President Trump calls it the “Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.” The operation that captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro – no congressional authorization, no declaration of war, military force on foreign soil, followed by announced plans to “run the country” – is being framed not as constitutional overreach but as strategic genius updating a 202-year-old foreign policy framework.
The analysis depends entirely on who’s making it. Supporters see Reagan-level strategic thinking that could forestall Chinese expansion without firing a shot at Beijing. Critics see illegal invasion disguised as anti-drug enforcement. Constitutional scholars see separation of powers questions the Framers couldn’t have imagined.
What nobody disputes: Trump just conducted the most aggressive assertion of unilateral presidential war powers in the Western Hemisphere since the Cold War, justified it through a doctrine written when America was militarily weak, and claims it advances a grand strategy that could reshape global oil markets and Chinese power projection.
Whether that’s constitutional is a different question than whether it’s strategic. The Framers cared deeply about the first question. Trump appears focused entirely on the second.
Discussion
I'm all for robust foreign policy, but invading a sovereign nation without Congress's backing? It sets a worrying precedent…
Leave a Comment
Leave a Comment
What the Monroe Doctrine Actually Said
President James Monroe announced his doctrine in 1823. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams—considered one of America’s most brilliant diplomats—largely authored it.
The doctrine’s core principle: European powers should not colonize or interfere in the Americas. Existing European colonies could remain, but no new colonization and no intervention in newly independent Latin American republics.
The doctrine was defensive, not offensive. It told Europe to stay out of the Western Hemisphere. It didn’t claim American right to invade Latin American countries, overthrow their governments, or occupy their territory.
The context mattered enormously. In 1823, the United States was growing but militarily weak. The doctrine relied on British naval power for enforcement—the Royal Navy would prevent European intervention because Britain wanted Latin American markets open to trade.
Adams understood the doctrine required “skilled diplomacy, deal-making, and assertiveness with restraint” precisely because America lacked military power to enforce it through force. The doctrine was strategic communication backed by geopolitical reality, not military threat.
The “Trump Corollary” That Transforms the Doctrine
Trump’s “corollary” transforms the Monroe Doctrine from defensive principle into offensive action.
Instead of telling foreign powers to stay out of the hemisphere, it claims American authority to intervene militarily in hemisphere nations, remove their governments, and occupy their territory.
The theoretical justification comes from Angelo Codevilla’s posthumously published work interpreting Adams’s foreign policy as requiring “mustering all the instruments of power to exploit every opportunity, every conceivable strength, along with an adversary’s every vulnerability, to advance American national interests.”
That interpretation reads aggressive interventionism into a doctrine designed for a militarily weak nation that couldn’t project power beyond its borders. Adams wanted to protect Latin American independence from European empires. The “Trump Corollary” claims authority to end Latin American governments when they align with adversaries.
The constitutional problem is obvious: the Monroe Doctrine was presidential communication about foreign policy principles. The “Trump Corollary” involves military invasion without congressional authorization, followed by announced occupation and governance of a sovereign nation.
One is a statement. The other is war. The Framers gave very different constitutional authority for those actions.
The Five-Step Escalation to Invasion
Supporters frame the Venezuela operation as methodical escalation, not impulsive action:
First: Sanctions, prosecutions, opposition support, and backdoor contacts with the Maduro regime.
Second: Military shows of force with repeated warnings.
Third: Redefining drug traffickers as terrorists and destroying smuggling boats in international waters.
Fourth: Seizing “ghost tankers” under false flags trafficking sanctioned Venezuelan crude.
Fifth: Military operation capturing Maduro to enforce existing federal indictment.
The progression moves from clearly legal presidential actions (sanctions, prosecutions) through legally questionable territory (destroying boats in international waters) to constitutionally dubious invasion (military strikes on foreign soil to capture that nation’s president).
Each step individually might be defensible. The culmination – military invasion of a sovereign nation without congressional authorization – raises constitutional questions the earlier steps don’t resolve.
The Oil Strategy That Could Reshape Chinese Power
The strategic analysis supporting the operation focuses on global oil markets and Chinese energy dependence.
China buys 60-90% of Venezuela’s heavy crude and 85-90% of Iran’s light crude at steep discounts because both nations face U.S. sanctions. The sanctioned oil is paid in Chinese yuan, not dollars, at “pirate discount” prices sometimes as low as $15-30 per barrel.
Combined, Venezuelan and Iranian oil represent roughly 30-35% of China’s oil imports. Russia provides another 18-20%. With pro-American governments expected in Venezuela and Iran, the U.S. could regulate approximately 70% of Chinese oil needs.
The theory: controlling that much of China’s oil supply gives America leverage to deter Taiwan invasion, slow Chinese naval expansion, and undercut Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative without direct military confrontation in the Pacific.
The strategy trades military action in Venezuela for avoided conflict with China. Remove Maduro, install friendly government, regulate Venezuelan oil sales to China, gain geopolitical leverage in Asia without engaging Chinese military directly.
Whether this works depends on countless variables. Whether it’s constitutional doesn’t depend on whether it works.
