The New York Times conducted an extensive interview with President Trump which is definitely worth reading with a very critical eye. Much of the interview was simple gibberish, but the Times highlighted an astonishing excerpt:
“President Trump declared on Wednesday evening that his power as commander in chief is constrained only by his ‘own morality,’ brushing aside international law and other checks on his ability to use military might to strike, invade or coerce nations around the world.
“Asked in a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times if there were any limits on his global powers, Mr. Trump said: ‘Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.’
“’I don’t need international law,’ he added. ‘I’m not looking to hurt people.’
When pressed further about whether his administration needed to abide by international law, Mr. Trump said, ‘I do.’ But he made clear he would be the arbiter when such constraints applied to the United States.
“’It depends what your definition of international law is,’ he said.
“Mr. Trump’s assessment of his own freedom to use any instrument of military, economic or political power to cement American supremacy was the most blunt acknowledgment yet of his worldview. At its core is the concept that national strength, rather than laws, treaties and conventions, should be the deciding factor as powers collide.”
The quotes reveal a mentality toward governance that harks back to Louis XIV: “L’État, c’est moi“. It is a perspective that generated abject misery among the poorer classes during Louis’s reign and ultimately led to the French Revolution. It is a perspective that has no place in a democratic republic. And it epitomizes an arrogance that is truly sinister and frightening.
Trump continues to dismantle the world order created after the end of World War II. It was a system based upon a belief that multilateral cooperation should replace the national systems that had fostered the tensions that created the mistrust that had led to World Wars I and II. It was an aspirational system that never really realized its ambitions, but the new system proved sufficient to dampen the pressures among Great Powers sufficiently to avoid another cataclysmic war. Trump believes that the multilateral system compromises US autonomy and prevents it from realizing certain national objectives.
Today Trump activated Executive Order 14199 and ordered the US to withdraw from 66 multilateral organizations. I am not familiar with most of these organizations, but among them are ones that I consider crucially important, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), and the UN Conference on Trade and Development. I am also not certain how much advantage the US gains from not being a member of all these organizations, but I think it is safe to say, that many of the organizations will not survive without US financial assistance.
“America First” is clearly “America Alone”. Trump apparently believes that the US does not need to maintain close relations with the rest of the world. He is profoundly mistaken.
Here is the list of affected organizations:
Sec. 2. Organizations from Which the United States Shall Withdraw.
(a) Non-United Nations Organizations:
(i) 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact;
(ii) Colombo Plan Council;
(iii) Commission for Environmental Cooperation;
(iv) Education Cannot Wait;
(v) European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats;
(vi) Forum of European National Highway Research Laboratories;
(vii) Freedom Online Coalition;
(viii) Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund;
(ix) Global Counterterrorism Forum;
(x) Global Forum on Cyber Expertise;
(xi) Global Forum on Migration and Development;
(xii) Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research;
(xiii) Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals, and Sustainable Development;
(xiv) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;
(xv) Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services;
(xvi) International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property;
(xvii) International Cotton Advisory Committee;
(xviii) International Development Law Organization;
(xix) International Energy Forum;
(xx) International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies;
(xxi) International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance;
(xxii) International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law;
(xxiii) International Lead and Zinc Study Group;
(xxiv) International Renewable Energy Agency;
(xxv) International Solar Alliance;
(xxvi) International Tropical Timber Organization;
(xxvii) International Union for Conservation of Nature;
(xxviii) Pan American Institute of Geography and History;
(xxix) Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation;
(xxx) Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combatting Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia;
(xxxi) Regional Cooperation Council;
(xxxii) Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century;
(xxxiii) Science and Technology Center in Ukraine;
(xxxiv) Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme; and
(xxxv) Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.
