The Former Trump Skeptics Getting Behind His War in Venezuela
SOURCE:New Yorker|BY:Isaac Chotiner
A onetime adviser to Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney argues that the U.S. has been “too cautious” in its use of force since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Last week, Donald Trump ordered a military operation in Venezuela that included a series of air strikes in Caracas and the seizure of Nicolás Maduro, the country’s President, and his wife. The couple were then brought to New York City to face drug-trafficking and other charges. (They have pleaded not guilty.) The operation, which killed more than seventy people, has been followed by vows from President Trump to take Venezuela’s oil—something that he said the new Venezuelan government would facilitate. Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s Vice-President, the interim leader of the country, has contradicted Trump’s claim that he will “run” Venezuela, but she nevertheless is currently favored by the American government to remain in charge. Trump has pushed aside the opposition to Maduro, who won the election that Maduro stole, in 2024.
Democrats have largely condemned Trump’s actions in Venezuela, but Republican support has been strong, even among some so-called Never Trump Republicans, including the former congressman Adam Kinzinger, who backed Kamala Harris in the 2024 Presidential election. But there’s bipartisan concern, shared by American allies abroad, about Trump’s escalating threats to Greenland, which is part of Denmark, and which Trump and the White House have repeatedly said should be taken by the United States.
I recently spoke by phone with Matthew Kroenig, who is a professor at Georgetown and the senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, and a columnist for Foreign Policy magazine. Kroenig recently wrote a piece for the New York Times titled “Trump Was Right to Oust Maduro.” (Kroenig has worked as an adviser to Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio, and in the Pentagon during Trump’s first term.) During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed what Trump’s ultimate aims are in Venezuela, the possibility of an American attack on Greenland, and whether there is a danger in encouraging Trump’s bellicosity.
Why do you think that the move by the Trump Administration to remove Maduro was the right one?
Well, Maduro’s a bad guy and it’s good that he’s gone is the bottom line, and he gave America’s adversaries like Russia, China, and Iran a foothold in the Western Hemisphere. He mismanaged his economy so badly that about a quarter of the population fled, contributing to a refugee crisis and pressure on the U.S.’s southern border. And he is charged with trafficking drugs into the U.S. So he was bad—bad for U.S. security, and bad for the Venezuelan people, and it’s better that he’s gone.
Do you have some sense that the Trump Administration cares about the welfare of the Venezuelan people and the future of Venezuela? I read a piece of yours in Foreign Policy in November where you said that it’s important for the Trump Administration to try to insure that a pro-American democracy arises in Venezuela after Maduro.
In terms of the mismanagement of domestic politics and economics in Venezuela, there are two ways you could get somewhere better. One is a policy change and the other is a regime change. It does seem like the near-term strategy is to use carrots and sticks to encourage the current leaders in Venezuela to change policy. It is possible that the remnants of the Maduro regime could put in place the right policies—economic reforms to curb or stop drug trafficking, and to push out the Russians, the Chinese, and the Iranians—for a variety of reasons, including that they don’t want to have happen to them what happened to Maduro. But I do think over the longer term, the outcome we would want is a democratic Venezuela. As to whether the Administration cares about that—if you just look at Trump’s statements on Saturday or Rubio’s appearances on the Sunday shows, they did talk multiple times about how they were pursuing America’s interests, but also that this would be to the benefit of the Venezuelan people. [The New York Times reported on Wednesday that repression in Venezuela had ramped up, from already high levels, since Maduro’s removal, with journalists and people who celebrated Maduro’s capture being detained.]
You could make a utilitarian case that an invasion or a regime change will improve the lives of the Venezuelan people. That’s a little different than saying that the Trump Administration cares about democracy. Because Trump seems like he’s more interested in pursuing oil rights for American companies and whatever else.
Yeah. Well, and so again, looking at the Rubio interviews, he did talk about how democracy is the goal, but he said we have to be realistic. The opposition [to Maduro] is not in the country. These things take time.
Trump seems like he’s soured on the opposition.
Yeah, I think that’s right. Obviously America has an Iraq and Afghanistan hangover and part of how I see the strategy is that it’s kind of correcting for some of the mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan. And I think one of the mistakes was overpromising on democracy in places where it was not realistic. I see Rubio as trying to downplay the expectations that a Jeffersonian democracy is going to pop up overnight. But even Trump was asked about elections, and he said something, like, Well, I hope it happens quickly, but it’s a process.
