A “President of Peace” and a Global Shock: When “America First” Collides With the International Order

WASHINGTON / NEW YORK — Just moments after President Donald Trump declared that the United States was “ending the era of endless war and replacing it with the clear-eyed pursuit of American interests,” diplomats at the United Nations were confronted with a starkly different reality: the United States had just launched a unilateral military operation in Venezuela, capturing the country’s sitting president, Nicolás Maduro, and transporting him to the United States for prosecution.

The operation, carried out in early January, immediately sent shockwaves through the global diplomatic system, triggering an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council and igniting an unusually broad wave of condemnation — not only from Washington’s traditional adversaries, but also from long-standing allies.

From Peace Rhetoric to Military Force

In a series of rapid-fire posts on Truth Social and X (formerly Twitter), Mr. Trump framed the operation as a “necessary law-enforcement action,” insisting that the United States would no longer tolerate “terrorist dictators, drug traffickers, and regimes that kill Americans.” He simultaneously issued aggressive rhetoric toward Colombia, Mexico, and Cuba — countries he described as direct threats to U.S. national security.

Yet early reports from international media outlets and human rights organizations sharply contradicted claims by Fox News and pro-administration commentators that the mission resulted in “virtually no casualties.” Independent reporting indicates that more than 40 people were killed during the strikes and subsequent operations inside Venezuela.

Fierce Backlash at the United Nations

At the United Nations in New York, representatives from Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, and South Africa jointly denounced the U.S. action as a “crime of aggression” and a blatant violation of national sovereignty.

Venezuela’s ambassador described the seizure of President Maduro and his spouse on Venezuelan soil as “an extraordinarily dangerous precedent,” stressing that no state has the legal authority to enforce its domestic laws within the territory of another sovereign nation without consent.

Even China and Russia — permanent Security Council members often at odds with Washington — issued swift condemnations, arguing that the United States had breached fundamental principles of international law and severely undermined the post-World War II global security framework.

In a rare and pointed warning, the United Nations Secretary-General cautioned that capturing a sitting foreign head of state without Security Council authorization risked normalizing unilateral force and eroding the foundations of international peace and security.

Ripple Effects From Europe to the Arctic

The diplomatic fallout extended well beyond Latin America. In Europe, Denmark and the United Kingdom expressed growing alarm, particularly in light of Mr. Trump’s repeated public remarks about acquiring Greenland — an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark.

Speaking before Parliament, Britain’s foreign secretary reaffirmed that Greenland’s future “belongs solely to the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark,” underscoring the principle of territorial inviolability — remarks widely interpreted as a direct rebuke to the White House.

An Open Secret: Oil, Power, and Prior Knowledge

One of the most controversial revelations in the days following the operation was the administration’s acknowledgment that major U.S. oil companies had been informed in advance of the military action — while Congress had not.

This disclosure, widely circulated across X, Reddit, and political commentary programs on MSNBC and CNN, fueled accusations that the Venezuela operation was driven not solely by security concerns but also by strategic economic and energy interests.

American Public Opinion: Skepticism and Division

Public reaction within the United States quickly reflected deep unease. Polling data widely shared on social media showed 47 percent of Americans opposing the military action, with only 21 percent supporting it. The share of respondents who were uncertain exceeded those who approved.

Notably, even among Republicans, support failed to reach 40 percent — a signal of growing voter fatigue with foreign military interventions and regime-change operations.

A Dangerous Turning Point

What the Trump administration heralded as a “historic day” has been viewed by many international observers as a perilous inflection point. Rather than reinforcing American global leadership, the Venezuela operation has raised profound questions about legality, legitimacy, and the limits of U.S. power.

As the White House continues to insist it is placing “America first,” much of the world appears to be asking a different question: Is that doctrine pushing the United States toward dangerous isolation — and eroding the very international order that Washington once helped build and lead?