This isn’t foreign policy, it’s a regime architecture built on hatred. Not strategy, not deterrence, not even coherent doctrine. Just raw, performative cruelty. The strikes in Venezuela aren’t about national security; they’re about spectacle. And the laughter that follows is a behavioral signal: violence is now a form of loyalty.
I’ve written extensively on how authoritarian systems rewire incentives to reward obedience and punish empathy. This administration has no moral compass; only transactional and for personal gain. Human rights aren’t part of the equation. That’s why liberal democracies like Canada and the EU are quietly becoming the new stewards of dignity and restraint. They’re absorbing the moral slack the U.S. has abandoned.
This moment isn’t just dangerous. It’s clarifying.
— Johan
Professor of Behavioral Economics & Applied Cognitive Theory; Former Foreign Service Officer
Johan, you're right. But I think the real problem is even worse. If you look at the behavior of leaders who prepared their people to go to war, you see that Trump's rhetoric and actions mimic theirs. Trump even renamed the Secretary of Defense the Secretary of War. Previously, Trump changed the Army's dress uniforms to resemble those worn during World War II.
In the 1997, a movie ("Wag the Dog") illustrated what we're seeing here. But the best example may be how George W. Bush dragged America into war in Iraq with (what we later learned were) lies about WMD in Iraq.
Trump and Hegseth obviously are trying to start a war. And Gorka just said so out loud. As the NY Times piece revealed regarding Trump's latest attack on a Venezuelan boat:
"Trump’s top counterterrorism adviser, Sebastian Gorka, said," “What we are saying is: This is a war, the cartel started it and we’re declaring war on you.”
Look at Trump's March 14, 2025 Proclamation about Venezuela. Trump essentially proclaimed that Venezuela committed an act of war against the US (actually invading the US). Congress didn't support Trump by declaring war. Regarding an "act of war," see, e.g., https://legalclarity.org/what-is-considered-an-act-of-war-under-international-law/
Trump and Hegseth are trying to start a war. They're trying to provoke a reaction from Maduro to justify a greater reaction by Trump. This also is a common tactic we've seen employed elsewhere.
Trump and Hegseth even bombed Iran without any authorization from Congress.
The great danger is that Trump and Hegseth and their supporters are foolishly thinking it will be the great might of the U.S. against the great weakness of Venezuela, alone. But as the conflict in Ukraine proves daily, such wars are not waged by the ostensible parties, alone.
The one saving grace (if there is one) is that Trump's rhetoric is so clumsy and transparent compared to that used by previous presidents. He also doesn't have a tragedy to exploit (and lie about) on the scale of 9/11.
Susanna, that's my point. Trump is trying to provoke a response by Venezuela (or some other issue that he can at least blame on Venezuela) to pretend to justify further escalating. That's how it has been done historically repeatedly.
You don't need to look any further than Netanyahu's current conduct--one attack last October was used to justify a massive escalation by Netanyahu (destroying Gaza, attacking Iran, and even trying to kill people inside a US ally (Qatar) by bombing a building). Trump's following the playbook of Netanyahu and Putin.
Was that your point? You did compare Trump's actions to those of previous administrations, but I didn't see any indication that his are basically a parody of theirs. Which isn't surprising: he knows how to play a president on TV, but he doesn't know how to be a president. IOW, he's "following the playbook of Netanyahu and Putin" the way a kid might imitate the moves of her favorite basketball star.
What hasn't been explained to me is why a bona fida drug smuggling operation would have 11 people on what's basically a not very big motor boat. That was the case with the first one. And if the point was to show how they were doing things about drugs they'd have made a point of boarding the vessel, finding the drugs, having them independently tested and then arranged for triumphant press conferences in the US.
I can't help thinking someone (or a gang of them) wanted to take the chance of looking big and powerful with no risk of US servicemen getting killed or sympathy for the deceased infecting mainstream Americans.
Every day it seems as if Trump and Vance (and entire administration) hit new lows- until the next day. These attacks on boats which Trump insists are carrying drugs from Venezuela (without proof) are murder- we can’t call it anything else! There are many ways to stop these boats without using lethal force yet there have been no attempts to do so- because blowing them up seems to give them a feeling of power. Do they not worry about American people who could be attacked in retaliation?
I’m glad to be learning more about this cruelty on these Venezuelan boats. In the plethora of illegal disgusting acts by the Trump administration, this doesn’t seem to be getting too much outrage.
Trump is murdering people for obviously political purposes based on his mere ipse dixit (his mere conclusory contention) that they're narco-terrorists (because he merely designated a mere organization as a "foreign terrorist organization"). Nothing about that designation could authorize the use of deadly force against anyone for anything. See "Legal Ramifications of Designation" in https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/. No one could even think that authorization to kill people is included in the Legal Ramifications of Designation as an FTO.
