The Trump administration’s military actions in Venezuela risk legal violations, regional instability, and long-term damage to US interests.
The US aggression on Venezuela under the Trump administration is drawing sharp criticism for its lack of legal basis and potentially catastrophic regional consequences, The New York Times editorial board wrote.
NYT’s opinionists wrote that the military attack overnight on Caracas, without congressional approval or international backing, has been condemned as a violation of both the United States and international law. They also added that the move could replicate the failures of previous regime change efforts.
The legality of the operation is in serious question, the NYT writers stated. The United States Constitution requires Congress to authorize any act of war. Yet, US President Donald Trump acted unilaterally, offering no legitimate legal justification.
According to critics, his administration has not invoked the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force or sought any endorsement from Congress, a minimum even past presidents observed.
The opinionists noted that the consequences are not just legal but strategic, adding that acting without oversight increases the risk of military overreach, sets a precedent for other authoritarian powers, and heightens instability in Latin America. The situation in Venezuela has only gotten more fragile as US aggression continued; US intervention could aggravate an already dire humanitarian and political crisis.
Trump’s military actions in Venezuela
In recent months, the Trump administration has deployed a formidable United States military force to the Caribbean, initially claiming to target alleged drug smuggling operations.
This force includes an aircraft carrier, at least seven other warships, dozens of aircraft, and around 15,000 troops.
Trump escalated the operation dramatically on Saturday by abducting Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, describing it as part of “a large-scale strike” against the country.
Historical lessons from regime change
NYT’s opinionists cited historical incidents showing that military-driven regime change rarely leads to stability. The United States spent two decades in Afghanistan without securing lasting peace and left behind a fractured Libya.
The 2003 Iraq invasion remains a cautionary tale of drastic consequences. Similar attempts in Latin America, including in Chile, Cuba, Guatemala, and Nicaragua, have led to long-term instability.
The Trump administration claims it is targeting “narco-terrorists” in the Caribbean, but the NYT writers argued that this rationale lacks credibility.
Venezuela is not a major source of fentanyl or other drugs central to the US overdose crisis, and the cocaine that gangs produce within the nation primarily flows to Europe. Meanwhile, Trump pardoned Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras, who oversaw a vast drug trafficking operation, thus raising questions about Trump’s real intentions.
In some attacks, the NYT’s editorial board states that Trump’s administration’s actions may amount to extrajudicial killings, in violation of international law. One notable case involved a second missile strike launched nearly 40 minutes after the first, killing two sailors who were stranded and appeared defenseless.
Such incidents violate both US law and the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit killing individuals based on suspicion without due process.
The ‘Trump corollary’ and Latin America
The broader strategy appears to be part of a new doctrine. In its National Security Strategy, the NYT writers noted, the Trump administration vowed to revive the Monroe Doctrine and enforce US dominance in Latin America.
This so-called “Trump Corollary” includes redeploying troops to the region, increasing lethal maritime operations, and taking a more militarized stance on migration and trafficking.
Venezuela seems to be the first country subject to what they called “this latter-day imperialism,” a move that not only increases tensions in the hemisphere but may embolden other world powers to use force under similar pretexts. This, according to them, represents a “dangerous and illegal approach to America’s place in the world.”
They highlighted that even with Maduro in custody, power structures in Venezuela remain intact.
NYT’s writers emphasized that the US attack on Venezuela, as executed by the Trump administration, is both illegal and strategically flawed. It threatens to deepen suffering and destabilize the region. In conclusion, they maintained that history has repeatedly shown that the costs of military adventurism far outweigh the short-term gains of regime change.
