David Brock is an author and Democratic strategist. His most recent book is “Stench: The Making of the Thomas Court and the Unmaking of America.”
Democrats should say this out loud: The United States is allowed to defend itself. It is allowed to put foreign criminals in a U.S. courtroom. If we Democrats seem like we’re defending a narco-state’s sovereignty over American neighborhoods, we deserve to lose.
The Biden administration had a $25 million bounty on Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro. It wanted him gone. So did most Democrats. But that was then.
After the U.S. captured Maduro, a familiar reflex has kicked in across Democratic politics: oppose first, think later. Not exactly Trump derangement syndrome, but the effect is the same. I understand the revulsion most of us feel toward President Donald Trump, but Democrats’ first obligation is not catharsis. It is political competence and survival.
If Maduro exported cocaine and cartel violence to the U.S., he belongs behind bars, not in a palace. A large share of Americans will hear “the U.S. captured the head of a drug ring” and think: good. They will not parse legal niceties. They will want to know two things: Did it make Americans safer, and will it stop there?
Those are the questions Democrats should be asking. Instead, many of them have branded the American operation “unlawful” or “illegal,” and at least one is floating impeachment rhetoric.
The facts of what happened should not be controversial. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called this “a law enforcement operation.” This was not an invasion. It was not an occupation or a coup. It was an arrest raid executed flawlessly with military force to extract the target. Call it what it is. Do not call it Iraq.
And that is why the “Congress should have preapproved it” argument is a loser. You do not put a surprise arrest operation on a legislative calendar. You do not brief a city full of leakers. If you believe that telling voters that America needs permission from the United Nations or Congress to act against cartel leaders, you are going to be on the wrong side of popular opinion.
Then there is the issue of legality and legitimacy.
International lawyers and the U.N. secretary general have raised concerns that the operation sets a dangerous precedent and violates international law absent Venezuelan consent, a convincing self-defense claim or U.N. authorization. That sounds like a valid objection, as it does when Democrats raise the constitutional issue about the White House not seeking authorization. But we’re dealing with the real world here. (President Barack Obama bombed Libya, a non-battlefield state, without seeking congressional authorization.)
We’re turning this episode into a procedural purity test instead of a public safety argument. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) calling it “a violation of the law” may feel satisfying in the moment. It also hands Republicans what they want: Democrats sounding more upset about their supposed prerogatives than about American deaths from drug trafficking.
So what is the right posture? It is neither reflexive condemnation nor a blank check. It is strength with limits. It is a simple message voters understand: Fine, arrest the narco boss. Now tell us how it ends.
Here is what those limits should mean and what Democrats in Congress should do.
First, no occupation. Trump has flirted with the idea that the U.S. will “run” Venezuela during a transition. That is an invitation to mission creep, blowback and failure. Democrats should say clearly: We can support bringing an alleged narco-terrorist to court, and we will oppose turning Venezuela into a U.S. protectorate.
Second, do not let leadership talk itself into performative war-powers theater. If there is a war-powers vote designed to “compel” Trump to seek approval for further action, Democrats with an eye on 2026 should vote no. Force briefings. Demand a plan. Set limits. But do not vote for a headline.
Third, stop obsessing about oil grabs. The “it’s all about oil” line is tempting because of this administration’s corrupt rule. In a social media post, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) charged that the administration’s motives were “about oil and regime change.” Likewise, Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Florida) claimed the U.S. acted on behalf of “mega-corporations.”
But this isn’t about corporations: Venezuela has vast oil reserves, and the administration has a legitimate concern about bad foreign actors controlling oil assets in America’s own hemisphere. In any event, Venezuela’s oil industry is devastated. If the country stabilizes, companies will compete to invest. That is not a scandal. It is basic economics.
Democrats should remember that Americans may not vote on foreign policy in the abstract, but they do vote against quagmires, humiliations and weakness. That is why Democrats should view the Maduro extraction as necessary but not sufficient. Take the American win. Then get to work.
The post From one Democrat to another: Please don’t defend a narco state appeared first on Washington Post.
