Securing America's Interests

Billy Houng • February 28, 2026

Whether it be called an abduction or transfer of custody, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was brought to the United States to stand trial for his involvement in grand-scale criminal activity, including the trafficking of illegal drugs to fuel narco-terrorism (PBS News). President Donald Trump then announced his foreign policy plans to “temporarily rule” Venezuela in hopes to impede the flow of drug trafficking, and has openly extended his appetite to acquiring Greenland for the same purpose — to establish national security. After bitter denial from Denmark to even negotiate a deal for Greenland, President Trump told the press that the U.S. would “have Greenland one way or the other.” Further hinting at potential military action, the president described Greenland’s only defense as “two dogsleds” (NBC News). The immediate reaction from many progressives and critics was to accuse the Trump Administration of suddenly waging a war on Venezuelan drugs in an attempt to steer attention away from domestic scandals such as the ICE incident with Renée Good and the highly sought-after full release of the Epstein Files. Others hurled accusations of imperialism in pursuit of commercial benefit — most notably through the commandeering of Venezuelan oil and the harvesting of Greenland’s abundant mineral deposits (YaleInsights). Though Venezuelan oil may have been a small motivation, the true reasons behind Maduro’s controversial arrest lies in his extensive and problematic history with the U.S., while Trump’s aspirations for Greenland reflect logical concerns for the country’s future in geopolitics; the president’s very transparent statements, often misinterpreted as crude or rash, reflect a foreign policy that is surprisingly calculated.

Contentions have also been raised surrounding the legality of the involuntary extraction of the Venezuelan president. According to the International Court of Justice, venturing out to Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, to arrest and extract the Venezuelan president under criminal charges amounts to extraordinary rendition — the nonconsensual capturing of a suspect upon foreign territory — which is illegal under international law. Such violations of the law could result in serious fines for the U.S., or even expulsion from future international organizations. With the U.S. still engaging in this banned practice, junior Rafi Shmeal reflected on whether Trump’s actions were reasonable despite these possible repercussions.

“[America] did break [international law] — 100%,” Shmeal said. “But I believe that what happened [in Caracas] was justifiable in every way; through the censorship and crushing of free speech, the people of Venezuela were really oppressed under Maduro. If Maduro was going to get taken out any other way, through a coup or political maneuvering [for example], there would have been many more casualties than [if] the U.S. had [just] invaded [them like they did]. The people of Venezuela have been liberated from the malignant dictator Nicolás Maduro.”

It is critically important to recognize that the U.S. has had a history of intolerance when it comes to terrorism. Whether it be the sinking of a U.S. boat or a plane bombing on U.S. soil, America has not, does not and will not respond lightly to unwarranted provocation. ‘Foreign Terrorist Organization’ — FTO — was the label branded upon the infamous Al-Qaeda conspirators who were behind the dreadful attacks of September 11, 2001. ‘FTO’ also resembles the label accurately bestowed upon Cartel de los Soles by the Department of Treasury in 2025. Designations such as ‘FTO’ are not thrown about loosely; judging from how the U.S. handled key Al-Qaeda conspirator, Osama Bin Laden, one would be inclined to believe similar force should be warranted when it comes to condemning key Cartel de los Soles conspirator, Nicolás Maduro. To understand the true background of Nicolás Maduro is of utmost importance when justifying the action taken to apprehend him.

Maduro’s illegitimate rise to power began in 2014, when Venezuela fell victim to a devastating economic crisis, with the price of oil tumbling from $100 per barrel to a measly $30. Considering how sixty percent of the Venezuelan economy is controlled by oil exports, this was catastrophic to the already debt-ridden country (Council on Foreign Relations). By exploiting the country’s turmoil through corruption, unlawful jailing of political rivals and countrywide censorship, Maduro clawed his way to the top of the Venezuelan government despite the roaring backlash from the Venezuelan people as well as nearly sixty countries abroad. As a testament to his felonious activity, the Department of Justice placed his name on the U.S.’s most-wanted list, officially declaring him a criminal of several federal offenses, offering $15 million for any information that would lead to his arrest in 2020. That bounty would escalate to $25 million and then $50 million in 2025 (Department of State). This price-tag is well-justified: Maduro is a dictator-turned grand-scale narcotics terrorist who has allegedly been involved in the worldwide illegal distribution of cocaine. He has also been accused of funding military-grade weapons for large forbidden organizations such as Cartel de los Soles, who are responsible for smuggling upwards of 250 metric tons of cocaine into the U.S. per year (Council of Foreign Affairs). Without proper intervention, such a dangerous product would have continued making its way into America, wreaking havoc into the lives of those who fall victim to drug abuse. Though the removal of Maduro does not spell the end to America’s war on drugs, it is a crucial step in the right direction. Under the Trump Administration, the U.S. has further set the precedent for dealing with national-level threats.

