What the Maduro Arrest Means for America First
On Saturday, the United States’ Delta Force captured the President of Venezuela, Nicholas Maduro, in a daring raid on the Venezuelan capital of Caracas.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily align with those of The American Postliberal.
On Saturday, the United States’ Delta Force captured the President of Venezuela, Nicholas Maduro, in a daring raid on the Venezuelan capital of Caracas. While our servicemen have again shown the world their professionalism and bravery, the fact of the matter is that the cause in which they were deployed was and is not worth one of their lives. But why is this so?
First of all, definitionally, our country is a republic, from the Latin res publica, literally meaning a thing of the public. Our state thus exists for the benefit of our public and people, for Americans first. Any action contrary to that aim is definitionally contrary to the raison d’être of our government and is not worth the lives of our servicemen.
But why is the action in Venezuela contrary to our interests? Let’s first address the stated rationale and what these actions point towards.
The primary stated rationale of our intervention is the role that Venezuela plays in the drug trade, with it being alleged that Venezuela’s government are “narcoterrorists.” Venezuela indeed is a major country through which the cocaine trade travels, and the drug trade has inflicted severe damage to the American people.
However, Venezuela plays almost no role in the production of Fentanyl (which is made in Mexico), the drug which kills the most Americans, and the cocaine bound for the U.S. is generally made in Colombia and transported through Pacific and Central America.
Additionally, were we to prudentially address the drug issue, how would we do so? Take in point the policy that the Trump administration has prudentially taken towards our Southern border and Mexico, with the goal of stopping the drug trade.
President Trump secured our Southern border, closing a major avenue by which drugs would enter the country. Additionally, the Mexican government has wisely moved its national guard from its interior ministry to its defense one, to facilitate its training by the U.S., so that it might better interdict the drug trade.
A similar U.S. mission to train Venezuelan authorities in drug interdiction, or even limited U.S. anti-drug operations in cooperation with Venezuela, would be worthwhile and in the interests of both nations. However, that is not what we witnessed over the weekend. Instead, we witnessed what can only be definitionally described as regime change.
Capturing the leader of another country, and putting him on trial, is, by its nature, an attempt to change the government of that country. Thus, the question becomes, is regime change (even only a slight one elevating more moderate members of Maduro’s government) in our interests?
Maduro, though an unsavory leader in many respects, was one the United States could work with. When Trump assumed office, he wisely engaged in diplomacy with Venezuela, freeing six American detainees, and working towards a broader detente. Even late into last year, Maduro was ready and willing to engage in talks with our government, demonstrating that he is not as intractably anti-American as has been portrayed.
Additionally, it is unclear whether a leader better than Maduro is likely for Venezuela. It must be noted that Venezuela has never really enjoyed the liberty or free government that we in the United States are accustomed to. Our republic was built on the foundations of a millennium of English common law, as well as by a particular people with particular culture, customs, and inheritance.
Venezuela, as a country, is totally historically and culturally alien to us, and lacking these things cannot be expected to develop a government similar to that which works so well for Americans.
Thus, the most likely outcome of regime change in Caracas is the replacement of one deeply unsavory government with another, even if the latter has slightly different window-dressing. This is not a cause in which American blood and treasure should be spent.
Beyond the point, even were Venezuela to magically adopt an American-style government as a result of U.S.-backed regime change, the blood of our neighbors, friends, and brothers should not be cannon fodder for the political liberation of alien peoples. Our taxes are not paid to provide a bottomless piggy-bank for foreigners to pin their political desire on.
The United States exists for Americans–for both ourselves and our prosperity–not as a tool of foreigners. In this sense, to paraphrase Bismarck, the governance of the whole Venezuela is not worth the bones of a single American Delta Force operator.
There are historical rationales under which the U.S. could kinetically intervene in Latin America, most notably the Monroe Doctrine. But it exists to prevent hostile powers from interfering in our hemisphere, not for us to micromanage the politics of the nations who happen to be located near us. If we were concerned about Maduro’s ties to old world powers, we could have worked with him to lessen these ties.
Even in the absence of action from the U.S., things such as Chinese investment in Venezuela have been decreasing, and it is likely that Maduro would have been amenable towards a deal with the U.S. further decreasing it.
Of course, some people will cast criticism of the Venezuelan operation as disloyalty to Trump. However, this criticism is necessary precisely because of what true loyalty requires.
President Trump is the greatest president of my lifetime and is undoubtedly a patriotic and courageous man. He is someone who has suffered greatly at the hands of his enemies, from the lawfare waged against him, to being wounded by a bullet in Butler Pennsylvania, for his desire to put Americans first.
