Protector, Not Provocateur: A Framework for American Power

 Suddenly being indicted is tantamount to being guilty. I thought I woke up in the United States.

January 5, 2026

I want to address the U.S. arrest, seizure and transfer of Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro, not from a partisan standpoint, but from the standpoint of law, stability, and America’s long-term interests.

First, a basic principle: an indictment is not a conviction. In the United States, guilt is determined in court, not by press release. That standard must apply universally—regardless of whether the accused is popular, unpopular, foreign, or domestic. If we abandon that principle abroad, we weaken it at home.

Second, sovereignty matters. Entering another nation to seize its leader—absent transparent legal justification and internationally recognized authority—poses serious risks to the international order. The prohibition on the use of force against another state is not an abstract legalism; it is a stabilizing rule designed to prevent cycles of retaliation, escalation, and normalized lawlessness among nations.

Third—and this is critical—we must confront the destabilizing consequences of actions like this.

History is not ambiguous on this point. With rare exceptions, externally imposed regime change and unilateral seizures of foreign leaders have destabilized regions rather than stabilized them. Panama in 1989 is often cited as an exception, but it is just that—an exception, shaped by unique geographic, institutional, and historical circumstances that do not generalize.

More commonly, the record looks like this:

• The U.S.-backed overthrow of Guatemala’s elected government in the 1950s helped trigger decades of civil war and repression, and it profoundly shaped regional perceptions of the United States as a destabilizing force rather than a partner.

• That intervention, and others like it, contributed directly to the political environment in which Fidel Castro’s revolution in Cuba succeeded and hardened anti-American sentiment across much of Central and South America.

• The result was not greater security, but generations of mistrust, regional instability, and repeated cycles of violence that harmed local populations and U.S. interests alike.

Latin America remembers this history clearly—even when Washington prefers to forget it.

Actions such as seizing a sitting head of state on foreign soil, regardless of the allegations involved, are unlikely to improve America’s standing in the region. They are far more likely to reinforce existing skepticism, inflame nationalist backlash, and weaken cooperation on the very issues we claim to care about—security, migration, and economic stability.

And this brings me to credibility.

It is difficult to persuade the world that indictments are tantamount to guilt when, in other cases, individuals who were actually convicted in U.S. courts have received political pardons. Equal justice cannot be situational. If we want respect for American law, we must practice consistency in its application.

None of this is a defense of Nicolás Maduro. Venezuela’s people have endured profound hardship, and if crimes can be proven in court, justice should be done—through due process, not through shortcuts that undermine international norms and long-term stability.

America’s strength has never been brute force alone. Nor has America’s strength has never been that we are perfect. It’s that we are committed to law over impulse, standards over slogans, and principles over politics. It has been our ability to build legitimacy, alliances, and trust. You do not build a livable neighborhood by repeatedly offending your neighbors. You build it by setting clear rules, respecting sovereignty, and holding yourself to the same standards you demand of others.

That is why I am calling for immediate public disclosure—subject to necessary security redactions—of:

1.                  The asserted legal basis under international law for this operation,

2.                  The authority relied upon for the use of force, and

3.                  An assessment of the regional destabilization risks created by this action.

Going forward, we need firm guardrails: no unilateral apprehension of foreign leaders without transparent legal justification, meaningful congressional oversight, and a clear showing that no lawful alternative exists.

We can pursue justice without abandoning sovereignty. We can enforce the law without destabilizing entire regions. And we can protect American interests without repeating the mistakes that history has already shown us to regret.