By Jayvis (Ivy) Eisener, Junior Reporter
Understanding the abduction of President Maduro needs the context of history, political science, and much more of the human experience than my writing can capture. On the 28th of January at 5:15, there will be a panel in the John E. Robbins library which will address these issues and others with a greater range of expertise. I feel obligated to respond and to make sense of these events as a person in the world, to give both myself and potentially other students the tools to think more widely.
An analysis of the abduction of Maduro should not go without the comments of the Commander-in-Chief of the nation which abducted him. Trump was keen to mention his nation’s policy towards Latin America, called the “Donroe Doctrine.” Literate individuals believe that the most powerful man in the world was likely referring to the Monroe Doctrine. Meg Kinnard of PBS News summarizes that the doctrine was “originally aimed at opposing European meddling in the Western Hemisphere.” It has since been invoked repeatedly by subsequent presidents angling to justify U.S. intervention in the region. Following this, the Trump administration claimed that the Trump admin would run, or even was running, Venezuela. The Trump Administration used the Monroe Doctrine to justify its intervention and subsequent ‘takeover’ of Venezuela.
Beginning in September of 2025, Latin American relations have been headlined by the illegal bombings of fishing boats within Latin American waters. The truth of the situation is this: there have been several attacks by the USA on citizens in small boats of many Latin American countries, including Venezuelan citizens. These attacks, outside of the waters controlled by the United States, have killed 115 people. There is zero evidence that these individuals were threats to the United States, and these attacks are both in obvious violation of international law, as well as US law. Killing individuals suspected of crimes without a trial is flatly illegal. The United States alleges that these individuals are “narco-terrorists” who are transporting drugs into the country. They are alleged members of drug cartels which the US is at war with, and, as a result, they are able to make strikes on these citizens. However, there has been absolutely no evidence presented of the existence of these drugs or that these boats are even going to the United States. A particularly egregious example is the September 2nd attack in which a “double-tap” was conducted. According to the video of the attack, a strike was made which disabled the vehicle of the alleged criminals. This was followed by a subsequent ‘tap’ which was to murder the individuals. I see these attacks, and now the abduction of the president of a foreign nation, however antidemocratic he may be, as an escalation of the same practice. But what could the justification be? Is the United States simply an operative of democracy around the globe, ensuring that authoritarian leaders are kept in check with power? Let's look back further, before September.
We should consider the history of the United States and its involvement in Latin America as one of frequent interventions, militarily, but also economically and politically. Venezuela being a nation of mineral resources, and especially oil, the United States has historically taken an interest in its access to these resources. Their involvement in Latin America has been more than simply the deposition of authoritarian rulers in favour of the creation of democratic ones. Rather, their relations with these nations have been one of the ensuring of United States economic and geopolitical interests in the region. When the United States illegally armed, trained, and funded the Contras as a group of right-wing force which sought to overthrow the government of Nicaragua, the reason for US meddling in the region was because the Nicaraguan government was nationalizing infrastructure that was owned by United States companies. The threat to their economic interests was far more important than manufacturing a democratic regime. There are other examples, such as the support of military dictator Pinochet in Chile, who overthrew the Allende government. It shows a pattern of behaviour which does not align with the idea that the United States has historically had Democracy as a prioritized outcome in relation to their interventions.
This paper was partly sparked by the pervious article written by Tenma Bonafacio. They identify liberals who are Americans, who “view Trump as an enemy and a threat to their liberties and rights.” This is contrasted by Venezuelan citizens which celebrate the disappearance of the authoritarian leader Maduro. The author suggests that resentment towards Trump is the reason for ’liberal‘ pushback on the abduction of a foreign leader. They also consider the idea that Trump would be criticized as well for abducting Putin, simply because it was Trump taking these actions. This sentiment that Donald Trump is being criticized unfairly or irrationally is a popular idea, identified more broadly as “Trump Derangement Syndrome.“ However, this kind of analysis detracts from the realities of the situation in regard to the history and politics of the region. It forgets and ignores the legality of the situation. More importantly, it does not make a single mention of a real person who makes the idealistic consideration that Trump and everything he does is bad. On the contrary, we can find profound evidence from many sources, as I have, some surely ’liberal’ or even in some eyes, ’leftist,’ which are interested in the kinds of facts I have mentioned here.
Now, I do in fact feel obligated to leave this article with analysis from a Leftist perspective. This is a continuation of the imperial and neocolonial project of the United States which has existed since the founding of the nation itself. This program has sought in one way or another the control, subjugation and domination of the peoples of Latin America for their money, resources, and labor. It has little at best to do with ‘fighting authoritarianism,’ ‘upholding international law,’ or the maintenance of human rights, which it proclaims so often.
Sources:
1 - Nandika Chatterjee, “The 200-Year-Old Foreign Policy Vision Underlying Trump’s ‘Donroe Doctrine’.” Time, Jan 7 2026; Meg Kinnard, “How the Monroe Doctrine factors into the U.S. arrest of Venezuela’s Maduro.” PBS News, Jan 6 2026.
2 - Meg Kinnard, “How the Monroe Doctrine factors into the U.S. arrest of Venezuela’s Maduro.” PBS News, Jan 6 2026.
3 - The Associated Press, “U.S. military says 8 killed in strikes on 5 more alleged drug boats — but survivors jumped overboard.” CBC News, Dec 31 2025.
4 - “Under international law, an armed conflict between a state and a non-state actor exists only if there is “protracted armed violence” against the state. But experts like Pappier from Human Rights Watch point out that criminal activity does not amount to hostilities under international law.”
Christina Noriega, “‘Inevitably difficult’: Inside one Colombian family’s fight for justice after the US boat strikes.” Aljazeera, Jan 2026.
5 - Jeffrey Stein & Christopher Anders, “Trump’s Boat Strikes Are Illegal. The Public Needs Answers.” ACLU, Dec 18 2025.
6 - The Associated Press ,“U.S. plane used in boat strike was disguised as civilian aircraft, contrary to Pentagon regulation.” CBC News, Jan 13 2026.
7 - Jeffrey Stein & Christopher Anders, “Trump’s Boat Strikes Are Illegal. The Public Needs Answers.” ACLU, Dec 18 2025.
8 - For further reading on how I came to this analysis, see: Scott Neuman, “U.S. interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean haven’t always gone as planned.” NPR, Jan 2 2026; Orlando Hill, “A history of US intervention in Latin America.” Counterfire, Jan 21 2026; “A timeline of CIA operations in Latin America.” Aljazeera, Nov 26 2025; and Alan L. Mcpherson, A Short History of U.S. Interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean. Wiley/Blackwell, 2016.
9 - Tenma Bonafacio, “OPINION: Venezuela – Foreign Sentiments Contrasted by Local Celebrations. Hypocrisy En Masse?” The Quill, Jan 14 2026.
10 - Alex Pattakos, ”The Paradox of ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’.” Psychology Today, Sep 5 2024.