Initial thoughts on the seizure and removal of Maduro
First, this was a brilliantly conceived and executed military operation.
Second, it almost certainly violates international law, but frankly I don’t care about that.
Third, there’s a good chance it violates U.S. law. If it does, I care about that.
Fourth, the best instant analysis I’ve seen so far about the legality of the U.S. operation in Venezuela is by Jack Goldsmith. He points out that “the legal framework for analysis, especially under domestic law, is contested.” He finds support for the Venezuela operation as an attempt to enforce U.S. narcotics law from previous presidential action (especially the 1989 removal of Noriega) and in a 1989 opinion by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal counsel. However, as Goldsmith seems to acknowledge, this precedent is not dispositive of the legal question. The executive branch is not empowered by the Constitution to make law or authoritatively to ratify as lawful actions by the chief executive.
Fifth, although, as Goldsmith shows, the administration appears to be relying on law enforcement against a drug felon as legal justification for its action, and although this justification should stand or fall on its merit, it’s worth pointing out that it’s almost certainly a pretext. By pardoning a head of state convicted in a U.S. court of drug felonies, President Trump showed that he is okay with foreign leaders who facilitate the importation of dangerous drugs to America -- as long as Trump likes the foreign leader in question.
Sixth, if enforcing U.S. drug laws is a pretext, what was the real reason for seizing and removing Maduro? Oil is one possible answer. Venezuela now produces almost a million barrels a day and, according to Elliott Abrams, most experts think that number could be increased by up to 500,000 barrels this year if sanctions are lifted and U.S. companies help. Control of, or access to, that amount of oil is tempting.
Seventh, another possible reason for the operation in Venezuela is strategic. Erick Erickson reminds us that Maduro used oil revenue to help fund Cuba and Iran. He also provided China with oil. And under his regime, Russia and China arguably had an important foothold in the Western Hemisphere.
Eighth, it’s ironic that a core tenet of the MAGA movement has been that the U.S. shouldn’t use military force -- put our people in harm's way -- to effectuate regime change. Of course, there has always been an exception for cases where a regime poses a serious national security threat to the U.S. I doubt that Venezuela posed such a threat, but if Trump really thinks it did, it’s understandable that he acted. But I wonder whether oil was the deciding factor.
Ninth, one possible reason for the Venezuela operation we can probably rule out as a motive is the desire to help Venezuelans and to facilitate democracy there. These may be consequences of our action, but I don’t think they contributed to Trump’s decision. Indeed, it appears that Trump doesn’t want María Corina Machado, the real winner of the most recent Venezuelan election, installed as president. According to Trump, she doesn’t have the respect needed to run her country. The election showed that Venezuelans disagree.
Tenth, as can be seen from the above discussions, there are a number of reasonable policy justifications for removing Maduro. I don’t know whether they make a compelling case, but I think they make a sufficient one. Accordingly, if the removal operation is legal under U.S. domestic law, I support it. However, there is plenty of room for doubt that the operation was legal.
A couple of comments and quibbles:
1. The winner of the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election was Edmundo Gonzalez, who ran in Maria Corina Machado's stead after she was kicked off the ballot.
2. Might not another motive for deposing Maduro have been to sweep away any argument for continuing Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans? Once their country has a legitimate government, they will have no grounds for claiming refugee status (though I suppose that some Democratic judge will declare that Tren de Aragua members face persecution if they return home).
3. It won't surprise me if the horde of white shoe lawyers who will show up to defend Mr. and Mrs. Maduro pro bono find a judge to grant them habeas corpus. Perhaps the Administration's best response, after a democratic government is installed, would be to extradite the Maduros to Caracas, where they would undoubtedly meet justice at the hands of the people whom they have most directly wronged.
I agree there are questions about the legality of it. But given actions taken by Democratic administrations specifically Obama's protracted attack on Libya with the express purposes of overthrowing a dictator who posed no strategic threat to the U.S., done entirely without Congressional approval, I certainly dont intend to listen to any Democrats on this. In any event if a potentially illegal action is taken I prefer that it be lightning quick and serve American strategic purposes. Having a large and high oil producing South American country have a brutal Marxist dictatorship openly aligned with the Mullahs and Putin is definitely a national security threat and given Maduro's basic illegitimacy, this alone would justify what was done. And there clearly was no opportunity to get Congressional approval and given the current state of things, no possibility a Congressional committee could be trusted to keep the plan secret if told in advance. All of this is by way of saying I support the action but as always deployed Trump's horrible big mouth. I believe the opposition WILL get control of Venezuela and it likely will be Muchado or someone she is closely aligned with and Trump will have no problem with that. But as always he opened a can of worms and fed amo to those who hate him and us.