Like when he just said, after the Venezuela mission: "That was incredible. We have to do it again." And why? "Because nobody can stop us."
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The comment — “That was incredible. We have to do it again,” followed by “Because nobody can stop us” — reads as a deliberate mix of triumphalism and deterrence, signaling both pride in a high‑risk special operation and a political threat of follow‑on interventions; the administration frames the raid as law‑enforcement and counternarcotics action while critics, regional governments and UN experts see it as an illegal use of force with imperial overtones [1] [2] [3].
1. What he said, in context: celebration, threat and policy shorthand
At the Florida press conference after U.S. forces captured Nicolás Maduro, the president described the operation as “incredible” and repeatedly signaled willingness to follow with additional strikes or control of Venezuela until a transition, language that mixes operational pride with political vow‑making — a posture the White House cast as necessary to “fix” Venezuela and prosecute alleged narco‑terrorism charges, while top officials also framed the operation as meticulously planned and intelligence‑led [1] [4] [2].
2. Why the rhetoric matters: deterrence, domestic politics and signalling
The boast functions on three levels: deterrence to adversaries and drug networks by implying operational reach, reassurance to a political base that favors bold action, and bargaining posture toward regional actors and Venezuelan elites — a public signal that the U.S. can and will act if cooperation is not forthcoming, as the administration explicitly threatened further strikes or pressure on Colombia and Mexico if flows of illicit drugs continued [2] [5].
3. The legal and normative counterweight: international law and human rights alarm
UN and human‑rights bodies sharply dispute the legitimacy of such unilateral military interventions, warning that documented Venezuelan abuses do not justify breaches of international law and that military action risks further grave violations against the population; independent investigators and UN rights officials urged accountability for both Maduro’s government and adherence to international legal norms, framing the raid as a dangerous precedent [3] [6].
4. Regional backlash and fractured global reaction
Latin American governments were split: left‑leaning states condemned what they called aggression and a threat to sovereignty, while right‑wing leaders praised decisive action; multilateral rebukes focused on the danger of external administration of a sovereign state and the destabilising ripple effects, even as some U.S. allies prioritized citizen safety and anti‑drug narratives [7] [8] [9].
5. Motives beyond the microphone: drugs, oil and strategic reach
Public explanations emphasized indictments and narco‑terrorism charges and the need to interdict drug trafficking, but critics and historians point to longstanding strategic and economic incentives — notably U.S. interest in Venezuela’s oil and geopolitical positioning — and warn that promises to “run” or monetize oil revenues echo earlier interventionist patterns with mixed, often adverse outcomes [4] [10] [11].
6. Two competing readings: principled enforcement vs. imperial overreach
Supporters argue the operation was a precise, intelligence‑driven action to enforce U.S. law and remove a criminal threat, citing detailed planning and operational surprise; opponents argue the language — “we have to do it again” and “nobody can stop us” — reflects a will to project power irrespective of international law and regional sovereignty, a posture likely to inflame tensions, complicate accountability for human‑rights abuses, and invite countermeasures [4] [3] [10].
7. Where the evidence stops and what to watch next
Reporting documents the capture, planning claims and international reaction, but gaps remain on legal authority for “running” Venezuela, the evidentiary basis publicly released for narco‑terrorism allegations, and the operational thresholds for further strikes; these are the fault lines that will determine whether the rhetoric becomes a recurring policy or collapses under diplomatic, legal and political costs [2] [4] [12].