Was the US involvement in Venezuela justified?

That is, was it justified according to just war theory

Jan 10, 2026

Good morning, happy Saturday, and happy New Year. I hope you had as restful and enjoyable Christmas and New Year holiday as I did.

Last week, the United States completed a military operation in Venezuela that involved the arrest of the dictator, Nicholas Maduro, and his wife. Such action is not unprecedented, but it is uncommon.

As I did when Israel invaded Iran last year, I want to analyze the question of whether or not this action or continued action is justified.

At that time, I used St. Thomas Aquinas’ three principles for a just war:

The strike must be authorized by a recognized sovereign.
There must be a just cause.
The attacker must have the right intention, namely that they are advancing good or avoiding evil. (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q40A1)

The US clearly meets the first criterion. It was the United States acting in its capacity as an independent, sovereign nation.

There are more questions for principles two and three. Aquinas says that a just cause must be avenging some wrong or restoration of something taken. According to the public statements of President Donald Trump, there appear to be two causes for the military action. First, Marduro was indicted by a grand jury in New York, and that indictment claims that he has used his government position to “protect and promote illegal activity, including drug trafficking.” Second, in 2007, former dictator Hugo Chávez nationalized the oil industry, confiscating the production assets of ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips. President Trump has equated this to theft.

Therefore, we can claim that the two causes are to halt drug trafficking, which can present harm to Americans, and to restore the production assets of two American companies, confiscated in 2007.

In order for this invasion to be just, the US actions must also meet the third criterion. Was the United States acting with the right intention, namely to advance good or avoid evil? Clearly, Maduro was a brutal dictator. Millions of Venezuelans have fled the country as the economy tanked, political dissidents were imprisoned, and Maduro claimed victory in an election in which he only won thirty percent of the vote.

I would argue that removing Maduro from power advances a good, as a brutal dictator is no longer in power.

But are the causes in criterion two justified? That is where I still have an internal debate in my mind. If the United States were to be consistent, it would have to be planning and executing (or preparing to execute) operations against drug kingpins all over Central and South America, regardless of whether the narcoterrorist was a political leader. I have yet to see evidence of this.

The lack of evidence of these operations, however, does not immediately mean that it is not justified. Perhaps the United States is operating with prudence; perhaps the danger is more immediate with Maduro. All questions I hope will be asked and maybe even answered in the coming weeks.

As for the oil, when companies operate in a foreign country, they are subject to that country’s laws. Should ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips have been compensated for their assets and equipment? Yes. Is toppling a dictator, who was not directly responsible for his nation’s theft, and installing someone else from the regime a justified response?

I hope Catholic thinkers in the coming weeks will write on this issue, allowing me to share more thoughts and opinions here. In the meantime, I hope to see more information released about the attack and the plan for Venezuela’s future. But I suspect I will be disappointed.

This week on UP North Catholic:

I talk about Michigan’s upcoming elections and take a look at church news you may have missed. Tune in at 7pm this evening on 103.9FM in Marquette, MI or online at ClavesRegniMinistries.com.

You can also find the show on Sundays here on PurpleCatholic.com or wherever you listen to podcasts.

UP North Catholic