Posted December 05, 2025
Earlier this week, Dr. Jim Denison discussed the ongoing controversy surrounding Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and the accusations that he was responsible for war crimes. But while people continue to debate that question, other questions persist about what President Trump and his administration are preparing to do next about America’s intensifying conflict with Venezuela.
As is often the case, the president has not been shy with his plans.
In addition to parking the largest buildup of America’s naval forces since the Cuban Missile Crisis, with fifteen thousand troops parked just outside of Venezuela’s borders, Trump has also signed off on the CIA’s plans for covert measures inside the country. Moreover, he’s hinted at sending in ground forces, saying, “I don’t rule out anything. We just have to take care of Venezuela.”
And while the situation appears to be escalating quickly, recent reports indicate that the administration began preparing for these attacks as early as January. Emil Bove, who was the acting deputy attorney general at the time, recommended attacking drug boats leaving Venezuela in February, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio has advocated for a more forceful approach to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro since Trump’s first term.
So while the attacks in the Caribbean have sunk twenty-seven suspected drug boats and killed at least eighty-seven people as of this writing, it would appear that the administration’s plans for the region likely extend beyond slowing down the flow of drugs into America.
The Trump administration’s public justification for the conflict in the Caribbean is a war on deadly drugs, often citing fentanyl as the primary target. Fentanyl is indeed a massive problem and directly led to an estimated forty-eight thousand deaths last year (which was actually an improvement over the seventy-six thousand in 2023). As John Yoo points out, those deaths far outpace the number of Americans killed in any war since Vietnam.
However, the primary drug from Venezuela is cocaine, and most of that goes to Europe rather than the US. Consequently, it’s difficult to see how these attacks are truly aimed at halting the flow of drugs across our borders. Trump even stated back in October that “we’re not happy with Venezuela for a lot of reasons, drugs being one of them.”
The more likely scenario is that the attacks on drug boats are a prelude to regime change, and the recent escalation indicates that Maduro’s time in power may be running short. If his recent actions are any indication, the Venezuelan leader knows it too.
Maduro has recently taken to changing where he sleeps and showing up unannounced whenever he appears in public. Moreover, fearing that the people around him may eventually find the $50 million bounty that the United States has placed on his head too tempting to pass up, he has expanded the use of Cuban bodyguards in his personal security and among his counterintelligence officers as well.
Back in October, Maduro attempted to buy Trump’s favor by offering the United States a significant stake in Venezuela’s oil fields, along with other economic opportunities, in exchange for allowing him to remain in power. However, US officials refused, and the prevailing thought is that any resolution that does not include a change in leadership is a nonstarter.
Should the US eventually push for regime change, it doesn’t seem like most of the world would mind. More than a quarter of Venezuela’s population has left since he took office—a driving force in the rise of illegal immigration in America across recent years—and his approval rating among those who stayed is around 20 percent. And María Corina Machado—the leader of the resistance movement within Venezuela—won the Nobel Prize this year for her efforts to oppose him.
As such, there’s little doubt that the world would be a safer place without Maduro in power. However, the question remains whether the steps Trump is taking to ostensibly accomplish that end are legal.
Earlier this year, President Trump designated Latin American drug cartels as terrorist organizations. He has since used that designation to justify deportations and military intervention, both inside and outside of America’s borders. Now, Trump has made claims that link Maduro to at least two of these cartels—Tren de Aragua and Cartel de los Soles—foundational to the increased pressure his administration has applied in Venezuela.
Still, bombing drug boats is a massive departure from the manner in which America has traditionally dealt with these groups. But even if you think the former approach of using the Coast Guard and DEA to intercept these shipments was not good enough (I tend to agree), that doesn’t mean Trump has the legal authority to go to war with them, much less to go to war with Venezuela.
Any such aggression—including when used against terrorist organizations—should require congressional approval. Even those who find Trump’s legal arguments persuasive tend to agree that the established legal precedent requires him to bring the matter before Congress. Unfortunately, the administration appears to have little interest in taking that step.
Trump would hardly be the first president to bypass Congress and launch attacks without the legal backing to do so. American leaders have been abusing the statutes put in place in the wake of 9/11 for the better part of two decades now. However, just because previous presidents did it—including Trump during his first term—doesn’t make these actions any more legal today.
It’s understandable if you look at the influx of drugs across our borders, the plague that both Maduro and the cartels have been on the people of Venezuela, and the precedent established by other recent presidents and conclude that Trump’s actions in the Caribbean are justified. In many ways, they are. However, justified doesn’t mean legal, and we don’t get to ignore the means simply because we like the end results they bring about.
And that truth is relevant to far more than the situation in Venezuela.
As Christians, we’re not permitted to take an “ends justify the means” approach to anything in life because God cares about both the ends and the means. Sin is still sin, even when done for noble or righteous reasons.
Throughout his ministry, Jesus emphasized the importance of paying attention to our motivations and to the state of our hearts because he understood how every word, thought, and action impacts our walk with the Lord. After all, he’d seen the failure to do so drive a wedge between God and his people for generations.
By the first century, religious leaders had instituted hundreds of additional laws intended to prevent the Jews from transgressing the really important ones in the Torah. And their reasoning for doing so was both sound and justified. They were intent on making sure that Israel never fell into the kind of sins and idolatry that had caused the Lord to exile their ancestors.
Yet, along the way, they became so focused on the end goal of not angering the Lord that they lost sight of the true purpose of those laws: to help God’s people spend each day walking in close communion with him.
So, how can we make sure we avoid that mistake today?
George MacDonald—a nineteenth-century Scottish author, poet, and minister—once noted that “God never gave a man a thing to do, concerning which it were irreverent to ponder how the Son of God would have done it.”
And if you ever find yourself wondering how Jesus would accomplish something, just take a moment to ask him. Then, once you get your answer, do what he says.
A great deal of the sin in our lives could be avoided if we simply took the time to ask God for his help in knowing not only what he wants us to do, but how he wants us to do it.
Will you ask both questions today?
“Let no man turn aside, even so slightly, from the broad path of honor, on the plausible pretense that he is justified by the goodness of his end. All good ends can be worked out by good means. Those that cannot, are bad; and may be counted so at once, and left alone.” —Charles Dickens
The post What is Trump’s goal in Venezuela and are his actions legal? appeared first on Denison Forum.
