This post was originally published on here
The United States carried out a military operation in Venezuela on Jan. 3, 2026, with President Donald Trump announcing that Nicolás Maduro, along with his wife Celia Flores, had been kidnapped and removed from power.
Saint Mary’s professor Kristin Bail, a political scientist whose research focuses on global political systems, and political science majors Colleen Kepplin and Sarah Peabody, shared their thoughts on Trump’s force in Venezuela and what it could mean for the future of both countries.
“I think that this case is a really good example of two different areas or topics to pay attention to.” Bail said about the conflicting perceptions of the operation. “On the one hand, we have this case where we have an autocratic leader who is clearly doing harm by being in office. And, so, that is real, and that is understandably something that the Venezuelans who are abroad are very excited to see changing because I think it creates this maybe hopefulness that they’re able to have a different future that would look different than the one that they would have had under Maduro.”
Bail explained the implications of international operations like the one the US has completed. “On the other hand, what we have is an instance of the leader, however democratically elected or not, the leader of a sovereign country, being arrested and taken, extradited by military secret missions to another country. And so, this is a really big violation of international norms,” she said.
All signatories of influential and powerful treaties like the United Nations Founding Charter have agreed that territorial sovereignty is one of the founding principles of the international system, Bail said, meaning each nation’s domestic politics should be free from interference.
“The reason why we emphasize such rules is because sovereignty only works when everybody has it,” she said. “And as soon as one country says, ‘actually sovereignty doesn’t apply to this particular instance’, then suddenly, all bets are off, right?’”
Kepplin, a senior and president of the Political Science Club, has also recognized complicated convolutions of the US’ recent operation against Maduro.
“While we acknowledge that many Venezuelan people have been living under a dictator, and that from this perspective, some may feel liberated, it is also important to consider broader concerns that have been raised about the legality and long-term implications of US involvement.” Kepplin said of the club’s stance on the issue.
She added, “the lack of a clear public articulation or elaboration of objectives, I guess, along with uncertainty about the scope and duration of involvement continues to contribute to peoples’ concerns in regards to civilian harm and long-term instability.”
Peabody, senior treasurer of the Political Science Club, noted that in the past, operations to remove autocratic and authoritarian leaders have been completed by various administrations.
“Historically, the United States has also intervened in other countries with the goal of removing corrupt leaders. I know one example is disposing Saddam Hussein in Iraq in the early 2000s. These leaders have harmed their own people. The motive is very evident there,” she said.
Peabody said that when outside intervention does not follow such operations with actions to support nations through transitions, this becomes a problem.
“The biggest hope of a lot of people is that our involvement in Venezuela prioritizes the needs and well being of those in Venezuela first and foremost, and actually contributes to a lasting peace and functional governance, instead of primarily serving the U.S. interests,” Peabody said.
Nonetheless, many unknowns persist surrounding U.S. involvement in Venezuela. “My biggest concern and point of interest is what’s going to happen now. Are we going to remain invested? And I feel like how we go about doing that is going to have the biggest impact on how we’re perceived by other countries and how we continue to act in other countries, with other countries.” Peabody said.
Kepplin emphasized the imperative of engaging in productive discussions at Notre Dame as possibilities for the countries future abound.
“As a Catholic institution, we should also hope for peace, for the preservation of human dignity, and for the safety of civilians who may be directly affected,” she said.
