Are we going to invade Venezuela?

Key Takeaways

The U.S. has intensified military actions against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean, raising questions about motives.
President Trump authorized covert operations in Venezuela, citing drug trafficking, but provided no public evidence for claims.
Stephen Miller is identified as a key figure influencing an aggressive Venezuela policy and expanding presidential power.
These U.S. actions are seen as testing legal limits of military force and potentially escalating toward conflict.

U.S. military forces conducted kinetic strikes against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean, resulting in multiple deaths and the destruction of over a dozen vessels since September.
President Trump is sending warships to Venezuela, prompting questions about the administration's motives.
Washington Post reporter Alex Horton noted a shift from traditional drug interdiction methods to more aggressive tactics.

President Trump authorized CIA covert operations in Venezuela, citing drug trafficking and the release of prisoners into the U.S.
The administration suggests these operations are a coercive tactic to pressure Maduro to leave office, claiming targets are involved in drug trafficking.
The administration has not provided evidence of drugs or connections to trafficking organizations to justify targeting boats off Venezuela's coast.
Alternative explanations include U.S. interest in Venezuela's oil reserves and President Trump's historical pattern of seeking financial benefits in foreign dealings.

The recent escalation of U.S. policy toward Venezuela deviates from past approaches and aligns with long-term Republican goals, as outlined in Project 2025.
Experts suggest the recent deadly strikes against suspected criminals in Venezuela are not legitimate military operations but potentially illegal murder under international law.
This approach tests the boundaries of legal and normative limits for military action, with a historical context of Congress abdicating its war-declaration authority.

Some Republican establishment figures, like Marco Rubio, advocated for ousting Venezuelan President Maduro, viewing his regime as a mafia.
These figures pushed for sanctions and threats of military action against Venezuela.
During Trump's first term, the administration issued threats but avoided direct military intervention, with Trump appearing hesitant about actual military engagement.

Stephen Miller, identified as the president's chief immigration advisor and domestic policy tsar, became a key figure influencing an aggressive policy towards Venezuela, aligning with Rubio's stance.
This approach contrasted with special envoy Rick Grinnell's more conciliatory path, which included meeting Maduro and negotiating prisoner exchanges.
The dynamic shifted around August, with Grinnell receding and Rubio's position gaining traction, influenced by Miller's arguments to expand presidential power by circumventing Congress.
Miller's involvement in foreign policy, despite his domestic focus, highlights his role in expanding presidential power in military actions against drug boats.

The administration's actions, including targeting boats off Venezuela and labeling individuals as narco-terrorists, suggest an expansion of presidential power.
These actions are seen as potentially escalating towards conflict, mirroring past tactics used to criminalize immigrant groups during the first Trump term.
The current playbook continues with less internal dissent than previously observed.
The host questioned whether the U.S. is going to war with Venezuela, noting that even administration contacts are uncertain about intentions.