The Founding Fathers and War Powers
The Framers gave Congress power to declare war explicitly because they feared executive war-making. They’d witnessed European monarchs starting wars for personal ambition, territorial expansion, and economic gain.
James Madison wrote: “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.”
The Constitution assigns Congress power to “declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Those powers were intentionally separated from executive authority to prevent unilateral presidential war-making.
The Venezuela operation involved military strikes on foreign soil, capture of that nation’s head of state, and announced plans to govern the country temporarily. Under any traditional understanding of “war,” Congress’s authority applies.
The administration’s justification—executing an existing federal indictment against Maduro for drug trafficking—attempts to characterize military invasion as law enforcement. But Delta Force isn’t a law enforcement agency. Bombing military installations isn’t an arrest. Occupying a country isn’t prosecution.
Adams Would Recognize the Strategy—And the Constitutional Problem
John Quincy Adams was America’s most brilliant secretary of state. He understood geopolitical leverage, strategic patience, and using all instruments of national power.
He also understood constitutional limits on presidential war powers. As a Framer-generation figure who participated in early constitutional debates, Adams knew the separation of war powers was fundamental.
Adams’s Monroe Doctrine succeeded precisely because it matched American capabilities to strategic communication. America couldn’t enforce the doctrine militarily in 1823, so Adams crafted it to rely on British power and diplomatic pressure.
The “Trump Corollary” inverts this approach—using military force America has but constitutional authority it lacks to achieve strategic goals Adams would recognize but through means he’d question constitutionally.
Adams might admire the strategic vision of controlling Chinese oil access through Western Hemisphere policy. But he’d ask whether presidential authority to execute that strategy exists without congressional declaration.
The China Leverage Theory
The strategic argument is sophisticated: removing Maduro doesn’t just help Venezuela, it fundamentally alters Chinese strategic calculations across multiple dimensions.
Oil supply disruption: China loses access to heavily discounted Venezuelan crude, forcing it to pay market prices in dollars for replacement oil. This cuts into Chinese National Oil Company profits and provincial revenues, creating domestic political pressure on Xi Jinping.
Taiwan invasion deterrence: The demonstration that America will use military force decisively in its hemisphere suggests it would respond to Taiwan invasion. The oil leverage gives America economic tools to pressure China without military engagement in the Pacific.
Belt and Road setback: China’s global infrastructure initiative depends on cheap energy to make projects economically viable. Higher oil costs make Belt and Road projects less profitable, slowing Chinese global expansion.
Dollar reinforcement: If Venezuela returns to selling oil in dollars instead of yuan, it strengthens the petrodollar and undermines Chinese currency initiatives.
Russian pressure: China losing Venezuelan oil increases dependence on Russian supply, giving China leverage to demand steeper Russian discounts, which pressures Putin’s war funding.
The theory connects Venezuelan regime change to Chinese economic pressure to Taiwan security to Russian war capacity. It’s multi-dimensional strategic thinking that uses oil markets as geopolitical weapon.
Whether it works remains unknown. Whether presidential authority exists to implement it through military invasion is a separate question.
The Roosevelt-Japan Comparison Critics Invoke
Critics compare Trump’s oil leverage strategy to President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1941 decision to embargo Japanese oil imports. Japan responded by attacking Pearl Harbor.
The comparison suggests economic pressure through oil control can trigger military response. If Chinese leaders believe America is deliberately strangling their energy supply, they might respond with force rather than accommodation.
Supporters argue the circumstances differ entirely. Japan in 1941 was already engaged in aggressive territorial expansion. China today faces different strategic calculations. And America isn’t embargoing Chinese oil—it’s potentially regulating supply from specific sources China doesn’t have sovereign right to access.
The counterargument: perception matters more than legal technicalities. If Chinese leadership perceives American actions as economic warfare designed to strangle their development, they’ll respond accordingly.
The Framers understood this risk. Provocation that triggers war without congressional authorization violates constitutional separation of powers designed to prevent exactly that scenario.
The “Linchpin” That Holds Global Strategy Together
The strategic analysis argues Venezuela was a “linchpin” in Chinese global positioning—remove it, and multiple Chinese strategic initiatives become vulnerable.
Venezuelan oil gave China cheap energy for development and Belt and Road projects. Venezuelan ports offered potential Caribbean naval access. Venezuelan alignment with China challenged American hemisphere dominance.
Maduro’s removal eliminates all three Chinese advantages simultaneously. It’s not just Venezuelan policy change—it’s systematic reduction of Chinese strategic positioning in multiple domains through single action.
The theory elevates the Venezuela operation from bilateral regime change to global strategic realignment. It’s not about Venezuela—it’s about China, Russia, Iran, and American hemisphere control as foundation for global power competition.
That strategic sophistication makes the operation either brilliant or reckless depending on outcomes and whether secondary effects materialize as predicted.
The Constitutional Authorization That Doesn’t Exist
The administration claims authority through existing counter-terrorism and drug enforcement statutes. Maduro faced federal indictment. Venezuela was designated a terrorist state. The operation executed valid warrants.
