It has long been a criticism leveled at certain US politicians that their minds may have been softened by a steady diet of television Westerns and the heroic triumphalism of the prattling cowboy. There was never going to be a break with this tradition regarding President Donald Trump—except for his claim to be more restrained on the draw. Lately, however, that restraint has vanished.
We have witnessed a buildup of US Army personnel in the Caribbean; the bombing—on fatuous grounds—of vessels in the Caribbean Sea carrying fictional narco-cargo allegedly destined for the United States; and, just to top it off, delirious notions about attacking the Islamic Republic of Iran in the early hours of the morning if protesters are shot.
It became clear after the release of the 2025 National Security Strategy that this administration intended to shred the inhibitions imposed by international law and instead opt for the more liberating garb of gangsterism. In the Western Hemisphere, the United States would assert its muscle and dictate terms, as it has done previously, to countries in Latin America.
Washington desires “a Hemisphere whose governments cooperate with us against narco-terrorists, cartels, and other transnational criminal organizations”—one “that remains free of hostile foreign incursion or ownership of key assets, and that supports critical supply chains,” while ensuring “continued access to key strategic locations.” In other words, the US will assert and enforce a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine.
### Venezuela: The First Target
Venezuela has become the first target of this corollary. On January 3, a little after 2 a.m. local time, US forces attacked Caracas and other sites in the country as part of **Operation Absolute Resolve**. By 4:21 a.m., President Trump announced that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, had been captured.
At a press conference held at the President’s Florida compound, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine spoke of “an extraction so precise it involved more than 150 aircraft launching across the Western Hemisphere in close coordination, all coming together in time and place to layer effects for a single purpose: to get an interdiction force into downtown Caracas while maintaining the element of tactical surprise.”
Gen. Caine also revealed that US intelligence teams had been monitoring Maduro and his wife for months. With a thuggish flourish, he explained that those teams had observed the leader “to understand how he moved, where he lived, where he traveled, what he ate, what he wore, and what were his pets.”
### The “Don-roe Doctrine”
Explaining the rationale behind the Venezuelan action, Trump spoke immodestly about the “Don-roe Doctrine.” According to him, the Maduro regime had hosted “foreign adversaries in our region and acquired menacing offensive weapons that could threaten US interests and lives.” This was “in gross violation of the core principles of American foreign policy, dating back more than two centuries.”
Trump asserted that the Monroe Doctrine had been “a big deal, but we’ve superseded it by a lot, a real lot. They now call it the ‘Don-roe Doctrine.’”
US Attorney General Pam Bondi swiftly announced that Maduro had been indicted in the Southern District of New York on a “fruit salad” array of implausible charges: “Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices against the United States.”
### Legal Creativity and Sidestepping Congress
This administration has invented a category designed to inspire a false sense of resolution. The invented charge of narco-terrorism exemplifies the limits of the Trump administration’s legal literacy. Such a term, which imputes links between government officials, organized crime, and terrorism, supposedly vests war-making powers in the executive. In Maduro’s case, it has also been used to justify his abduction—sidestepping the US Congress entirely.
The dress rehearsal for this began on September 2 of the previous year when Trump, in a War Powers Resolution notification to Congress, stated that military strikes on alleged narco-vessels operating in the Caribbean and Pacific Ocean were “self-defense” measures motivated by “the inability or unwillingness of some states in the region to address the continuing threat to United States persons and interests emanating from their territories.”
In October, a presidential notice was issued labeling those killed in alleged drug smuggling as “unlawful combatants,” echoing the administration’s lexical creativity reminiscent of George W. Bush’s era—a time famous for defining “unlawful combatant” or “unprivileged belligerent.”
### Parallels with Past US Policies
Under President Bush, this imagination extended to fictional weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) held by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, purportedly capable of being used at any moment against Americans and their allies, or potentially falling into the hands of non-state actors.
In Trump’s case, fantasies about Maduro as a wily drug chieftain hosting rebel groups have proliferated. Much of this, however, is sheer nonsense, considering Venezuela has little to do with the flow of cocaine into the US. But there is oil to be seized and managed by US companies—and the Don-roe Doctrine to maintain.
### International Reactions and the Rules-Based Order
In responding to this act of breezy criminality, countries that emphasize the “rules-based” international order find themselves caught in a difficult position.
The European Union, rather than strongly condemning the violation of convention and the UN Charter, proved meek—mocking Maduro’s legitimacy yet finding it hard to denounce Trump’s actions outright. The EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Kaja Kallas, stated:
> “The EU has repeatedly stated that Mr. Maduro lacks legitimacy and has defended a peaceful transition. Under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. We call for restraint.”
In Britain, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage expressed ecstatic confusion typical of an admirer of an untutored, unrestrained bully in international relations:
> “The American actions in Venezuela overnight are unorthodox and contrary to international law, but if they make China and Russia think twice, it may be a good thing.”
Germany’s conservative Christian Democratic Union MP, Roderich Kiesewetter, offered a more measured response:
> “The coup in Venezuela marks a return to the old US doctrine from before 1940: a mindset of thinking in terms of spheres of influence, where the law of force rules, not international law.”
The Cuban government’s response was more colorful:
> “This is a blatant imperialist and fascist aggression with objectives of domination, aimed at reviving US hegemonic ambitions over Our America, rooted in the Monroe Doctrine, and at achieving unrestricted access to and control over the natural wealth of Venezuela and the region.”
### A Dubious Historical Club
The kidnapping of leaders by bullying powers is not new in the post-1945 world. Hungary’s Imre Nagy, the figurehead of the Hungarian uprising of 1956, was seized by the Soviet Union for disciplinary action that culminated in his trial and execution. Czechoslovakia’s Alexander Dubček, leader of the crushed Prague Spring of 1968, faced similar ideological chastisement by Soviet leadership, though he was spared execution.
Within their sphere of influence, the Soviets were keen to dissuade unruly leaders by demonstrating that they could be kidnapped, executed, or reprogrammed at will.
President Trump has, perhaps unwittingly, joined a most dubious club.
https://dissidentvoice.org/2026/01/the-don-roe-doctrine-in-action-trumps-gangster-intervention-in-venezuela/
About the Author
