Ask Us Anything
Venezuela, Greenland, and who's in charge?
Please take advantage of our New Year’s Sale to become a paid subscriber to Bowers News Media and Wolves and Sheep for only $6/month or $60/year. You will receive access to two paid articles per week, invites to our monthly political briefings, opportunities to ask us questions in our Ask Us Anything series, and the ability to post comments on our articles.
On my Facebook feed, I have been reading articles about how the action in Venezuela has violated the Constitution and broken International Law. I have also seen comments on Facebook countering the claim that other presidents have done the same thing. How is what Trump has done different from past presidents’ disregard for the Constitution?
(Chris) Trump is definitely not the first president to take military action without receiving congressional approval beforehand. What seems entirely different to me is that the Trump administration might be the first to take military action mere weeks after telling Congress they would not take it. That is just straight up lying.
It is worth comparing Trump’s actions in Venezuela to the closest recent analogue: the United States intervention and regime change in Panama in December 1989. Both were roundly condemned internationally, and both Nicolas Maduro and Manuel Noriega were involved with drug trafficking. Further, Maduro and Noriega had invalidated recent elections.
However, there are also clear differences. In October 1989, a United States soldier was killed by Panama Defense Forces, and the Panamanian General Assembly declared that a state of war existed between Panama and the United States. There was no similar provocation by Venezuela that I am aware of.
Further, in America, there was 80% public support for the invasion. Also—and very importantly—the winning candidate in the election that Noriega had overturned, Guillermo Endara, was sworn in as president the night preceding the invasion. Panama remains a democracy to this day.
Hopefully, Venezuela will become a democracy once again—and very soon—but right now there are some pretty stark differences between what happened in Panama and what happened in Venezuela that makes the former justifiable and the latter not so much. Bush Sr. also did not immediately use what happened in Venezuela to start threatening a bunch of other countries, including democracies, treaty-bound allies and trading partners, as Trump has done.
Is Venezuela a smoke screen for Trump to avoid the Epstein files, the poor economy for working Americans, his dementia or his arrogance?
(Matt) Yes. Donald Trump is not hard to figure out. When an outrage is about to become public, he deflects attention from it by taking an even more outrageous action. His entire administration has been a series of attempts to get people to look over there. While Venezuela satisfies Trump’s interest in self-aggrandizement by allowing him to claim a sphere of influence for himself in South America and in stealing resources from other people, it also fits the pattern of deflect and escalate.
That said, it’s hard to see how it’s going to be successful. Americans—including the isolationist MAGA base—have no interest in getting into a quagmire in another country, and neither the Epstein files nor the sour economy are going away.
What is going to happen if Trump continues his rhetoric regarding taking over Greenland? Considering what he has done with Venezuela, I really don’t think it’s rhetoric any more that he is seriously considering taking over Greenland.
(Chris) I think the Trump administration’s comments about Greenland are BS in two ways. First, I don’t actually think he we will do it. Second, his comments are incredibly damaging to our national reputation, alliances and thus our position in the world.
To delve more into the first point, here is why I don’t think Trump will take military action against Greenland. Using military force to take over Greenland is supported by 7% of the country, and opposed by 72%, according to YouGov. While action in Venezuela is likely to be unpopular when more polling comes out, the numbers in Greenland are way beyond anything we will see about Venezuela. Additionally, while Republicans in Congress overwhelmingly support taking out someone like Maduro, the majority would be vehemently opposed to doing the same in Greenland—especially by military force. Not a single country in the world would defend military action there, and many would likely break off trade and diplomatic relations immediately.
Trump and his top aides are trying to use military action in Venezuela to make it seem as though Trump is entirely unconstrained and willing to take any action he desires. They do this in order to intimidate others into giving Trump whatever he wants.
However, this image of an unconstrained Trump is false. Just last week he backed down about deploying the National Guard to blue states against the wishes of the local governors following a negative Supreme Court ruling. That is just one example of many, and it is not the sort of thing that an entirely unconstrained president does.
No matter what he did in Venezuela and no matter what sort of image he tries to project, Trump’s power is actually constrained on many fronts, and there are numerous lines that he either won’t cross or is simply unable to cross. Seizing Greenland by force is one of those lines, no matter what comes out of his mouth or the social media feeds of top aides and their spouses.
It looks as though competition on the Republican side to be Trump’s successor is forming. Trump couldn’t care less and will seek to diminish anyone who could overshadow him. What do you think?
(Matt) You’ve identified a core dynamic of the upcoming 2028 Republican presidential race. Ambitious Republicans are lining up to audition to be Trump’s heir apparent after his Oval Office turn is finally over. Every second term president becomes irrelevant once the next presidential cycle begins following the midterm elections. But Trump is incapable of fading into the background. He will demand to be the center of attention all the time. It wouldn’t be surprising if he resuscitates talk about running for a third term, if for no other reason than to remain in the spotlight. And for their part, any Republican who wants to inherit the leadership of the MAGA party will need to offer their deference to Trump. This should make for a lively primary season.
Given Trump's age and his lack of interest in most things, who is actually in charge of the government?
(Matt) Trump was never interested in the job of president, and has used the office for the things that matter to him—getting rich, feeding his ego, and punishing his enemies. This is the through line connecting what otherwise looks like a haphazard series of head-scratching actions like imposing tariffs (a boon for the ultra rich) and threatening Greenland (to claim American dominance in the western hemisphere). Trump’s apparent physical and cognitive decline in recent weeks naturally informs your question about who’s in charge, but it’s not clear that much has changed except now we see him falling asleep in meetings more often and sounding especially incoherent.
As in the first term, the vacuum at the top is filled by those below, only last time that meant more career Republicans than true believers. This time you have Stephen Miller running immigration policy and Russell Vought at OMB implementing Project 2025. But—even without Trump’s engagement—the direction of every administration is dictated from the top. American policy right now is essentially a manifestation of Donald Trump’s malignant mind.