The New York Times editorial board sharply condemns President Trump’s 'large-scale strike' on Venezuela that led to Nicolás Maduro’s capture, arguing it lacked Congressional authorization and legal legitimacy. The board called the administration's 'narco-terrorist' rationale 'particularly ludicrous' and tied the action to a national security posture it views as claiming a U.S. right to dominate Latin America. It warned the operation risks empowering authoritarian rivals, repeating the mistakes of the 2003 Iraq invasion, and worsening Venezuelan suffering and regional instability.
NYT Editorial Blasts Trump’s ‘Illegal and Unwise’ Strike On Venezuela, Saying ‘Warmongering Violates The Law’
The New York Times editorial board sharply criticized President Donald Trump’s decision to authorize what he described as a “large-scale strike” on Venezuela — an operation that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro.
In a scathing editorial published Saturday, the board faulted the president for acting without clear authorization from Congress and for failing to provide a coherent justification for the operation.
'Mr. Trump has not yet offered a coherent explanation for his actions in Venezuela,' the editorial board wrote. 'He is pushing our country toward an international crisis without valid reasons. If Mr. Trump wants to argue otherwise, the Constitution spells out what he must do: Go to Congress. Without congressional approval, his actions violate U.S. law.'
The board dismissed the administration's stated rationale — that the targets were 'narco-terrorists' — calling that justification 'particularly ludicrous.' It also cited Mr. Trump's recently published national security strategy, which the Times interprets as asserting a U.S. 'right to dominate Latin America.'
'Venezuela has apparently become the first country subject to this latter-day imperialism, and it represents a dangerous and illegal approach to America’s place in the world,' the editorial said. 'By proceeding without any semblance of international legitimacy, valid legal authority or domestic endorsement, Mr. Trump risks providing justification for authoritarians in China, Russia and elsewhere who want to dominate their own neighbors. More immediately, he threatens to replicate the American hubris that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.'
The editorial closed with a bleak assessment of likely consequences: increased suffering for Venezuelans, rising regional instability and lasting damage to U.S. interests.
'We will hold out hope that the current crisis will end less badly than we expect,' the board wrote. 'We fear that the result of Mr. Trump’s adventurism is increased suffering for Venezuelans, rising regional instability and lasting damage for America’s interests around the world. We know that Mr. Trump’s warmongering violates the law.'
The Times' opinion underscores a deep institutional rebuke from a major U.S. newspaper over executive use of force without congressional or clear international backing, and raises questions about legal authority, strategic consequences and regional stability.
Help us improve.
