By Bret Stephens
Donald Trump has outlined ambitious foreign policy objectives for his upcoming second term, including endeavors like acquiring Greenland and resolving the conflict in Ukraine “within a day.” However, one aim stands out as both overdue and essential to our national security: the removal of Nicolás Maduro’s regime in Venezuela, using coercive diplomacy if feasible, or military action if required.
Just last week, Maduro took the oath for a third six-year term following a questionable election last July, which independent polls suggest he lost by approximately 35 percentage points. His rival, Edmundo González, is currently in exile; the leader of the opposition, María Corina Machado, had to stay hidden for months. Up to 10 Americans are enduring harsh conditions in Venezuelan prisons on dubious allegations. Historically, the regime has treated American detainees as political pawns.
And that’s not even the most troubling aspect. As of November, the regime is estimated to hold around 1,800 political prisoners. Since Maduro assumed power, nearly 8 million Venezuelans have fled, representing a quarter of the nation’s population; at least 600,000 have settled in the United States. Millions suffer from malnutrition; the crime rate was among the world’s highest in 2024. This was once one of the wealthiest nations in Latin America.
Moreover, Maduro is aligning himself with adversaries, beginning with Iran, which reportedly has set up a “drone development base” at a Venezuelan military installation.
What could potentially lead to the regime’s downfall? During his first term, Trump implemented economic sanctions, which proved ineffective. The Biden administration lifted some sanctions in hopes of encouraging better conduct from Maduro, but this also yielded no results. Last year’s elections were clearly unavailing. A $25 million reward for Maduro’s capture announced this month by the United States will similarly be ineffective, as it merely incentivizes him to cling more tightly to authority.
A coup remains a possibility, yet loyalty within the upper echelons of the military has persisted — and for good reason: Senior officials are suspected of transforming the country “into a global hub for cocaine trafficking and money laundering,” as noted in a 2015 Wall Street Journal article. There were signs of a popular uprising in 2019, but it did not materialize: The regime appears to have adopted the lessons from its allies in Havana that mass emigration can effectively diminish a nation’s most discontented, dynamic, and skilled populace.
Economist Herb Stein famously remarked that if something cannot persist indefinitely, it will cease. This adage, however, isn’t entirely accurate. The so-called Bolivarian revolution that began with Hugo Chávez’s ascension in 1999 (once supported by figures like Naomi Klein and Jeremy Corbyn) should have collapsed long ago. It hasn’t. “Th’ abuse of greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power,” Brutus declares in Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar.” Maduro’s regime is one devoid of remorse.
This suggests that only a powerful incentive coupled with a credible threat will remove Maduro and his associates from power.
The incentive would involve offering him and his associates permanent exile, likely to Cuba or Russia, along with a guarantee of amnesty for all Venezuelan military and intelligence personnel who remain and pledge allegiance to a government led by the legitimate president. The threat would involve military intervention by the U.S., similar to the decisive actions taken in 1990 that swiftly ended the rule of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. This could lead to extradition and prosecution in U.S. courts: Noriega’s case resulted in 27 years of imprisonment. American troops withdrew rapidly, and since then, Panama has maintained a democracy.
If this seems aggressive, it is intentional: Maduro and his inner circle will only relinquish power peacefully if they believe the alternative is more unfavorable. The purpose of a significant threat is to diminish the likelihood of actually having to resort to it.
And if military action becomes necessary? Intervention always carries risks, casualties, and unintended consequences, even against a weak military that is largely despised by its own populace. It should only be undertaken when it’s a matter of urgent and compelling national interest. Bringing an end to a criminal regime that is a source of drug trafficking, mass migration, and Iranian influence in the Americas should resonate with the incoming administration.
This should also resonate with liberals. The moral justification for removing Maduro is evident: He rigged the election, intimidates his opponents, and inflicts violence on his populace. He shows no intention of stopping, let alone stepping down. Every alternative for political change has been attempted. How much more suffering must Venezuelans endure, and how much worse must this crisis escalate, before the nightmare comes to an end?
The president-elect elicits a great deal of anxiety, revulsion, and fear. Whether one likes it or not, that is the individual Americans have chosen. His appointment for secretary of state, Marco Rubio, understands better than most the nature of these authoritarian regimes. Ending Maduro’s prolonged reign of terror would be an excellent way to commence their administration — and signal to tyrants around the globe that American tolerance for chaos and peril eventually has its limits.
