In the last days of the Biden administration, our State Department increased the reward for the “arrest and/or conviction” of Nicolás Maduro to $25 million. Anthony Blinken said:
In solidarity with the Venezuelan people, the U.S. Government and our partners around the world are taking action today. The Department of State is increasing the reward offers to up to $25 million each for information leading to the arrests and/or convictions of Nicolás Maduro and Maduro’s Minister of Interior Diosdado Cabello. The Department of State is also adding a new reward offer of up to $15 million for Maduro’s Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López. These three reward offers stem from criminal narcotrafficking indictments announced in March 2020.
So does Donald Trump get the $25 million?
Joe Biden accused Trump of being soft on Maduro:
Kind of wild just how dumb and dishonest he was. pic.twitter.com/3UcVpxatWR
— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) January 3, 2026
Via InstaPundit. If Biden’s administration had carried out the operation that we saw Friday night, it would have been hailed as, among other things, evidence that Biden was sharp as a tack.
Kamala Harris and the rest of the Democratic Party are reading from the same script. Our seizure of Maduro was “unlawful and unwise.” Time will tell about the wisdom of the move, but I am pretty sure it will turn out to be good for the people of Venezuela, bad for Russia, China, Iran and Cuba, and generally beneficial to the U.S. and the civilized world.
As for the “unlawful” part, this is the ongoing struggle between Congress and the executive for control over foreign policy. It matters, of course, who is in the White House: bombing Libya and bringing about the murder of Gaddafi was fine, while seizing Maduro, a wanted criminal, was “illegal.” Politics aside, the Constitution makes the president the commander in chief of the armed forces and gives Congress, among other things, the power to declare war. Two hundred-plus years of history have established that, whether Congress likes it or not, the president has the power to use military force to advance American interests, with or without Congressional approval. As a practical matter, the limiting principle is that the executive can’t single-handedly exercise military power past the point where monetary appropriation is necessary.
These are old battles, and there is nothing new or interesting about this particular case, beyond noting that seizing two individuals who are under indictment in an American court is a much more limited use of the president’s power as commander in chief than, say, Barack Obama’s attack on Libya.
Most people, responding to the Venezuelan operation, are riding their own hobby-horses. Those who do not react out of hate for Trump may bring other hatreds to bear. Candace Owens, for example:
What “Zionists” have to do with Maduro and Venezuela is anyone’s guess, but antisemitism never takes a day off. It would be interesting, too, to hear more about all the “land, oil and other resources” that have been “stolen” from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, the suggestion that Maduro’s regime was virtuous because it “banned usury” is hilarious. Inflation in Venezuela averaged 3,527 percent from 1973 until 2025. All the fault of usurers, no doubt, along with other wreckers and saboteurs.
Perhaps the only people who responded to the Maduro operation with heartfelt sincerity were Venezuelans around the world, who were overjoyed. I am pretty confident that events will justify their optimism.