That justification fails constitutional scrutiny. Military invasion of sovereign nations to execute drug warrants isn’t authorized by counter-terrorism statutes. Those laws contemplate operations against non-state actors, limited strikes on terrorist targets, or enforcement actions with host nation cooperation.
Full-scale military assault on a nation’s largest military complex to capture its president, followed by announced plans to govern the country, exceeds any reasonable interpretation of existing statutory authority.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force passed after 9/11 targets terrorist organizations responsible for attacks on America. It doesn’t authorize regime change operations in Latin American countries whose leaders face drug charges.
Congress could authorize such action through new legislation or formal declaration. The administration bypassed that constitutional requirement entirely.
What “Complete and Total Control of Greenland” Reveals
Trump’s text to Norway demanding Greenland “for Complete and Total Control” because “The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control” reveals the mindset driving policy.
The language isn’t diplomatic or legalistic—it’s territorial ambition expressed directly. “Complete and Total Control” is acquisition language, not security partnership language.
That mindset applied to Venezuela explains the operation: the hemisphere isn’t secure unless America has complete and total control. Venezuela under Maduro challenged that control. Therefore, remove Maduro and establish American authority.
The problem: the Framers didn’t grant presidents authority to pursue “Complete and Total Control” over hemisphere territories through military force. They gave Congress war powers specifically to prevent executives from starting wars of territorial expansion.
The European Empires Parallel Nobody Mentions
The Monroe Doctrine told European empires not to colonize the Americas. The justification: newly independent Latin American republics deserved protection from imperial powers seeking to reestablish colonial control.
The Trump administration just invaded a Latin American country, removed its government through military force, and announced plans to govern it temporarily while controlling its oil resources.
From Venezuelan perspective – or any Latin American nation watching – this looks remarkably like exactly what the Monroe Doctrine opposed: a powerful empire using military force to control a weaker American nation for economic and strategic advantage.
The difference is the empire is American instead of European. The method is occupation instead of colonization. The justification is drug enforcement instead of civilizing mission.
But the fundamental dynamic—powerful nation using military force to control weaker American nation—parallels what Adams sought to prevent.
The Cuban and Iranian Dominoes
The strategic analysis sees Venezuela as first domino: remove Maduro, Cuba loses its patron and Iranian regime faces similar pressure.
Cuba has depended on wealthy patrons for 65 years—first Soviet Union, then Venezuela. Without Venezuelan support, Cuba faces “fatal weaning” from external subsidies. The regime potentially collapses without ability to provide basic services.
Iran’s regime already faces internal pressure from protests. Losing Venezuelan alliance, facing continued sanctions, and watching American willingness to use military force for regime change potentially triggers collapse.
If both regimes fall, America gains three strategic victories simultaneously: Venezuela becomes friendly government, Cuba potentially transitions from Communist control, Iran’s regime ends.
The dominoes only fall if the initial push works and secondary effects materialize. If Venezuela descends into chaos, Cuba adapts to new patrons, or Iran’s regime survives, the strategy fails.
The Restraint Paradox
Supporters frame the operation as “restraint”—a single decisive action in Venezuela prevents larger war with China over Taiwan.
The logic: demonstrating American willingness to use force decisively in its hemisphere, combined with oil leverage over China, deters Chinese Taiwan invasion without direct military confrontation in the Pacific.
This redefines “restraint” as aggressive action in one theater to avoid conflict in another. It’s restraint compared to war with China, but only if you accept the premise that invading Venezuela prevents that war.
The Framers’ concept of restraint was different: presidents restrain themselves from starting wars without congressional authorization. The constitutional structure creates restraint through required legislative buy-in before military action.
Unilateral executive military action, even if strategically sophisticated, violates the restraint framework the Framers designed.
The Precedent for Every Future President
If Trump’s Venezuela operation stands as constitutional precedent, every future president inherits the authority to:
- Designate foreign governments as terrorist states or criminal cartels
- Conduct military operations against those governments without congressional authorization
- Capture foreign leaders to enforce federal indictments
- Announce temporary governance of invaded nations
- Justify all of it as law enforcement or strategic necessity
That precedent makes presidential war powers essentially unlimited in practice. Any president can find or create justification—drug trafficking, terrorism, human rights, strategic necessity—for military action against any nation.
The constitutional check on war-making evaporates. Congress’s role becomes advisory. The separation of powers the Framers designed to prevent unilateral executive wars becomes irrelevant.
What James Madison Would Say
Madison was clearest among Framers about war powers separation: “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it.”
He would recognize the Venezuela operation immediately as exactly what he designed Article I, Section 8 to prevent: executive military action for strategic goals without congressional authorization.
Madison might acknowledge the strategic sophistication. He might agree China’s oil dependence creates leverage opportunity. He might support Venezuelan regime change as policy goal.
But he would insist the Constitution requires congressional authorization before military invasion to achieve those goals. The strategic merit doesn’t create constitutional authority.
Trump showing the world who's boss! America first, haters gonna cry! 🇺🇸💥