Sure, but you’re a very smart guy. You know that Trump doesn’t actually care about Venezuela in terms of whether it’s a democracy or not, right?
I think that’s fair—that he’s less focussed on values than traditional U.S. politicians.
Less focussed. Yeah.
Yeah. Whereas I do think that Rubio does care, including because of his family background and his long record in the Senate being a supporter of democracy and human rights.
Your Times piece does not address the fact that the person carrying this out has the qualities of Donald Trump, and that he’s also threatened a bunch of other countries in the past several days. The Administration seems to even be threatening Greenland. I’m curious if that should be part of our calculation as Americans when we wonder whether it’s a good idea for the President to order a military operation to remove a head of state.
I guess I do see the cases as different, and you’re right that Trump has threatened adversaries and allies. But in the case of Maduro—this is a leader who has stolen an election, who’s committed human-rights abuses, who was not recognized by Joe Biden or by the European Union. And so this is kind of the easiest case. With Greenland, Denmark is a NATO ally, and it’s very hard for me to see something similar happening there. With Mexico, the President has a pretty good relationship with Claudia Sheinbaum. She and the Colombian President, Gustavo Petro, are both democratically elected. The one place where I do think there should be some concern is Cuba: Rubio was asked about this and he said, ‘Yeah, if I lived in Havana, and I was in the government, I’d be concerned.’ And, in fact, the cutting off of Venezuelan oil is already really putting a lot of pressure on the government in Cuba. So I do think this is a model that could be applied elsewhere, but I think some of the hyperventilating over the past few days that this is going to be unleashed everywhere probably goes too far.
I know that Katie Miller, Stephen Miller’s wife, tweeted a photo of Greenland as an American property, and Trump has talked about taking Greenland. So what would be an appropriate level of hyperventilating? What’s a more appropriate way to respond when Trump says stuff like that?
Well, I think that Trump does have a negotiating style that we saw, and he writes about it in “The Art of the Deal.”
A businessman’s.
Yeah—that the way to get a good deal is to make outrageous demands, throw the other side off balance, and get them crawling to the table looking for a good deal. He said he would take Panama. He said NATO allies need to spend five per cent on defense, which I thought was kind of an outrageous request when he made it, but the NATO allies said O.K. So I guess I see it as part of the negotiating style. I don’t think he literally wants to take Greenland just like he didn’t literally follow through on his threat to take the Panama Canal.
Right, it’s his business-background perspective, rather than coming at it from an international-relations, political-science type of perspective.
Yeah, I think often—many foreign-policy experts have noted this—Americans kind of negotiate against themselves. Whereas I think Trump’s style, and maybe it is from the business background, is, if he wants ten, he starts by asking for a hundred. People maybe understandably freak out because that’s not what they’re used to hearing from Presidents or diplomats.
I haven’t glanced at “The Art of the Deal” since the 2016 campaign, and I may need to return to it. But it’s fair for people to ask about why Trump ever even conceived of threatening a NATO ally, right? It makes me wonder, just to go back to our conversation about democracy earlier, whether Trump even cares about such things as Maduro being an autocrat, or rather that he just wants to exert power.
Yeah. Well, I mean, Trump is right that Greenland is important and the Chinese are becoming more active there—I don’t know if you saw the report recently about Chinese submarines in the area. It’s also important for critical minerals. But I guess what is puzzling to me about that one is that Denmark is a NATO ally. I’ve talked to Danish officials who’ve essentially said, ‘If you want to do more in Greenland, great, let’s do it together. Let’s develop the critical minerals. You want more military access? Great. You can have it, you’re an ally.’ So I think he’s right that it’s important, but I too am puzzled why he’s going about it this way.
It’s definitely confusing. My concern would be that if Americans are accepting of him behaving in this way, it’s likely to encourage him further. And I’m wondering if that is a calculation that you are concerned with.
If that’s the case, I think that’s a good thing. I think the U.S. has been too cautious regarding the use of force, especially since Iraq and Afghanistan, because I think we’ve taken the lesson that this stuff never works, when, in fact, sometimes military force is the best option. I think of the strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites in June, when this rogue regime was about to build nuclear weapons. I do think Joe Biden or Kamala Harris probably wouldn’t have taken that shot. So it might be better if it were different, but I think it is a dangerous world and sometimes the use of American military power makes the world a better place.
So you’re encouraging Trump to broadly be willing to use the military, but just not in certain cases like attacking NATO allies?
Exactly.
