Trump's escalating threats increase likelihood of war with Venezuela amid growing contradictions and legal concerns

Escalating US threats toward Venezuela are fueling speculation of an impending military intervention, as President Donald Trump intensifies pressure on Caracas and showcases American influence across the Western Hemisphere. Each public statement and warning from the president heightens concerns that the United States may be moving toward a military confrontationa politically risky move given widespread public opposition to new overseas wars.

The situation is further complicated by legal debates surrounding any potential action against Venezuela. Critics highlight that recent US strikes against alleged drug-trafficking vessels in the Caribbean may have violated international laws of armed conflict. Congressional committees have promised rigorous, bipartisan oversight of these operationsa notable development in Trumps second term.

Over Thanksgiving, Trump appeared to undermine his own rationale for targeting regional drug cartels by offering a pardon to former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernndez, who was serving a federal sentence in the US for cocaine trafficking. On Thanksgiving Day, Trump warned that the US would soon take steps to disrupt drug networks operating on Venezuelan soil. Shortly after, he declared Venezuelas airspace should be considered off-limits.

An array of US naval vessels, including the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, is stationed in the Caribbean near Venezuela. Administration officials have been crafting legal justifications for action against regional drug traffickers, though critics argue these arguments fall short of constitutional and international law requirements. Meanwhile, US military aircraft, including F/A-18E Super Hornets and B-52H Stratofortresses, have been conducting operations near the region.

Despite this military buildup, the administration has yet to present detailed, evidence-backed explanations for engaging US forces, raising the possibility that threats are intended to pressure President Nicols Maduro into stepping down or to encourage a coup. Alternatively, the situation may reflect a broader pattern in which the administration feels unconstrained by legal, political, or moral limits. Even if these threats are largely a bluff, officials will soon face questions about their next steps if the strategy failsTrumps credibility could suffer if US forces withdraw while Maduro remains in power.

Trump confirmed a recent phone conversation with Maduro but provided no details on its content. While the president has emphasized avoiding new foreign conflicts as a key policy principle, public opinion is largely against a military strike on Venezuela. A CBS News poll found 76% of Americans believe Trump has not clearly explained his position, and only 13% see Venezuela as a major threat to US security.

Historically, US administrations have sought to prepare public opinion before military interventions, as seen prior to the Iraq War in 2003. However, aside from general statements about combating drug trafficking, senior officials have provided little concrete justification for potential operations. Meanwhile, millions of Venezuelans have endured years of repression and economic hardship under Maduro, leading to significant refugee flows, including to the US.

Some analysts suggest Maduros removal could benefit US foreign policy and regional stability, though the administration has offered little clarity on post-intervention planninga gap reminiscent of the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Experts warn that regime change could trigger chaos, violence, and further refugee crises.

Senator Markwayne Mullin defended Trumps approach, stating that the president extended an opportunity for Maduro to leave power while claiming to protect the US from drug traffickers. Yet Trump has not ruled out deploying troops. Controversy has also been fueled by reports of a double-tap strike on a suspected drug vessel, which critics argue violated laws of armed conflict by targeting injured survivors. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth maintains these strikes are legal under US and international law, but critics argue they bypass constitutional oversight and due process.

The administrations credibility is further questioned by Trumps pardon of former Honduran President Hernndez, convicted of running a large-scale drug-trafficking operation. Critics argue the pardon undermines any moral or legal justification for targeting Maduro for similar offenses. Trump has dismissed the conviction as politically motivated and suggested that former heads of state should not face imprisonment for crimes committed in office.

The timing of the pardon coincided with Honduras presidential elections, with Trump endorsing Nasry Tito Asfura, a candidate from Hernndezs party. This appears consistent with Trumps history of leveraging executive power and financial incentives to support allied leaders in Latin America, including Bolsonaro in Brazil, Javier Milei in Argentina, and Nayib Bukele in El Salvador, while clashing with leftist leaders such as Gustavo Petro in Colombia.

While the United States has legitimate strategic interests in fostering regional alliances to counter Russian and Chinese influence, the central question for Latin America remains whether Trump is prepared to employ military force, not just diplomacy and financial leverage, to shape Venezuelas political future.

Author: Sophia Brooks