What Does It Mean To 'Run' Venezuela?

Plus: Trump’s expanding view of U.S. power abroad, Zohran Mamdani touts the “warmth of collectivism,” and Tim Walz won’t seek reelection

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

What Does It Mean To 'Run' Venezuela?

HD Video Download

This week, editors Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Matt Welch are joined by Reason senior editor Robby Soave to dig into the U.S. capture of Venezuela's sitting president, Nicolás Maduro, and what it means for the White House to claim it can "run" another country without congressional authorization. They debate what temporary American control is supposed to mean in practice, whether the capture of Maduro was legal, how war powers and congressional authorization fit into it all, and why White House officials keep framing the moment as a fight to expand U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere.

The discussion shifts to New York politics after Mayor Zohran Mamdani calls for replacing "the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism," prompting a debate over his motives to use such rhetoric in his inauguration speech. They also examine Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz's decision not to seek reelection as attention intensifies around a major fraud case that gained national notice following a viral empty-daycare video. A listener question asks whether immigration policy should weigh factors like culture and religion, and what reforms could reduce corruption and conflict without abandoning the case for legal immigration.

 

0:00—Can the U.S. "run" Venezuela?

12:46—President Donald Trump's foreign policy ambitions

25:52—Mamdani denounces "rugged individualism"

33:46—Listener question on immigrant assimilation

44:30—Walz not seeking reelection

52:22—Weekly cultural recommendations

 

Upcoming Reason Events

The Reason Roundtable: Live in Washington, D.C.! February 4

 

Mentioned in This Podcast

"Did Marco Rubio Lie to Congress About Venezuela?" by Eric Boehm

"Regime Changed?" by Christian Britschgi

"Americans Are Increasingly Skeptical of Foreign Military Intervention," by J.D. Tuccille

"Donald Trump Says the U.S. Will 'Run' Venezuela After Maduro's Ouster," by César Báez

"Trump Should Have Tried To Get Congressional Authorization If He Wanted To Strike Venezuela and Capture Maduro," by Eric Boehm

"A Socialist Swearing In," by Christian Britschgi

"Zohran Mamdani Can't Ruin New York City," by Katherine Mangu-Ward

"Nick Shirley, Tim Walz, and the Minnesota Fraud Story: Did the Media Miss It?" by Robby Soave

"The Minnesota Welfare Fraud Story Is Really About a Broken Medicaid Bureaucracy," by Eric Boehm

"Tim Walz Drops Out of Minnesota Governor Race. Good Riddance," by Robby Soave

• Producer: Paul Alexander
• Video Editor: Ian Keyser

What are we consuming this week?

Peter Suderman

• Marty Supreme

Matt Welch

• Marty Supreme

Katherine Mangu-Ward

• A Man on the Inside: Season 2

Robby Soave

• The Last Death of the Year: A Novel, by Agatha Christie and Sophie Hannah

---

Comments

[Stupid Government Tricks]

"Legality" in international relations is meaningless, since there are no international laws. The UN, the ICC, maritime shipping rules, and all other international "laws" are not enforced by international courts with any standing in the US; the treaties themselves have no force of law. The Supreme Court has ruled that to allow them to have any validity would be to short-circuit the Article V amendment process, and said that only the normal laws passed in the usual manner can implement treaties.

No matter how immoral, stupid, dangerous, or counter-productive it was to kidnap Maduro, it broke no international laws which are relevant. People, including lawyers, judges, and politicians, toss around phrases like "customary international law" which have no legal consequences.

IANAL and am Stupid besides, but other than lawyers quibbling over nonsense, that's a good enough summary for laymen.

[MollyGodiva]

Everything you said is bunk. The Constitution says treaties are law and the courts can enforce them.

https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/treaties-and-supreme-court

[GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND]

You’re so stupid it’s funny.

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

He truly revels in his idiocy.

[Fu Manchu]

It's not worth arguing with these propaganda-mainlining morons.

[DesigNate]

The only ones mainlining propaganda are you stupid fucks.

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

Sarc, can a treaty override the constitution? You claim to be smart, false claims, and have read the constitution, you have not... so answer the question. Hint you can even Google this.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

In other words, the Senate could ratify a UN treaty overriding the entire Bill of Rights and making all laws subject to UN approval, and the House and the states would have no say in the matter?

You aren't smart enough to be crazy as a fox. You're just plain stupid.

[Neutral not Neutered]

Did you get a raise for your 2025 performance? You didn't get any smarter.

[mad.casual]

No matter how immoral, stupid, dangerous, or counter-productive it was to kidnap Maduro, it broke no international laws which are relevant. People, including lawyers, judges, and politicians, toss around phrases like "customary international law" which have no legal consequences.