Trump has withheld (or simply doesn't know) all material facts about the identity or citizenship of any person Trump and Hegseth killed or why any such person was on any boat.
By Trump's own public admissions, Trump and Hegseth are summarily executing people outside U.S. jurisdiction for no better reason than that Trump is merely pretending to predict a future crime in a U.S. jurisdiction (mere purported drug smuggling). Nothing in our Constitution vested power in Trump or Hegseth to merely pretend to predict a future crime in a U.S. jurisdiction and summarily execute everyone they merely contend is guilty of such crime while they are far outside U.S. jurisdiction.
Our Constitution (Amendment V) expressly and specifically commands that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."
Article III commands that "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed."
Amendment VI clearly commands that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to" a "public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."
The crimes Trump and Hegseth pretended to punish have to be tied to a location where a U.S. federal court exists where they could be tried. None of the so-called crimes that Trump and Hegseth pretended to punish can be tied to the jurisdiction of any federal court.
The primary problem with the presumption or pretense that Article II somehow put all the powers of government into the hands of Trump is that it makes legislators, judges, grand juries and trial juries entirely irrelevant. It makes even "the People" and our Constitution irrelevant. That is exactly what all the founders expressly opposed vehemently. James Madison (Federalist No. 47) and Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 78) invoked and quote Montesquieu to make this very point:
Madison: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many” is “the very definition of tyranny.” “[T]he preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct. The oracle who is always consulted and cited on this subject is the celebrated Montesquieu." "Montesquieu" emphasized (and the people who wrote and ratified our Constitution believed) "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates," or, "if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."
Hamilton: "I agree" with Montesquieu that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers." Maybe "liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments."
Thank you for your insights, Noah. But a clarification is necessary. "Drone attacks were justified after 9/11 on the grounds that Al Qaeda and other radical groups in the Middle East had the will and the capacity to harm US civilian targets." But they were justified by something much more important in a legal and constitutional sense. They were authorized by Congress. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_of_2001.
In striking contrast, no words in any legal authority authorized killing the people on either of the boats Trump attacked this month. That's a massive legal difference between prior drone strike's and Trump's (mere) murders. Trump and Hegseth are murdering people on the high seas and sinking or destroying the evidence.
Our Constitution (Article VI) emphasized that "the supreme Law of the Land" is limited to our "Constitution" and federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution and "all Treaties." Clearly, "the supreme Law of the Land" doesn't include the president, presidential proclamations or executive orders.
Article I emphasizes that only Congress has the power to "declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water." Trump is effectively pretending that Congress authorized a reprisal or killing at sea. For a discussion of Letters of Marque and Reprisal see https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11272/LSB11272.1.pdf
Also, our Constitution emphasizes that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," and we still don't know even whether any US citizen was on any of the boats that Trump and Hegseth said were headed to the U.S.
Article VI further emphasized that all legislators and "all executive and judicial Officers" (state and federal) are "bound" to "support [our] Constitution." How were the actions of Trump or Hegseth supporting our Constitution or complying with the supreme law of the land?
Everything Trump does must be to fulfill his oath to "preserve, protect and defend [our] Constitution" to "the best of [his] Ability." Trump does not have (and he cannot have) any power to do anything that does not "preserve, protect and defend [our] Constitution" to "the best of [his] Ability." That is part of the point of Article VI emphasizing that "the supreme Law of the Land" is limited to our "Constitution" and federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution and "all Treaties" and "all executive and judicial Officers" (state and federal) are "bound" to "support [our] Constitution."
We're seeing more evidence of the psychology of murder in America. Multiple killings we are seeing are blatantly political. Trump's killings are blatantly political. Trump even has boasted that he will kill again based on no more proof that his killings are legal than Trump's own say so. To this day, as far as I know, Trump and Hegseth still haven't informed us of the identity or citizenship of any person on any boat that Trump and Hegseth killed because they purportedly were headed toward the US. As far as I know, Trump and Hegseth still haven't informed us of any fact tending to establish any reason any person was on any such boat.
As a fairly famous SCOTUS decision, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), quoting the wise and great Justice Brandeis (joined by the wise and great Justice Holmes) dissenting in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)) put it: "Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
The one group I have ZERO sympathy for is the one described in the piece as Trump voting conservative Venezuelan (but true for all Latino MAGA) immigrants who are now finding themselves on the wrong side of the malignant P47 stick.
A government that can kill boatloads of people without concern for legality is a government that will kill anyone it wants without concern for legality.
Thank you for this piece.
