On Jan. 3, the United States military successfully captured and extracted Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro. Since then, there have already been encouraging signs from the Venezuelan government, which is under massive American pressure to liberalize: Political prisoners are slowly being released, the Venezuelan economy is starting to liberalize and open up, press organizations are optimistic about declining censorship and the active and blatant oppression of Venezuelans has decreased. After years of electoral manipulation and systemic human rights abuses, the U.S. ousting of Maduro raises the realistic prospect of restoring political and civil rights to the Venezuelan populace for the first time in years. Whatever the plausibility of the U.S.’s stated rationale (drugs) the intervention’s effect in protecting human rights is inherently justifiable. If injustice everywhere is truly a threat to justice everywhere, then the U.S. had not just a right, but an obligation to intervene on behalf of the Venezuelan people.

    While the U.S. has unfortunately been involved in attempts to interfere in other countries’ domestic affairs against the will of their people (like, say, Guatemala in 1954), this was not that. In this case, the U.S. is supporting democracy rather than subverting it. The U.S.’s actions are strengthening the will of Venezuela’s people over that of its illegitimate government. Until the U.S. operation, Maduro had ruled over Venezuela as a dictator for 12 years, and his record speaks for itself: Political prisoners held by the government climbed well into the thousands, the economy contracted sharply and basic services collapsed. Almost 8 million Venezuelans fled abroad rather than accept his rule. Elections under Maduro have been farces, with Maduro overriding the results by fiat, most recently in 2024. When the Venezuelan people protested, they were met with bullets and tear gas, as well as vast intimidation campaigns. Dozens were killed, and thousands more were arbitrarily arrested. 

In general, American hard power is an underutilized resource for protecting human rights around the globe. Regime change is perhaps the most extreme use of it, and not every injustice allows for or requires it. However, in Venezuela the domestic illegitimacy of Maduro’s government, combined with his unresponsiveness to U.S. soft power, created ideal conditions and justified a regime change. With regards to international law, no concept of sovereignty should overrule the idea that, if people are being indiscriminately killed, every country has an obligation to intervene. The Venezuelans voted Maduro out, and the U.S (under Joe Biden) sanctioned him, embargoed him and (under Donald Trump) offered him amnesty for surrendering power. In the end, none of that worked. All democratic countries (and all people) have a duty to help protect and promote human rights around the world. The only thing that makes the U.S. special is that we have the ability to defend them.

While the current administration seems to have stumbled upon this impressive result, that does not mean that its reasons or methods are necessarily justifiable. Ideally, promoting democracy and human rights with both soft and hard power would be an end unto itself, not a side effect dependent on ever shifting geopolitical and economic interests. With regards to Venezuela, at least, the release of political prisoners is up, and there has been no indication that the government will collapse into any sort of failed state. The question, frankly, shouldn’t be “Why did Trump do this now?” but rather “Why didn’t Biden?” Despite a lack of clarity on how the situation will evolve, this intervention underscores that American hard power is not merely useful, but sometimes necessary for confronting injustice on the global stage.

Ziv Dueber ’28 is a mathematics major from Ann Arbor, MI. He can be reached at dueber1@kenyon.edu.