(b) United Nations (UN) Organizations:
(i) Department of Economic and Social Affairs;
(ii) UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) — Economic Commission for Africa;
(iii) ECOSOC — Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean;
(iv) ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific;
(v) ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia;
(vi) International Law Commission;
(vii) International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals;
(viii) International Trade Centre;
(ix) Office of the Special Adviser on Africa;
(x) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General for Children in Armed Conflict;
(xi) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict;
(xii) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children;
(xiii) Peacebuilding Commission;
(xiv) Peacebuilding Fund;
(xv) Permanent Forum on People of African Descent;
(xvi) UN Alliance of Civilizations;
(xvii) UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries;
(xviii) UN Conference on Trade and Development;
(xix) UN Democracy Fund;
(xx) UN Energy;
(xxi) UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women;
(xxii) UN Framework Convention on Climate Change;
(xxiii) UN Human Settlements Programme;
(xxiv) UN Institute for Training and Research;
(xxv) UN Oceans;
(xxvi) UN Population Fund;
(xxvii) UN Register of Conventional Arms;
(xxviii) UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination;
This is clearly a day that will live in infamy for the US, even as many in the US regard the insurrection as a patriotic act. I remain dumbfounded how the lie of a “stolen” election persists. It is a mark of how willing some are to be deluded in the thrall of an execrable and selfish person who manages to make promises that he can never keep. More bewildering, however, is how easily Trump has discarded the world order promised by the creation of the United Nations and the International Court of Justice. My hope was that some countries who benefited from that world order (think China and Europe) would have tried harder to maintain the system.
But, as argued in a previous post, Trump has led the world into the 19th Century system of the balance of power.
The balance of power is perhaps the most enduring pattern in world politics, and we can trace its applications in many historical situations. The first record of powers explicitly talking about the balance of power was during the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta (431–404 BCE) written by Thucydides. The part of that war which most clearly expresses the logic of the balance of power occurs when the Athenians try to conquer the island of Melos, which was a colony of Sparta. In debating with the people of Melos, the Athenians are explicit about the importance of the balance of power: “Of the gods we believe, and of men we know, that by a necessary law of their nature they rule wherever they can. And it is not as if we were the first to make this law, or to act upon it when made: we found it existing before us, and shall leave it to exist forever after us; all we do is to make use of it, knowing that you and everybody else, having the same power we have, would do the same as we do.”
As one can see from this map, Melos was quite far from Athens, and it posed no security threat at all to Athens. The Melians tried to persuade the Athenians that they would remain completely neutral in Athens’ war with Sparta. When that gambit failed, they resorted to a moral argument: that it was morally wrong for a stronger power to exert its will on a weaker power if there was no security threat to manage. Ultimately, the Athenians simply said that their power gave them the right to subjugate Melos–the first fully articulated defense of the argument that “might makes right”.
In the end, the Athenians conquered Melos, and Thucydides, writing of this tragedy, simply stated “Reinforcements afterwards arriving from Athens in consequence….the siege was now pressed vigorously…the Melians surrendered at discretion to the Athenians who put to death all the grown men whom they took and sold the women and children for slaves…and settled the place themselves.”
With this in mind, it was startling to hear Stephen Miller, an advisor to Trump, in an interview with Jake Tapper of CNN, sounding exactly like the Athenians. For those who cannot bear to listen to Miller, the important part of the interview begins at around the 5:30 minute-mark.
The phrase “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” only hints at the melancholy I felt when I heard this interview. Indeed, Miller is correct that “might makes right” operates in many situations. But that adage brought about World War I and World War II, and the effort after 1945 was to try to create a different world order. I guarantee that Miller’s worldview will only lead to similar catastrophes to the world wars because the Great Powers today agree on very little about the world they prefer. Eventually, the balance of power system fails after there are no longer any weaker states to conquer and the Great Powers turn on each other.
Imperialism never dies, but it changes its clothes every so often. After World War II ended, the colonial empires created by European states slowly disintegrated, a process that is still ongoing. But at the end of the war, there was a sense that the idea of self-determination should override the impulse to dominate. That end never materialized, but the more ostentatious trappings of imperialism became difficult to maintain and the right to dominate was articulated in the language of democracy and liberation.
This particular perspective on mimics one of the founding acts of European imperialism, the Treaty of Tordesilla which divided up the entire world into two parts in 1494, one owned by Spain and the other by Portugal. It was a plan crafted by Pope Julius II, which was subsequently modified by the Treaty of Zaragoza, signed in 1529, to include the eastern hemisphere (by tracing out the antemeridian), which included the Spice Islands.
The settlement did not last long, as other European states (the Dutch, the French, the Belgians, and the British) did not want to miss out on the benefits (to them) of imperialism.