And I couldn’t tell when you talked about Cuba or Colombia whether you are more mixed about attacking them.
Well, I think Cuba’s a little bit closer to the Maduro category. It’s been an anti-American dictatorship for decades. They’ve provided China with a listening station that’s used to spy on the U.S., and also badly mismanaged the place. The current Colombian President is not pro-American, but Colombia has been a good partner over the years. Mexico has been a good partner over the years. So I think those are normal political differences that can be settled diplomatically.
You worked for Marco Rubio in 2016 when he ran for President, and Mitt Romney before that. They were very critical of Trump, and said that it would be dangerous for him to be President. And I know you signed a Never Trump letter in 2016, but later said that you regretted doing so. Do you ever have those concerns about him? Or has he grown into the office?
Since signing that letter, I’ve realized that, as a foreign-policy expert, I don’t get to appoint the President of the United States, but we have a process and the American people choose and the American people have liked Trump for more than a decade. So that’s the reality. He’s in the Oval Office. I feel like my job is to provide whoever’s there, whether it’s Biden or Trump or whoever else, my best foreign-policy advice. Weighing in on who’s fit or not for office is not really my lane.
Has he grown into the office? I do think a lot of the stuff that we wrote about in that 2016 letter turned out not to be true, in the way that he governed in the first term. I think the foreign policy was pretty effective. He was the first President not to start new wars in a long time.
I thought you were saying that we have actually been too unwilling to start wars since Iraq.
Well, not to start wars, but I think the use of force in short, sharp, decisive ways, like we saw with the Iranian nuclear sites or against Maduro, does need to be an option on the table.
But I think the outcome of Trump’s first term’s foreign policy was over-all pretty good. George W. Bush started wars of choice without a clear strategy. Under Obama, China started taking territory in the South China Sea. Russia launched its first war against Ukraine under Obama. Russia launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine under Biden.
When you turn on the TV and you see Trump, no part of you is concerned about this guy starting wars or using military force?
Against Iran and Venezuela, you mean?
Just in general. He’s the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military in the world.
Yeah. I like the fact that he’s not afraid to use force. I think many Presidents are self-deterred. They think it’s somehow inappropriate, but as the largest superpower, essentially, I think U.S. military power has underpinned the eighty years of peace we’ve had since the Second World War, and the threat that that could be unleashed has kept a lot of bad actors in check. So I’m glad we have a President who’s willing to use force.
And you think Trump cares about any of the things you mentioned about keeping the peace?
I was at the NATO summit in The Hague this year. And Trump’s press conference was almost sweet. He said, “These people really love their countries. It’s not a ripoff.”
Touching, in its way.
Yeah. So these concerns that he’s going to pull out of NATO, I think nobody really has those anymore.
Well, unless he attacks Greenland and the alliance sort of by definition falls apart.
Yeah, but again, I guess I think that’s more of the kind of bombastic rhetoric rather than a sincere statement of policy.
In terms of the legality of what Trump did, if we are going to talk about democracy and the importance of democracy, certainly in Venezuela, doesn’t that at least imply that we should be extra attentive to doing things with a strong legal basis, and that we have a President or Administration that speaks up for the law and democracy? You were saying that it’s important to keep China and Russia and Iran, which are three non-democratic countries, out of the hemisphere.
Yes, and we should make a distinction maybe between international and domestic law. And with regard to domestic law, there is a way to hold Presidents accountable for the uses of force overseas. You can vote them out of office. Congress can withhold funding. Congress exercises supervisory and oversight powers to call officials to testify. Congress still has the only legal ability to declare war, but, realistically, for certain types of military operations, like this one, I think the President does need some ability to order the use of force before having a big public debate. As Rubio correctly pointed out, if Trump had gone to Congress about this, it would have leaked to TheNew Yorker or somewhere else immediately and the operation wouldn’t have been possible.
It’s a tough argument to say we’re worried about non-democratic countries meddling in our hemisphere and also that we have a President who tried to overthrow the 2020 elections and quite clearly doesn’t care about democracy.
I still think there’s a difference between President Trump and Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. We’re not launching the biggest war in Europe trying to conquer another nation. We’re not shooting journalists in the back. We don’t have a million Muslims locked up in concentration camps. So are we comparing ourselves to—
Absolutely not. America is a place that I would rather live in than China or Russia, but I’m not sure Trump’s doing things for any reasons that are different from the “might makes right” of Putin. So I am concerned about that.