the 2026 elections) support prohibitions on further military action in Venezuela and beyond. 

We need a new American peace movement that can counter the march toward militarism at home and abroad, as we recently wrote in Waging Nonviolence. This includes developing a renewed, winning message about how the United States benefits from a rules-based international system, engaging in multilateralism, and investing in mechanisms to mitigate crises and resolve conflicts peacefully. Surely, some rules and mechanisms need updating and restructuring to meet the needs of a changing world. The U.N. system is imperfect, but could be modernized and strengthened with the support of member states.

Indeed, active engagement by the U.N. and other multilateral bodies, including the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, will be important to support any planned transitions and foster a peaceful future in Venezuela. If new elections are planned for Venezuela in the future, they should be structured and monitored by independent observers. Strong international engagement can help Venezuela enact critical reforms, including steps to address elements of the security sector truly involved in criminal activity. Mitigating the interference of competing external forces can also reduce the risk of a civil war scenario.

The American people do not want more wars of choice or conquest. Trump was elected on a promise to end wars, not to engage in aggressive action against other countries. The U.S. attempt to take control of Venezuela threatens to repeat some of the worst moral and strategic failures of past U.S. military adventurism, for which the American people and communities around the world have paid enormous costs. By coming together and emphatically rejecting this path, we can stop this dangerous trajectory. And importantly, we can begin to chart an alternative path for global peace and security.

David Cortright is a visiting scholar at Cornell University’s Reppy Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies and professor emeritus at Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies. Peter J. Quaranto is a visiting professor of the practice and global policy fellow at the University of Notre Dame’s Keough School of Global Affairs, and served previously in senior roles at the State Department’s Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations.

---