We will see how the Venezuelans feel about the US being in charge of domestic affairs once the dust settles. Undoubtedly, many of them are relieved that Maduro is no longer in power, and the Venezuelan economy is in a deep contraction. Right now, there is tremendous uncertainty about how the US will “run” the country. There is, however, not much the Venezuelans can do as long as US forces remain offshore. But there are countries that depend on Venezuelan oil (Cuba and China, in particular) which will probably contest US “ownership” of the oil fields. Moreover, the US will find that it is impossible to “run” a country at arms-length, and as US personnel begin to filter into Venezuela, they will unquestionably be targets of armed opposition.
Regime change is easy for a country as powerful as the US. What happens after the change, however, is extraordinarily difficult for an outside power. The US learned that lesson in Vietnam, Libya, and Iraq. It’s incredible how the US has forgotten those lessons wo quickly and emphatically.
We all woke up to the news that the US had attacked Venezuela and kidnapped its President and his wife. This outcome was not on my bingo card. I fully expected Trump to overthrow Maduro, but I honestly did not think that Trump would be so blatant in violating US obligations under the United Nations Charter (which outlaws wars of aggression). I am still digesting the few scraps of real information that we have and will probably write more as additional information becomes available. Right now, however, I can make some general observations.
First, the act is the literal end of the world order under which we have lived since 1945. This world order was based upon a repudiation of balance of power politics which was the norm since 1648. Under the balance of power system, states are free to use any and all means available to increase their power and an important part of the system was an implicit recognition that powerful states can take actions to preserve their spheres of influence. Thus, for example, Russia simply asserted that Ukraine was an integral part of the Russian sphere of influence and justified its aggression in those terms. China makes similar claims to the South China Sea and to Taiwan. The US now is firmly entrenched in that 19th century doctrine and we now live in a world where, as the Athenians said to the Melians in the Peloponnesian War: “The strong do as they will, and the weak suffer what they must”.
Second, Trump apparently made the decision to attack Venezuela without consulting any members of Congress and without informing its allies of what was going to happen. In other words, he made a unilateral decision: it was neither democratic nor multilateral. It was an imperial order and that apparently means that Trump is prepared to do whatever he thinks necessary to secure what he believes are US interests. Unless the decision is restrained in some way by Congress, the Supreme Court, or by widespread protests, we now effectively live in a dictatorship.
Third, I suspect that the US will relearn the same lessons it ignored in its earlier attempts at regime change: Guatemala, Iran, Libya, Iraq, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, and Vietnam. It’s easy to overthrow a government, but very difficult to establish a viable, legitimate government to replace it. That task will be even more difficult in the case of Venezuela since Maduro was the only authority removed. All his henchmen are still there, and it is very likely that there will be political instability as the different groups compete for power. In this press conference Trump said that the US would “run” Venezuela for the immediate future. The profound irony of that assertion is that Trump has yet to learn who to “run” the US. And with Pete Hegseth and Marco Rubio in charge, I expect that the Keystone Kops will meet their match in incompetence.
Fourth, Trump asserts that Venezuela “stole” US oil when it nationalized some US companies holdings. TO be clear, Venezuela never gave up its sovereign rights to its own oil. It simply gave the US oil companies the right to lift a certain number of barrels of oil and set a price for that sale. The companies never “owned” the oil; they simply agreed to pay Venezuela for its oil. So nothing was “stolen”. It is true that Venezuela refused to renew those contracts, but for Trump to argue that contracts are sacrosanct is absurd after he’s fired so many Federal employees who had their contracts simply annulled.
I suspect that I will have more to say about this matter as more information is available. But I can assert confidently that this decision to invade Venezuela will go down as one of the most egregious diplomatic failures in American diplomatic history.
The recent report on inflation in the US published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicated that inflation rose by only 2.7% in November. The number was surprising given the anecdotal evidence we have about consumer dissatisfaction with rising prices.
A closer look at the data reveals that the number is not trustworthy. The Bureau publishes the data it uses to calculate the monthly inflation number and the chart from November is filled with holes.
Note that there was no data for many of the components for both October and November, which means that those components were set to zero prices. Critically, the shelter component, which is a very large part of the formula. CNBC reports:
“Economists were zooming in on one particularly important subset in the data as problematic: owners’ equivalent rent. This is a key part of calculating the inflation seen in the housing market.
“UBS economist Alan Detmeister said the price changes in October for the OER appear to have been ‘set to zero.’