This isn’t foreign policy, it’s a regime architecture built on hatred. Not strategy, not deterrence, not even coherent doctrine. Just raw, performative cruelty. The strikes in Venezuela aren’t about national security; they’re about spectacle. And the laughter that follows is a behavioral signal: violence is now a form of loyalty.
I’ve written extensively on how authoritarian systems rewire incentives to reward obedience and punish empathy. This administration has no moral compass; only transactional and for personal gain. Human rights aren’t part of the equation. That’s why liberal democracies like Canada and the EU are quietly becoming the new stewards of dignity and restraint. They’re absorbing the moral slack the U.S. has abandoned.
This moment isn’t just dangerous. It’s clarifying.
— Johan
Professor of Behavioral Economics & Applied Cognitive Theory; Former Foreign Service Officer
Johan, you're right. But I think the real problem is even worse. If you look at the behavior of leaders who prepared their people to go to war, you see that Trump's rhetoric and actions mimic theirs. Trump even renamed the Secretary of Defense the Secretary of War. Previously, Trump changed the Army's dress uniforms to resemble those worn during World War II.
In the 1997, a movie ("Wag the Dog") illustrated what we're seeing here. But the best example may be how George W. Bush dragged America into war in Iraq with (what we later learned were) lies about WMD in Iraq.
Trump and Hegseth obviously are trying to start a war. And Gorka just said so out loud. As the NY Times piece revealed regarding Trump's latest attack on a Venezuelan boat:
"Trump’s top counterterrorism adviser, Sebastian Gorka, said," “What we are saying is: This is a war, the cartel started it and we’re declaring war on you.”
Look at Trump's March 14, 2025 Proclamation about Venezuela. Trump essentially proclaimed that Venezuela committed an act of war against the US (actually invading the US). Congress didn't support Trump by declaring war. Regarding an "act of war," see, e.g., https://legalclarity.org/what-is-considered-an-act-of-war-under-international-law/
Trump and Hegseth are trying to start a war. They're trying to provoke a reaction from Maduro to justify a greater reaction by Trump. This also is a common tactic we've seen employed elsewhere.
Trump and Hegseth even bombed Iran without any authorization from Congress.
The great danger is that Trump and Hegseth and their supporters are foolishly thinking it will be the great might of the U.S. against the great weakness of Venezuela, alone. But as the conflict in Ukraine proves daily, such wars are not waged by the ostensible parties, alone.
The one saving grace (if there is one) is that Trump's rhetoric is so clumsy and transparent compared to that used by previous presidents. He also doesn't have a tragedy to exploit (and lie about) on the scale of 9/11.
Susanna, that's my point. Trump is trying to provoke a response by Venezuela (or some other issue that he can at least blame on Venezuela) to pretend to justify further escalating. That's how it has been done historically repeatedly.
You don't need to look any further than Netanyahu's current conduct--one attack last October was used to justify a massive escalation by Netanyahu (destroying Gaza, attacking Iran, and even trying to kill people inside a US ally (Qatar) by bombing a building). Trump's following the playbook of Netanyahu and Putin.
Was that your point? You did compare Trump's actions to those of previous administrations, but I didn't see any indication that his are basically a parody of theirs. Which isn't surprising: he knows how to play a president on TV, but he doesn't know how to be a president. IOW, he's "following the playbook of Netanyahu and Putin" the way a kid might imitate the moves of her favorite basketball star.
What hasn't been explained to me is why a bona fida drug smuggling operation would have 11 people on what's basically a not very big motor boat. That was the case with the first one. And if the point was to show how they were doing things about drugs they'd have made a point of boarding the vessel, finding the drugs, having them independently tested and then arranged for triumphant press conferences in the US.
I can't help thinking someone (or a gang of them) wanted to take the chance of looking big and powerful with no risk of US servicemen getting killed or sympathy for the deceased infecting mainstream Americans.
Every day it seems as if Trump and Vance (and entire administration) hit new lows- until the next day. These attacks on boats which Trump insists are carrying drugs from Venezuela (without proof) are murder- we can’t call it anything else! There are many ways to stop these boats without using lethal force yet there have been no attempts to do so- because blowing them up seems to give them a feeling of power. Do they not worry about American people who could be attacked in retaliation?
I’m glad to be learning more about this cruelty on these Venezuelan boats. In the plethora of illegal disgusting acts by the Trump administration, this doesn’t seem to be getting too much outrage.
Trump is murdering people for obviously political purposes based on his mere ipse dixit (his mere conclusory contention) that they're narco-terrorists (because he merely designated a mere organization as a "foreign terrorist organization"). Nothing about that designation could authorize the use of deadly force against anyone for anything. See "Legal Ramifications of Designation" in https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/. No one could even think that authorization to kill people is included in the Legal Ramifications of Designation as an FTO.
