By Daniel Béland

January 4, 2026

How should we understand the ongoing U.S. operation in Venezuela?

First, there is no need to lament the fate of Nicolás Maduro—an authoritarian leader who executed a policy of economic brutality and forced displacement against his fellow citizens yet remained in power despite receiving far fewer votes than opposition candidate Edmundo González in the 2024 presidential election.

Second, the ways in which the Trump administration has justified and moved forward with its operation in Venezuela should give us pause, especially since, so far at least, it’s not actual regime change but a political decapitation that seems to be leaving the actual regime in place.

As with the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, when the Bush administration propagated false intelligence about the apparent threat posed by that country, President Donald Trump has legitimized his push for removing Maduro by exaggerating the perceived menace he represented for the United States.

Instead of talking about “weapons of mass destruction” like his Republican predecessor, President Trump claims the White House is defending the American people from the devastating consequences of the illegal importation of drugs by ‘narco-terrorists’ – describing his administration as engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels.

This type of rhetoric first provided a rationale for U.S. military strikes against Venezuelan boats allegedly involved in drug smuggling before serving as a rationale for the removal of President Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, who have been charged with narcotics trafficking by the U.S. Justice Department.

Just like Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction that falsely legitimized the U.S. invasion of Iraq (none were ever found), the claim that the demise of Maduro is about fighting narcoterrorism is a misleading justification.

As Phil Gunson from the International Crisis Group said in September: “For all the many sins of the Maduro dictatorship, there is no evidence to suggest that it is engaged in a war of terror against the US, or that it is using drugs and violent criminals to undermine the US government.” In fact, as The New York Times reports, the role of Venezuela in cocaine trade “is believed to be modest.”

In the case of both Iraq and Venezuela, the justification was grounded in a double geopolitical and economic rationale: asserting U.S. control over a key region of the world (the Middle East in 2003 and the Americas today) while advancing U.S. economic interests with regard to natural resources, especially oil.

Unlike what happened in 2003, the Trump administration did not seek approval for Venezuela from Congress, key allies, and the United Nations (ultimately the Security Council never authorized the invasion of Iraq, which was one reason Canadian prime Minister Jean Chrétien withheld Canada’s support).

The Trump administration has acted unilaterally as a show of force and an explicit warning to other countries in the region, including Colombia and Cuba. President Trump said during his post-operational news conference on Saturday that, “American dominance in the Western hemisphere will never be questioned again.”

In the case of both Iraq and Venezuela, the push for regime change was grounded in a double geopolitical and economic rationale.

This time, the United States under President Trump has violated international law and further accelerated the demise of the rules-based international order created after World War II.

Because of Canada’s geographic and political position, it benefits from that order as a buffer against excessive U.S. power. For us, what happened in Caracas early in the morning of January 3rd is deeply worrying.

Although Prime Minister Mark Carney may not need to “turn off geolocation” on his phone “just in case,” as The Beaverton joked yesterday, like other allies, Canada must recognize the potential international threat the United States represents under the Trump administration.

In 2003, Chrétien did the right thing by saying “no” to President George W. Bush’s invitation to join his post-9/11, falsely justified Iraq invasion.

With the current situation in Venezuela, prominent Canadian politicians and public figures should not be applauding what the Trump administration just did, regardless of the fact that Maduro was a corrupt dictator who did not deserve to stay in power.

Some may like the initial effect of Maduro’s removal, but the process by which it was achieved is unlawful and is setting a dangerous precedent.

Donald Trump has insulted and undermined mutilateralism for years precisely so that he can behave like the leader of a rogue state without answering to the norms, checks and balances of the international community.

Per his own stated justifications and intentions on Saturday, Trump did not issue the usual reassurances in the wake of such operations that a transition period would be followed by “free and fair elections”.

Indeed, he announced that his administration would “run” the country until the oil industry could be re-fit for purpose and deflected questions about installing the opposition widely recognized as the legitimate winners of the 2024 election.

Meanwhile, the vice president of the same Maduro regime unrecognized by three successive U.S. presidents, Delcy Rodriguez, has been installed as interim president. Rodriguez has demanded Maduro’s immediate release.

Considering all of this, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s eagerness to congratulate President Trump “on successfully arresting narco-terrorist and socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro” sounded problematic, even if he also called for the immediate restoration of democracy in Venezuela by having “the legitimate winner of the most recent Venezuelan elections, Edmundo González (…) take office along with the courageous hero and voice of the Venezuelan people, María Corina Machado.”

Less than three hours after Poilievre posted his message on X, President Trump dismissed the idea of a prompt return to democracy in Venezuela. As veteran strategist, pollster and Policy contributor Bruce Anderson writes, “If Putin or Xi removed Maduro and said they would be running Venezuela for a while and selling Venezuela’s oil to make profits from it, would you celebrate this as a great step for freedom?”

Rushes to judgment are never advisable amid the immediate fog of war combined, in this case, with what some have called the “fog of Trump“. But caution and reason dictate that this action, undertaken in the context of a National Security Strategy asserting this administration’s dominance of the Western hemisphere, be viewed by Canada with concern if not alarm.

Not going to Iraq in 2003 was the right call, and that was taken under a much less volatile president. Today, we must collaborate with our allies to push back against a blatant and ruthless push for U.S. continental hegemony.

Daniel Béland is professor of political science and director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada at McGill University.