“Evercore ISI’s Krishna Guha, digging deeper, said it appears the BLS ‘put in zero inflation in multiple categories’ while calculating the OER for the approximately one-third of cities used.
“’To the extent that it introduces a downward bias, the Fed would be mindful of the risk of taking the data on housing services inflation at face value,’ he wrote in a Thursday note.”
The report is worthless, and it would be a serious mistake to use the 2.7% increase as the basis for any economic decision. The Bureau of Labor Statistics should simply admit that it lacked the data and withdraw the report. Bad data is significantly worse than no data.
The US has asserted that it will blockade all oil tankers from Venezuela on a sanction list. This action follows the seizure of the oil tanker Skipper that was carrying 2 million barrels of crude oil destined for Cuba. Generally speaking, a blockade is considered an act of war but the Trump Administration has not asked the Congress for a declaration of war, nor has it met the requirements of the War Powers Act. Nonetheless, Trump has deployed a massive military buildup off the coast of Venezuela acting on his asserted authority as Commander-in-Chief. The Washington Post listed all the military assets deployed as of today.
AC-130J Ghostrider
Heavily armed gunship
Special Operations Forces
U.S. Air Force (Special Ops Command)
AV-8B Harrier II
Fighter and attack aircraft
Air
U.S. Marine Corps
B-1B Lancer
Supersonic bomber
Air
U.S. Air Force
B-52 Stratofortress
Strategic bomber
Air
U.S. Air Force
EA-18G Growler
Electronic attack jet
Air
U.S. Navy
F-35 Lightning II
Supersonic fighter jet
Air
U.S. Marine Corps
MH-6 Little Bird
Light observation helicopter
Special Operations Forces
U.S. Army (160th SOAR)
MH-60M Black Hawk
Medium-lift military utility helicopter
Special Operations Forces
U.S. Army (160th SOAR)
MH-60T Jayhawk
Medium-range recovery helicopter
Air
U.S. Coast Guard
MQ-9 Reaper
Unmanned combat aerial vehicle (drone)
Air
U.S. Air Force
MV Ocean Trader
Floating special operations base
Special Operations Forces
Operated for U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM)
MV-22 Osprey
Transport and cargo aircraft
Air
U.S. Marine Corps
P-8 Poseidon
Maritime patrol aircraft
Air
U.S. Navy
Sikorsky UH-60L Black Hawk
Medium-lift military utility helicopter
Air
U.S. Army
USS Bainbridge
Guided missile destroyer
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Fort Lauderdale
Amphibious transport dock
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Gerald R. Ford
Aircraft carrier
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Gettysburg (CG-64)
Guided missile cruiser
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7)
Amphibious assault ship
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Jason Dunham
Guided missile destroyer
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Lake Erie
Guided missile cruiser
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Mahan
Guided missile destroyer
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS San Antonio
Amphibious transport dock
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Stockdale
Guided missile destroyer
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Thomas Hudner
Guided missile destroyer
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Wichita
Littoral combat ship
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Winston S. Churchill
Guided missile destroyer
Naval
U.S. Navy
I doubt that the US is contemplating an invasion of Venezuela (but I also doubt that Trump has thought that far). His intention is to create economic chaos in Venezuela that will lead to the overthrow of President Maduro. This particular playbook was actually used by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now known as BP) in 1951 against Iran after Iran nationalized its holdings. The company effectively blockaded Iran from selling its oil to others by following oil tankers leaving Iran and using the courts to prevent the sale of what it called “stolen” oil. Eventually, the Iranian economy collapsed and with a shove from the US CIA led to the overthrow of the president of the country and leading to the rule of the Shah of Iran.
The Iranian example is instructive since the Iranian regime that toppled the Shah in 1979 led to the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the longstanding bitterness between Iran and the US today. The US has a poor track record of regime change. It did not work in Vietnam in 1963 when South Vietnamese President Diem was assassinated or when the US overthrew Iraqi President Hussein in 2003. Other examples include the overthrow of Guatemalan President in 1954 and the toppling President Allende of Chile in 1973. Regime change is a policy adopted by states that pay little attention to the long-term consequences of meddling in the internal affair of other states.