The idea that there is some unwritten... or written... globalist absolutist norms which cannot and shall not be violated is both relatively modern and an utterly bizarre concept for non-theistic libertarians to hold.

Again, truly individualist, pro-diversity, or "bordurz iz konstruktz" civil libertarians would/could understand such a concept, but would obviously reject it (the codification, enforcement, or preservation of it) out of hand as a globalist socialist/collectivist theocracy.

Even if there are or were a law specifically forbidding the beheading of a Nationalist Socialist Dictatorship, "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

[Dan S.]

The Constitution itself clearly states that (in addition to itself and normal acts of Congress) "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." And the United Nations Charter, which requires recognition of the political independence and territorial integrity of other member states, is such a treaty. But no clear mechanism for punishing violations is laid out.

If Venezuela were a member of the ICC, that Court might have jurisdiction. But it isn't (I think it withdrew), so there isn't any. Which is a problem.

[mad.casual]

Trump, so far, has observed the independence and territorial integrity of, for, and by the people of Venezuela more than Maduro has. Arguably more than the UN has or will. You yourself overlook the "in pursuance thereof" before "all Treaties made" to falsely invoke a Supreme Authority and wrap it in the husk of The Constitution.

Congress cannot simply ratify a treaty that dissolves a Union created of, for, and by The People or preserves the dictatorship against it, of any country.

It's an utterly retarded and backwards reading of the letter, intent, and spirit of the entirety of the founding documents.

[DesigNate]

To quote SGT:

“In other words, the Senate could ratify a UN treaty overriding the entire Bill of Rights and making all laws subject to UN approval, and the House and the states would have no say in the matter?”

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Thank you! Every article I have read on the matter brings up that point about bypassing Article V, and that the Supreme Court has expressly ruled that treaties cannot bypass Article V. There may be some subtleties to this that only lawyers can appreciate. Perhaps a treaty which renamed the Gulf of TexMex would not need implementing laws. But not a single article has claimed that ratifying a treaty can amend the Constitution or change existing laws.

[Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)]

prompting a debate over his motives to use such rhetoric in his inauguration speech.

There is no debate about his motives. He is a communist. End of story.

[Fu Manchu]

The same group of thugs is still in power in Venezuela. So good job Trump, invading a country and kidnapping its leader for nothing.

Also I remember when Trump (and therefore his supporters) was against regime change. He said it multiple times on the campaign trail. Funny how things change.

[DesigNate]

He lost the election and decided to actually stay in power. He wasn’t their “leader”. Fuck, even Joe Biden recognized that, hence the $25M bounty.

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

even Joe Biden recognized

Was that after he recognized where Jackie was? Now I'm not saying Maduro won but using a dementia patient as justification for a policy is the epitome of retardation.

[DesigNate]

Sorry, should have said “Joe Biden’s puppet masters”.

[Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)]

If the same group of thugs are in power, there was no regime change, was there?

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

I remember when you claimed to not be a narrative spewing leftist.

Maduro was never the recognized leader retard. They are forcing new elections. Yet you cry about him not personally running Venezuela during the interim. Lol.

[Neutral not Neutered]

You just admitted there was no regime change.

You are so stupid you confuse yourself in your own posts and don't even comprehend it.

[Dan S.]

Donald Trump,
He take the oil and run Venezuela.

(Apologies to Harry Belafonte)

[Set Us Up The Chipper]

It means we get China out of the rare earth loop, dismantle Iran's drone construction facilities (or use them for our purposes), and kick the Russians out of the country. Probably also means we install a puppet government to renegotiate some treaties. We don't need their oil but China does so that is also a point of control.

It's called grown up real politik/geo politics/great power politics.

[Neutral not Neutered]

It's heavy crude and bitumen which the US built refineries for the Venezuela oil and for the Oil Sands oil from Canada.

Those refineries are not performing at expected levels due to the democrats politics shutting down the supply of the heavy crude/bitumen cancelling pipelines and enriching Iran.

This move against Maduro was the most clever way to infiltrate the axis of evil's income and defiance of the sanctions imposed.

[jeannie melo]

Every time I hear them answer immigration questions regarding cultures that are anti-western, anti-Semitic, etc… (for example, 90% of Somali girls are circumcised- which is a polite, dissembling term. And corruption is the norm not exception for much of the global south), I can already imagine the stereotype-of-an-answer that is clearly preordained POV. We all know we have no choice but to accept mass changes to culture and society, as well as inevitable overcrowded conditions…. permanently, forever, even when the past can’t be fit into current or future situations. I’d even say that if we could all look into a magic ball and see a future of civil strife, even-lower trust, Islamic control, pogroms…, Americans would STILL have to be pro-mass-immigration from cultures in direct conflict to our own values. But the alternative is horrible. So I have no solution.

[Vernon Depner]

Any croutons in that word salad?