To the Editor:
Re “After Seizing Maduro, Trump Says U.S. Will ‘Run’ Venezuela” (front page, Jan. 4):
Words can hardly capture the profound sense of unease felt by me and likely millions of other Americans as the United States embarks on yet another reckless episode of regime change and nation building, apparently driven by the world’s unquenchable thirst for oil and profit.
That President Nicolás Maduro has proved to be a ruthless, corrupt leader is beyond question. But for President Trump to bypass Congress and assert that it is the United States’ responsibility to oust Mr. Maduro from office, and then remake Venezuela’s government into something he finds acceptable, is arrogant, dangerous and illegal.
Most troubling of all is Mr. Trump’s statement that the United States will “run” Venezuela. Beyond rebuilding the country’s oil infrastructure, this could involve American boots on the ground in the form of a military or security occupation, a prospect that could cost untold sums of taxpayer money, put American lives at risk and further strain already fragile relationships with foreign powers such as China.
That all of this comes from a president who ran successful political campaigns promising to end America’s involvement in foreign wars makes the moment especially rich.
Cody Lyon Brooklyn
To the Editor:
President Trump is trumpeting the military seizure of Venezuela’s leader. Nicolás Maduro, who was indicted in the U.S. on drug trafficking charges. This comes one month after Mr. Trump pardoned the former Honduran president, Juan Orlando Hernández, who was serving a 45-year sentence after a U.S. federal jury found him guilty of conspiring to import cocaine into the United States. What are we to make of this inexplicable inconsistency?
Is this just a risky publicity stunt to deflect heightened criticism of Mr. Trump’s administration or is it a real attempt to make a dent in international drug smuggling and rid the world of one more authoritarian dictator?
The very fact that this question needs to be asked at all speaks volumes about the need for Congress to reassert its constitutional powers to temper and monitor an aging, power- hungry commander in chief.
Peter Alkalay Scarsdale, N.Y.
To the Editor:
Re “Trump’s Attack on Venezuela Is Illegal and Unwise” (editorial, nytimes.com, Jan. 3):
Your arguments against President Trump’s abduction of President Nicolás Maduro are all well taken. This is the most egregious of Mr. Trump’s abuses of power since his return to office.
However, in its attempt to find a fundamental motive for Mr. Trump’s actions, one crucial three-letter word appears nowhere in the text. It’s one that Mr. Trump, in his news conference, invoked frequently.
In April 2024, Mr. Trump is reported to have met with oil industry executives, requesting a $1 billion donation to his campaign in exchange for favors. According to The Times’s reporting, oil and gas interests contributed only $75 million. But the implications are too obvious to be easily ignored.
As always, follow the money.
W.T. Koltek Louisville, Ohio
To the Editor:
I agree with the editorial board that President Trump’s attack of Venezuela violated the Constitution as spelled out in Article 1, Section 8.
But the last time a president and Congress fully complied with the Constitution was on Dec. 8, 1941, when Franklin D. Roosevelt went before Congress and asked for a formal declaration of war.
In 1950, President Harry Truman took the nation to war in Korea without seeking a declaration of war from Congress. Likewise, future presidents took the nation to war in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan without such a declaration.
In my opinion, Congress ceded its constitutional authority to the president, and it may be too late to get the genie back into the bottle.
John A. Viteritti Laurel, N.Y.
To the Editor:
Re “To Trump, on Venezuela: You Break It, You Own It,” by Thomas L. Friedman (column, nytimes.com, Jan. 3):
I agree with Mr. Friedman. My first thought when l saw the headline this morning was: lt’s lraq 2.0.
My second thought was: If Nicolás Maduro and his wife agree to pay for the ballroom, how quickly will they be pardoned?
My third thought meandered into parodies: How do l despoil thee? Let me count the ways.
This could also be rendered as: How do l distract thee? Let me avoid Epstein.
I have taught veterans who suffer from PTSD. Their struggles and courage are heart-wrenching, as are their suicides. The last thing l want to see is Americans on the ground, our young people sent home in body bags or the Venezuelans feeling compelled to take such measures.
My final thought was: ls Congress going to lick the president’s boots again? Will the gutless wonders ever take a stand?
We’ll know soon.
Nancy Treadwell San Angelo, Texas
The post ‘Arrogant, Dangerous and Illegal’: Trump’s Motives for the Attack on Venezuela appeared first on New York Times.