However, intervening in Venezuela on behalf of the liberal international order does not constitute putting America First. Trump’s love for our country and desire to put our people first obligates us, as Americans, to speak up whenever his advisors steer the ship of state away from that goal.
For this reason, we should be unafraid to point out that regime change in Venezuela is fundamentally contrary to the goals of this administration and of President Trump.
If you enjoyed this essay, please consider becoming a patron of our publication! Your enthusiasm and support means a lot to all of us at The American Postliberal — and we promise we’ll work hard for your investment in our project.
China decreased reliance on Venezuelan oil because of U.S. sanctions. This recent action is now the nail in the coffin. China is no longer planning on relying on Venezuela: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinese-refiners-expected-replace-venezuelan-oil-with-iranian-crude-traders-say-2026-01-07/?
This is the Monroe Doctrine in effect. I don’t think you can claim this is automatically an enforcement of the “liberal international order”. That remains to be seen with how we handle the situation as it develops.
Further, I don’t agree that Maduro would have merely “came around” to working with Trump. He was hostile and fine with destroying the Venezuelan economy as long as it meant he could stay in power and remain rich.
I appreciate the concern for the lives of our troops, but this essay's arguments and evidence were wrong or misleading, and I think you are missing the broader point of why the Trump Administration decided to do this.
The mention of res publica is irrelevant to this discussion.
The stated rationale isn't always the primary rationale when it comes to official statements, particularly in the realm of geopolitics.
We used to work with Venezuela in counter-narcotics trafficking prior to Chavez, but we haven't even had official diplomatic relations with Venezuela for many years. They were in an adversarial relationship with the US, which would prevent any sort of successful drug interdiction partnership. This is the whole point--Venezuela was not cooperating.
In fact, Venezuela was going the opposite direction for decades, increasingly strengthening their relationships with China, Iran, and Russia, and even working with and turning a blind eye to Hezbollah operatives. China's investments may have been decreasing in some aspects because of the overall instability and corruption in the country, but they were still buying the majority of Venezuelan oil, and they had signed a major Strategic Partnership agreement. Chinese influence was strong in Venezuela and this was leverage they had over the US. Russia was in a similar position, and had provided security and other diplomatic assistance to Maduro, including their advanced air defense systems which turned out to be completed overmatched by US military power in this operation. Iran had been providing UAV systems and production capabilities to Venezuela, which is enormously significant because they (or their proxies like Hezbollah) or the Venezuelans could then threaten US and other military or commercial shipping in the Caribbean Sea. Just look at what the Houthis did in the Red Sea to evaluate the potential impact of that.
And the evidence provided that Maduro was someone we could work with is weak. He has been someone we couldn't work with from the beginning. The fact that he returned hostages is not evidence of it, as our adversaries wrongfully detain Americans in exchange for something they want all the time. The fact that he said he was "ready and willing to talk" also means nothing. Putin says he is ready to make peace all the time. It's just a tactic. Clearly, if Trump thought Maduro was someone he could work with, he would have worked with him.
As for the regime change, it looks like he actually hasn't changed the regime yet, just Maduro himself, which many liberals are crying about, so that argument does not really hold up--yet. We'll see what ends up happening. Regardless, we don't need Venezuela to be an American style republic--we just need it to stop its aggressive anti-American behavior, reduce its relationships with American adversaries, and work harder to stop the flow of drugs and gang members in to the US.
I think the most significant positive resulting from this event is a re-establishment of American military deterrence. After the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan, Trump's decision to act decisively against Iran's nuclear program and to capture Maduro in extremely impressive military operations that did not lose a single serviceman or aircraft puts our adversaries on notice. Now they have evidence that when Trump says he might do something, he might actually do it. You can argue that these operations may not have been worth it or effective in the long run given their limited nature, but there is no denying that American military prowess is respected again.
So in terms of "America First", the Maduro Arrest means: Trump has taken another direct action towards stopping narco-terrorist gangs from hurting Americans (especially if Venezuela is stabilized after this in a way that stems emigration to the US), he has weakened the influence of our main adversaries in our backyard, he has re-established American military deterrence, he has opened the potential to allow the US to benefit from significant energy and other material resources from the country and deny it to our adversaries, he has preemptively protected vital maritime shipping lanes, he has knocked out a key ally of the marxist axis in Latin America, and he has done this so far without conducting a full Iraq-like invasion to rebuild Venezuelan democracy or even losing a single servicemember. Clearly, this story is not over yet, but the knee jerk reaction that any sort of action abroad is counter to America First is just ridiculous. America First never was isolationist.