But there is another thread in the Venezuela situation that has not received sufficient attention. Venezuela has the largest oil deposits in the world although its oil is heavy with sulfur and thus requires significant refining in order to be useful. The main seller of Venezuelan oil in the US is a company called Citgo, and it has three refineries in the US. But the US took control of Citgo properties in 2018 using the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FISA). In December 2025 Citgo shares were sold to a US company called Amber Energy with a $5.9 billion bid.
What’s interesting about Amber Energy is that one of its primary backers is Elliott Investment Management, a hedge fund based in West Palm Beach, Florida and whose primary sponsor is Paul Singer. Singer is often termed a venture capitalist (some call him a “vulture” capitalist) and an example of his activities was in profiting from Argentina’s debt problem in the early 2000s:
“Perhaps the most infamous chapter of Singer’s career is his prolonged battle with the government of Argentina over defaulted sovereign bonds. In the early 2000s, Argentina experienced a financial crisis that led to the country defaulting on its debt. While many creditors agreed to restructure their bonds at a fraction of their original value, Elliott Management refused, demanding full repayment. What followed was a 15-year legal and financial battle that saw Singer’s firm seize Argentine naval vessels and block international payments. In 2016, the dispute culminated in a $2.4 billion payout to Elliott Management, a victory that underscored Singer’s tenacity and strategic prowess.”
Regime change might result in a US company controlling all of Venezuela’s oil (if Maduro does leave, his most likely successor would be María Corina Machado who would likely have Trump’s blessing, although her political power will be sorely tested if she does not protest the US actions). In short, a US company would have control over Venezuela’s massive reserves.
Trump’s actions against Venezuela are reprehensible and short-sighted. The long-term consequences of Trump’s “gunboat” diplomacy will weaken US credibility and prestige, all in the name of preserving the viability of fossil fuel hegemony in the US. It is a fool’s errand and completely out of touch with the world as it currently operates.
There are a number of questions about this action which need to be answered. But I think that the Post did a great job of raising those questions. Many of those questions revolve around the status of the military action against these alleged drug running vessels: are these actions “acts of war”? President Trump defends these actions under his authority as Commander-in-Chief of the US military and that he is using forces against actors which threaten US national security. Most of those defenses are bogus and have been addressed in many other media sources.
But, for purposes of argument, let’s pretend that the US military action is justified by the principles of self-defense. Those arguments are used to justify the first use of force against these vessels.
But the second attack on the survivors clinging to wreckage is unquestionably a violation of the laws of war. The Geneva Convention is explicit:
GENEVA CONVENTION for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949
CHAPTER II Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked
Article 12
Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are at sea and who are wounded, sick or shipwrecked, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances, it being understood that the term “shipwreck” means shipwreck from any cause and includes forced landings at sea by or from aircraft.
Such persons shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Parties to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created.
Only urgent medical reasons will authorize priority in the order of treatment to be administered.
Women shall be treated with all consideration due to their sex.
We should remember that the Laws of War are generally unenforceable since the international organizations tasked with the enforcement (the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court) are powerless to enforce the laws against powerful states. But the Laws of War rest upon the self-interest of states to protect their own people against unlawful acts. The United States would never want its wounded soldiers to be ruthlessly murdered, so it must adhere to a code of conduct that respects the similar status of its enemy’s soldiers. This code of conduct is frequently violated, but far less than one would expect. This self-interest is most potent with respect to civilians, but again, we have lots of evidence to suggest that it is far less than perfect.
Killing two wounded individuals in open seas is a blatant violation of this norm and it invites reciprocal actions by other states. We have already witnesse massive loss of civilian lives in the conflicts in Congo, Myanmar, Ukraine, and the Gaza Strip, and these actions should be soundly condemned. The report of Israeli Defense Forces killing two individuals in the West Bank who had their hands raised in surrender is further evidence of the erosion of this critical aspect of the Laws of War.
Nov. 27, 2025 incident in which two Palestinian men were killed during an operation in Jenin, in the occupied West Bank
There is a second important issue raised by the second missile attack. According to the Post, the military unit that carried out the attack was one of the US’s most elite troops. Whoever received the order to kill the wounded survivors should have refused the order. That the order was carried out suggests a stunning lack of discipline by very well-trained troops. The protections for wounded soldiers and civilians must be enforced. If not, then no war is being fought; it is murder and barbarous.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction … no longer exists”.
Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
World Politics News 