On the morning of January 3rd, my day started off on my phone, as it does just about every day. It wasn’t long after I popped in my contacts that I saw a notification on Apple News that made me do a double-take. Overnight, the United States military had invaded another sovereign nation and kidnapped its president. As someone deeply interested in political affairs, the images of the explosions in the dead of night in Caracas, and of President Nicolas Maduro handcuffed and restrained in the seat of an airplane, shocked me to my core. What resonated with me most was the chilling thought of the United States having to answer the question: “What next?”
At 10:46pm, President Donald J. Trump gave the final clearance for the strikes from his residence in Mar-a-Lago. Operation, “Absolute Resolve” was hereby underway. The operation was delayed four days due to adverse weather conditions. Just imagine how grueling those four days must have felt for the President and his advisors in the Pentagon: like spending 10 hours rehearsing a class presentation worth 50% of your grade the day before it is due, and then being granted a four-day extension just when you finally felt ready.
Although the stakes were just a little higher for the President, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and their respective advisors, the President commissioned the Delta Force, courtesy of the Army’s 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment. According to AP News, a massive blanket of air support was provided through “F-22s, F-35s, F/A-18s, EA-18G Growlers, E-2 Hawkeyes and B-1 bombers.” More than 12 air defense sites throughout Venezuela were struck beforehand in order to pave the way for the operation to run smoothly. Here is when the potential liabilities of the operation began to show out in unprecedented fashion – American boots were put on Venezuelan soil. Members of the elite U.S. Delta Force stormed Miraflores Palace, the residence of Nicolas Maduro. AP News also reported that Maduro and his wife were awoken in the middle of the night and apprehended while running towards the door of their safe room. The Delta Force transported President Maduro and his wife to the USS Iwo Jima, a ship stationed off the Venezuelan coast, where he was initially detained before being flown to Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. From there, via an FBI aircraft, he was transported to Stewart Air National Guard Base in New York. Maduro was then transported to the DEA processing facility in Manhattan and finally imprisoned at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York.
On the surface it may be hard to argue that this move was not done in the best interests of the United States. President Trump was able to take down a hostile face in the region, a convicted narcotrafficker and brutal dictator… But the notion of morality and acting with prudence ties in new complexity to this argument.
For anybody, this was a lot to unpack. However, the main questions on campus surrounding the events revolved around the idea of how President Donald Trump and his associates in the Pentagon could possibly justify the invasion in a legal sense. The truth is, their decision was made in the murky waters of international law. Maduro faced federal indictments dating all the way back to 2020, charged with narco-terrorism conspiracy, conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States and several illegal use of weapons offenses. The Southern District of New York Federal Court believes that there is credible evidence to allege that Maduro colluded with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia to transport cocaine into the United States. On these charges, a 2020 warrant was subsequently placed for Maduro’s arrest. The Trump Administration, seeking to execute the warrant, believing that Venezuelan authorities were unable to do so, carried out the warrant itself. The President also reportedly acted under the guise that his actions would make more Americans feel secure from the global threats of narco-terrorism. To the average student at WashU, these proposed benefits may have felt far-fetched and intangible. But for some, they served as a reinforcement of American Exceptionalism. Several TikTok content creators became excited about the rumors that the Delta Force of the U.S. Army blasted the unapologetic, legendary song “Love Sosa” by Chief Keef. It was one of the few days that reactions to a public event had so many people both proud and ashamed to be Americans.
But no matter how you felt the morning of January 3rd, the question that naturally came to everyone’s mind was, ‘What’s next?’ Who was going to run Venezuela? If the United States were to, who would be in charge? What would the fate of Nicolas Maduro be? And to no one’s surprise, the conversation immediately shifted to the dollar bills. What exactly would the economic consequences be? But more importantly, investors, politicians and industry representatives immediately sought to explore economic opportunities for industries in the United States that could be derived from the current geopolitical state of Venezuela. Previously, Venezuela was regarded as a truly dying economy. The GDP had contracted 80% in a period of only 10 years. Venezuela suffered one of the largest mass exoduses in the history of the Western hemisphere. Over 7.3 million Venezuelans left and dispersed around the world, creating a vast and unique diaspora, but also leaving Venezuela to suffer massive brain drain. The exodus crippled key economic sectors such as oil, healthcare and education, stalling capacity for future economic development. The Venezuelan bolívar became practically worthless – hyperinflation was up 1,698,488% in 2018, as per the International Monetary Fund. Interestingly, despite all this economic turmoil imposed by Maduro, Venezuela’s oil reserves stayed intact. The nation holds the largest supply of oil reserves on the entire planet – a whopping 303.8 billion barrels. But the economic downturn induced by Maduro and U.S. sanctions created a situation where the oil reserves sat idle. With the regime change, President Trump has announced that he will pave the way for United States oil companies to return and make use of the resources, sparking debate about the economic and ethical impacts of his decision. It will be interesting to see how these conversations play out on the national stage in the coming months.
What was even more fascinating to me was to see how the whole situation brought out different perceptions of the word fascist. It is almost undeniable to say that President Maduro had several aspects of his leadership that could be classified as fascism, but to some people in the US, Donald Trump is a fascist himself. According to a national survey conducted prior to the 2024 election by ABC News, 49% of respondents viewed Donald Trump as a fascist, with the term defined as “a political extremist who seeks to act as a dictator, disregards individual rights and threatens or uses force against their opponents.”
What was even more fascinating to me was to see how the whole situation brought out different perceptions of the word fascist.
We must not ignore how this turn of events was received by the Venezuelan community, who, in my opinion, were largely overlooked by officials during this turn of events. Mixed reactions were recorded across the world, but it seemed for the most part that the majority of Venezuelans were absolutely thrilled. At a celebration in Maryland, award-winning Venezuelan pianist and human rights advocate Gabriela Montero said, “This is not a matter of the U.S. coming in and taking our riches and taking our resources. This is about removing from office a group, and in this case, right now, the usurper president, and allowing, in this next phase, a space for a transition which will finally lead the road to our freedom.” (Maryland Matters) Images of Venezuelans in Carácas crying tears of joy spread around social media. Did these images nullify the voices of those in the United States who had criticized the operation? Maybe not — but it sure did validate the beliefs of those who had supported it.
The most grim part of the story was that this operation was not done without casualties. An estimated 40 people lost their lives, including Venezuelan military personnel, Cuban nationals and civilians in strike zones. It begs the question again: Is doing what is right for the United States necessarily synonymous with what is morally right? The question seems to come up more and more as our country undergoes rapid and unprecedented changes in policy and approach. On the surface it may be hard to argue that this move was not done in the best interests of the United States. President Trump was able to take down a hostile face in the region, a convicted narcotrafficker and brutal dictator. The United States flexed their military might in the region, and gained access to a potential economic powerhouse, giving American corporations access to invaluable oil refineries. But the notion of morality and acting with prudence ties in new complexity to this argument. Critics fear that Trump’s move may set a dangerous global precedent for governments worldwide to take action on states that they perceive as hostile. Others worry about the human toll from the operation and the future it leaves for Venezuela.
It begs the question again: Is doing what is right for the United States necessarily synonymous with what is morally right?
As this situation develops, American values in foreign policy will be put to the ultimate test. The fine line between setting peaceful global precedents/respecting international diplomacy and expanding avenues of economic growth will blur as the situation develops.
Aarav Vaidya ‘28 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at a.a.vaidya@wustl.edu.