The U.S. military operation in Venezuela and on Jan. 3, 2026, topped off months of military buildup and . It fulfills President Donald Trump’s claim to assert authoritative control over the Western Hemisphere, articulated in his administration’s 2025 .
Some national security experts say U.S. military action in Venezuela – taken without U.S. congressional approval or U.N. Security Council authorization – . It may and .
The Venezuela attack represents the clearest example during Trump’s second presidency of the shift from traditional American values of to an America exerting unilateral power based purely on perceived economic interests and military might. Autocratic leaders are unconstrained by law and balance of power, using force to impose their will on others.
So, what does this transition from a liberal America in the world to an autocratic U.S. look like? After decades of working internationally on , I see three interrelated areas of long-standing U.S. foreign policy engagement being unraveled.
1. Peace and conflict prevention
The Trump administration’s actions in Venezuela reflect its “” approach to international relations, which emphasizes military power. The actions also follow the emphasis the administration places on as a deterrent to war and a cudgel for peace.
This approach contrasts with decades of diplomatic efforts to build peace processes that last.
Foreign policy experts point out that in its conduct of foreign relations, focused on bargaining between positions, misses the point of peacemaking, which is to address underlying interests shared by parties and build the trust required to tackle the drivers of conflict.
Trump’s focus on deal-making also counters the world’s traditional reliance on the U.S. as an honest broker and a reliable economic partner that supports free trade. Trump made it clear is a key rationale for the Venezuela attack.
Before Venezuela, the limits of the Trump administration’s approach were already showing in the global conflicts Trump claims to have halted. That’s evident in between Thailand and Cambodia and in in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Moreover, U.S. expertise and resources for sustainable peacemaking and preventing conflict are gone.
The entire Bureau of Conflict Stabilization Operations in the was dismantled in May 2025, while and key peace programs like was cut.
Trump’s unilateral military action against Venezuela belie an authentic commitment to sustainable peace.
While it’s too soon to predict Venezuela’s future under U.S. control, the Trump administration’s approach is likely to in 2026, as major powers begin to understand the new game.
2. Democracy and human rights
Since the 1980s, have incorporated aspects of democracy promotion and human rights as U.S. values.
Trump has not highlighted human rights and democracy as rationales for capturing Maduro. And, so far, the administration has rejected claims to the Venezuelan leadership by and Edmundo González, widely considered the legitimate winner of the 2024 presidential election.
Much of the U.S. foreign policy to build democracy globally and promote human rights was delivered through foreign assistance, . The Trump administration cut that by in 2025.
These , supporting civil societies and free media globally. They were also meant to help enable independent and corruption-free judiciaries in many countries, including Venezuela.
Since 1998, for example, the U.S. has funded 85% of the annual $10 million budget of the . The fund, now imperiled, helps survivors recover from torture in the U.S. and around the world.
The congressionally mandated annual signaled the Trump administration’s intent to .
However, the White House has used tariffs, sanctions and military strikes to punish countries on purported human rights-related grounds, such as in . Equally concerning to democracy defenders is its rhetoric and apparent willingness to elevate political parties in Europe that reject human rights.
3. International cooperation
A major aim of U.S. foreign policy has traditionally been to counter threats to America’s security that require cooperation with other governments.
But the Trump administration is ignoring or denying many . They include terrorism, nuclear proliferation, pandemics, new technologies and climate change.
Moreover, the tools that America helped build to tackle shared global threats, like and such as the United Nations, have been disparaged and undermined.
Even before the U.S. attack on Venezuela, scholars were warning of , embedded in the U.N. Charter, that prohibits the use of force by one sovereign country against another, except in specific cases of self-defense.
Early in 2025, Trump signaled an end to much of U.S. multilateral engagement, pulling the country .
The administration proposed eliminating like the fund for children. It is also allocating only $300 million this year to the U.N., which is about one-fifth of the by law. A has now consumed this sole worldwide deliberation body.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration says migration and drug trafficking, , pose the greatest security threats. Its solutions – continuing U.S. economic and military might in the Americas – ignore shared challenges like and that drive these threats and also undermine U.S. economic security.
There is also evidence that the Trump administration is not only disregarding international law and retreating from America’s long-standing respect for international cooperation, but it’s also seeking to reshape policy in its own image and punish those it disagrees with.
For example, its call to reframe global refugee protections – to undermine the principle that prohibits a return of people to a country where they could be persecuted – would . The Trump administration has already , lowering the cap for 2025 to historic levels.
Even for those who work in international institutions, there could also be a price to pay for an illiberal America. For instance, the Trump administration has economically sanctioned many judges and prosecutors of for their work.
And the administration has threatened more sanctions unless the – a more salient challenge now with the apparent U.S. aggression against Venezuela, which is a party to the International Criminal Court.
Some democracy experts worry that the U.S. military action in Venezuela not only , but it may also serve the rule of law and democracy at home.
Original article
Comments