Donald Trump is an unashamedly polarising figure. Which is just how he likes it.
In his world view, when he is dividing he is conquering.
The unconventional American president routinely forces fair-minded people to make uncomfortable choices, often about matters of principle and deeply-held conviction.
Sign up to The Nightly’s newsletters.
Get the first look at the digital newspaper, curated daily stories and breaking headlines delivered to your inbox.
By continuing you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy.
Others just hate everything he does.
Trump’s decision to remove from power the Venezuelan despot Nicolas Maduro appeals to anyone horrified about the illegitimate regime’s abuse of its citizens — nearly one-third have fled the country in the past decade — and its open embrace of China, Russia and Iran within striking distance of the US.
But America’s military triumph is clouded by Trump’s muddled statements about his intentions with Venezuela’s oil wealth, its reinstatement as a sovereign nation and the high risks attached to installing what amounts to a hostile puppet government in volatile circumstances.
Not for the first time, Trump confronts the free world with a series of conundrums.
Does opposing America’s intervention mean you support Maduro remaining in power? It’s very hard to escape that as the natural corollary. How else would the dictator be removed, having flouted the results of two consecutive elections?
Conversely, does accepting the removal of Maduro mean you agree to America effectively assuming control of a neighbouring country?
Because to deny that consequential outcome would mean allowing a power vacuum in an unstable country and the continuance of a regime that stretches back to Hugo Chavez, whose totalitarian socialism destroyed Venezuela’s economy and way of life.
This is the confusing world of mixed morality which Trump has upended in a brutal show of American military and political power. It’s his way or the highway.
Trump has a habit of taking tired norms and turning them on their head.
Why are Western countries being flooded by illicit drugs from South American kleptocracies where their production is openly protected by corrupt governments?
Why don’t the leaders of “civilised” countries whose social fabric is being undone by narcotics that kill untold thousands of young people stand up against the mongrels who allow the trade to flourish and enrich them?
Are we too blind to see that those who plot the downfall of western societies realise these drugs are doing much of their dirty work?
Trump turns the faux “war on drugs” of former American administrations into effective, but very ugly, practice. His tactic is simple: Don’t try to stop narcotics at your border, but at their source.
More broadly, Trump effectively flushes out bad actors who hide behind the proclaimed human rights of others to advance their own dodgy political positions.
The right to live in abject poverty under the heel of a dictator kept in power by generals running drugs for personal profit is a new concept even for the wooly-headed Australian Greens.
They continue to expose themselves for the far-Left crackpots they have become. Their support for any overtly Marxist cause that arises now obscures their origins as environmental conservationists.
The Greens unquestioningly advocate for all proclaimed refugees and revere the United Nations, but seem unaware of what the UNHCR says about Venezuela:
“The humanitarian crisis in Venezuela has become one of the largest international displacement crises in the world with 7.9 million Venezuelans displaced globally.
“Rampant violence, inflation, gang-warfare, soaring crime rates as well as shortages of food, medicine and essential services have forced millions to seek refuge in neighbouring countries and beyond. An estimated 2,000 people are leaving Venezuela every day.
“This is the largest exodus in Latin America’s recent history and one of the largest displacement crises in the world, as of December 2025.”
What effective action has the UN taken to deal with the root cause of the refugee crisis — the Maduro regime — rather than put bandaids on the symptoms? SFA.
There has been none of the resolve that led to the approved action to bomb the despot Muammar Gaddafi out of power in Libya in 2011, ostensibly on humanitarian grounds.
And Greens MPs, like WA’s Sophie McNeill, decked out in pro-Palestinian gear to prove the obvious Marxist links, protest in the streets that Maduro should be restored to power.
Their fellow travellers in the Labor Left, always uncomfortable with American militarism, know they can’t be seen to support Maduro while the Albanese Government continues a commitment to AUKUS.
So Labor’s response to Trump’s audacious gambit tries to hide behind the concept of “international law” which is, when applied to the use of force by one country on another, unenforceable and therefore impotent.
How did international law go in Gaza? In Ukraine? In Syria? Is it providing any restraint to China’s Taiwan ambitions?
Anthony Albanese, with his political fortunes in serious decline, was characteristically mealy-mouthed: “We continue to support international law and a peaceful, democratic transition in Venezuela that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people.”
International law — while a handy deflection for defensive politicians — did not stop Maduro thumbing his nose at consecutive election losses and turning his nation into a global pariah.
In his book, The impotence of international law, leading German legal academic, Professor Christoph Safferling examined the circumstances when heads of state are able to continue governing without consequences even when they have committed crimes against humanity.
“In such cases, international criminal law has only limited powers where political structures protect perpetrators,” Safferling says. “In contrast to national systems, there are no authorities in place that can enforce arrest warrants.
“Autocrats can hide behind their own state institutions for a long time, even if they have committed the most serious of crimes against humanity.
“However, this does not mean that international law is ineffective. Its strength comes to the fore once political frameworks are torn down.
“This allows trials to take place that can delegitimise entire systems, as was the case with the major war criminals in the Nuremberg Trials. It is in moments like these that the full effect of the law unfolds. Until that time, it relies on international cooperation and patience, but remains a crucial benchmark.”
Trump is in the process of tearing down the political framework that kept Maduro afloat. Maduro’s trial in the US will test the narco-terrorism case against him — and damage the cadres he left behind.
The US intervention is also quietly disrupting the sanctions-busting black market in oil which attracted Russia, China and Iran to Venezuela, major beneficiaries of Maduro’s corruption.
America’s claim that its assault was a law enforcement exercise in support of the longstanding criminal indictments against Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, is a fig leaf at best.
Everything Trump has said since the assault made it clear that bringing them to justice was secondary to removing them from power.
The UN Security Council played out its usual hypocrisy and impotence, led by far-left secretary-general Antonio Guterres, who could find no words of criticism for Maduro, but plenty for the US.
This is despite the Independent International Fact‑Finding Mission on Venezuela, established by the UN Human Rights Council in 2019, disclosing in multiple reports:
• Arbitrary detentions, torture, enforced disappearances, and killings.
• Crimes against humanity, including persecution on political grounds.
• Systematic repression before, during, and after the disputed 2024 election.
• Violence by security forces and pro‑government armed groups.
The UN has not acted on the regime’s protection of drug cartels, though several of its agencies found links between Venezuelan security forces and organised criminal groups.
Why no action? Because Russia and China consistently block or threaten to block any Security Council resolution against Venezuela. And they were at it again this week.
Led by Colombia — next in Trump’s sights for its narco-terrorism — China, Cuba, Mexico and Russia all denounced the intervention. Such well-meaning defenders of the rule of law.
The International Criminal Court has been investigating the Maduro regime since 2021 after concluding there was a reasonable basis to believe crimes against humanity have been committed since at least April 2017. No result so far.
Last year, Venezuela’s national assembly voted to remove the country from the Rome Statute that established the court in a failed attempt to thwart the action.
The risks associated with taking out Maduro were extraordinarily high. While American military capability is unquestioned, Trump’s ability to make his Venezuela escapade work is not.
Even if it’s only a short-term strategy to avoid a power vacuum, he is now depending on Maduro cronies to facilitate a new order for the country.
The West collectively sat on its arse and let protected non-state actors in festering South American kleptocracies flood our societies with narcotics that weaken them, burnishing the nefarious joint ambitions of China, Russia and Iran.
Trump has shown he won’t be constrained by arbitrary rules that others are not expected to follow because they are rogue states.
And he’s now drawn a very clear line in the sand.