Trump has withheld (or simply doesn't know) all material facts about the identity or citizenship of any person Trump and Hegseth killed or why any such person was on any boat.
By Trump's own public admissions, Trump and Hegseth are summarily executing people outside U.S. jurisdiction for no better reason than that Trump is merely pretending to predict a future crime in a U.S. jurisdiction (mere purported drug smuggling). Nothing in our Constitution vested power in Trump or Hegseth to merely pretend to predict a future crime in a U.S. jurisdiction and summarily execute everyone they merely contend is guilty of such crime while they are far outside U.S. jurisdiction.
Our Constitution (Amendment V) expressly and specifically commands that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury."
Article III commands that "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed."
Amendment VI clearly commands that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to" a "public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."
The crimes Trump and Hegseth pretended to punish have to be tied to a location where a U.S. federal court exists where they could be tried. None of the so-called crimes that Trump and Hegseth pretended to punish can be tied to the jurisdiction of any federal court.
The primary problem with the presumption or pretense that Article II somehow put all the powers of government into the hands of Trump is that it makes legislators, judges, grand juries and trial juries entirely irrelevant. It makes even "the People" and our Constitution irrelevant. That is exactly what all the founders expressly opposed vehemently. James Madison (Federalist No. 47) and Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 78) invoked and quote Montesquieu to make this very point:
Madison: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many” is “the very definition of tyranny.” “[T]he preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct. The oracle who is always consulted and cited on this subject is the celebrated Montesquieu." "Montesquieu" emphasized (and the people who wrote and ratified our Constitution believed) "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates," or, "if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."
Hamilton: "I agree" with Montesquieu that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers." Maybe "liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments."
Thank you for your insights, Noah. But a clarification is necessary. "Drone attacks were justified after 9/11 on the grounds that Al Qaeda and other radical groups in the Middle East had the will and the capacity to harm US civilian targets." But they were justified by something much more important in a legal and constitutional sense. They were authorized by Congress. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_of_2001.
In striking contrast, no words in any legal authority authorized killing the people on either of the boats Trump attacked this month. That's a massive legal difference between prior drone strike's and Trump's (mere) murders. Trump and Hegseth are murdering people on the high seas and sinking or destroying the evidence.
Our Constitution (Article VI) emphasized that "the supreme Law of the Land" is limited to our "Constitution" and federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution and "all Treaties." Clearly, "the supreme Law of the Land" doesn't include the president, presidential proclamations or executive orders.
Article I emphasizes that only Congress has the power to "declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water." Trump is effectively pretending that Congress authorized a reprisal or killing at sea. For a discussion of Letters of Marque and Reprisal see https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB11272/LSB11272.1.pdf
Also, our Constitution emphasizes that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," and we still don't know even whether any US citizen was on any of the boats that Trump and Hegseth said were headed to the U.S.
Article VI further emphasized that all legislators and "all executive and judicial Officers" (state and federal) are "bound" to "support [our] Constitution." How were the actions of Trump or Hegseth supporting our Constitution or complying with the supreme law of the land?
Everything Trump does must be to fulfill his oath to "preserve, protect and defend [our] Constitution" to "the best of [his] Ability." Trump does not have (and he cannot have) any power to do anything that does not "preserve, protect and defend [our] Constitution" to "the best of [his] Ability." That is part of the point of Article VI emphasizing that "the supreme Law of the Land" is limited to our "Constitution" and federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our Constitution and "all Treaties" and "all executive and judicial Officers" (state and federal) are "bound" to "support [our] Constitution."
We're seeing more evidence of the psychology of murder in America. Multiple killings we are seeing are blatantly political. Trump's killings are blatantly political. Trump even has boasted that he will kill again based on no more proof that his killings are legal than Trump's own say so. To this day, as far as I know, Trump and Hegseth still haven't informed us of the identity or citizenship of any person on any boat that Trump and Hegseth killed because they purportedly were headed toward the US. As far as I know, Trump and Hegseth still haven't informed us of any fact tending to establish any reason any person was on any such boat.
As a fairly famous SCOTUS decision, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), quoting the wise and great Justice Brandeis (joined by the wise and great Justice Holmes) dissenting in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)) put it: "Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
The one group I have ZERO sympathy for is the one described in the piece as Trump voting conservative Venezuelan (but true for all Latino MAGA) immigrants who are now finding themselves on the wrong side of the malignant P47 stick.
A government that can kill boatloads of people without concern for legality is a government that will kill anyone it wants without concern for legality.
The Navy has capitulated. Who's next?
Tonkin Bay 2.0?