In terms of geopolitics, Venezuela and Greenland are points of great interest to most world powers such as China, Russia and the U.S. Due to the locations of Venezuela and Greenland, both countries hold strategic potential for military establishments, mining operations and refueling stations. Specifically, Greenland holds a rather unique geographical positioning equidistant to Russia and the U.S. — Moscow and New York are within a 2500-mile radius of Summit Station, Greenland. Meanwhile, Venezuela has been known for oil-rich land and major contributions to the oil industry; securing a share of Venezuelan mines would guarantee a significant portion of the profits (U.S. Energy Information Administration). President Trump has already met with oil barons in charge of degraded Venezuelan infrastructure, promising to invest “billions” into the area to “make money for the country” (Reuters). Critics, however, seem to disapprove of Trump’s “investment,” claiming that the sour history of American imperialization in South and Central America will repeat itself, leaving regions with noncentralized governments robbed of resources and independence (Wikipedia). While it is true that local dependence on U.S.-governed industry will increase, for the U.S. is responsible for reviving such industry in the first place, one could argue that the trillions of dollars of capital brought by American-ran industry alone greatly outweighs any deficit it may bring to hopeful ideals such as independence (Statistica). In the case of South and Central America, its mutual transaction with the U.S. should be viewed as an opportunity, not as a handout. If it is independence that South and Central America seeks, governments of such aspiring nations must take proper measures to secure such an opportunity to ensure a self-sustaining economy — a process made exponentially easier from the hundreds of billions of annual capital obtained from working in unison with America. Countries who claim to have been doomed by U.S. intervention — which constitutes pouring vast amounts of capital into reviving their long-dead industries — seem to be tricked into victimizing themselves in the face of a greater, helping power. Stubborn defenders of anti-American industry may label countries like Venezuela as inadequately prepared to pull their government out of the ditch of corruption, notably through the cartels, and therefore unable to help themselves. Those same, adamant advocates fail to recognize that it is President Trump — not the Venezuelan people themselves — who has taken successful action in eliminating this rotten branch of Venezuelan government. Instead of stuffing pockets with extra or even embezzled cash and choosing successful America as the scapegoat, Venezuelan higher-ups must rely on themselves to gravitate toward reforming their country into one with a more self-sustaining economy. Speaking of, the U.S. has great motive to invest in countries like Venezuela and Greenland, as the U.S. would profit immensely even if fractured regional governments were on the verge of collapse. To the U.S., there is simply neutrality in the notion of helping local governments become self-sustained — it is merely a matter of business. Parallel with profit, Greenland possesses vast untapped oil deposits as well as an abundance of rare earth minerals critical to the manufacturing of computer components, military weaponry and other high-end technology. Experts estimate unharvested resources to be worth around $4.4 trillion (American Action Forum). Theoretically, with all of it extracted, gas prices would be barricaded from skyrocketing for a while, and American welfare would be more heavily funded. However, senior Tommy Nguyen, former U.S. Government student, offered his perspective on President Trump’s logic behind his recent actions.

“Geopolitics is just a convenient side effect that covers up [Trump’s] reason to [imperialize],” Nguyen said. “He’s also friends with a lot of higher-ups who can utilize [transarctic] trade routes and the oil from Venezuela. I don’t believe the oil and money is all [Trump] is after; this all might just be a power play to monopolize and centralize everything under U.S. power.”

Though it is undeniable that Trump has his own network of connections tied to commerce in the Arctic hemisphere — possibly painting him as a conqueror in hopes of hoarding wealth, another perspective views Trump’s actions as necessary preliminary action when debating where to allocate society-transforming amounts of money; to come ill-prepared without professional, already-willing investors would be ludicrous as well as a complete waste of energy. Beyond this, the effects of global warming have done favor in increasing the investment potential of the Arctic region. Many transarctic trade routes previously inaccessible due to ice are now revealing themselves, with Greenland essential to controlling such routes. Long before the ice started melting, China eyed the Arctic with aspirations of creating a “Polar Silk Road,” with Greenland as an essential part to that plan (Transatlantic Dialogue Center). Though they were denied further encroachment onto Greenland by Danish authorities in 2016, China still clutches onto its dream of being an influential figure in the Arctic hemisphere. Additionally, Russia, being the largest, northernmost nation, has been in the Arctic game for centuries. With two other major world powers with their eyes on Greenland, President Trump says that he must “take Greenland before China or Russia [take it first]” — applying a rationale similar to that behind the incident in Venezuela (Reuters). In light of Trump’s words, anti-war protests throughout America as well as abroad have been waged, with protestors reportedly marching through the streets of Copenhagen, Denmark in numbers as high as 20,000 (Anti-War Committee Chicago). In contrast to the much more radical protestors, sophomore Kaleb Green insisted on a more neutral approach to the situation.

“Obviously, if [Trump] does take Venezuela, he would get [his national] security — China and Russia would be separated [from the U.S.]; they wouldn’t be able to infiltrate us [as] easily,” Green said. “But at the same time, I don’t think China, Russia or America should own Venezuela [or Greenland]. I don’t think the way they [apprehended Maduro] is right; they just kidnapped him. There was no diplomacy. [If I were Greenlandish or Venezuelan], I would feel scared.”

Although Green’s concern of America setting the precedent for aggressive behavior that could be used to justify acquiring Greenland in the future is valid, neutrality — when it comes to geopolitics — is simply not an option. In a relentlessly competitive world, staying neutral will only weigh a country down, leaving other powers to surpass and potentially overthrow that nation. A country would not want to give off the idea that it is unable to compete or easy to take over; hence, the strong opposition to colonization seen in the form of protests by the Greenlandic people. In patriotic desperation, however, most radical protestors end up accusing Trump of imperialism and greed, mistaking his basic concerns for American national security and survival in a congested and contestive globe. By securing oil, as well as other essential resources, America protects its economy and its geopolitical standing. In theory, by securing lands like Venezuela and Greenland, America will be able to breathe easier, knowing that potential rival fortifications are not brewing on the horizon.