US Vice President Vance cites drug trade, seized assets to justify Venezuela policy

U.S. Vice President JD Vance has articulated the administration's rationale for the military action in Venezuela, focusing on allegations of state-sponsored drug trafficking and historical grievances over nationalized oil assets. In a statement on social media, Vance sought to counter criticism of the operation that captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.

The drug trafficking argument

Addressing claims that Venezuela is not a major fentanyl source, Vance argued that cocaine is the primary drug revenue stream for cartels operating from the country. "If you cut out the money from cocaine (or even reduce it) you substantially weaken the cartels overall," he stated on platform X. He maintained that disrupting this funding was a key objective, while also noting Mexico remains the focal point for fentanyl policy.

Historical grievances over oil

Vance further justified U.S. actions by referencing the expropriation of American-owned oil assets by Venezuela roughly two decades ago. He contended that these resources have since been used to fund "narcoterrorist activities." Defending the use of military force, he asked, "are we just supposed to allow a communist to steal our stuff in our hemisphere and do nothing? Great powers don't act like that."

Context and broader implications

The vice president's remarks follow the dramatic claim by former President Donald Trump that a U.S. raid successfully captured Maduro, who now faces drug charges in New York. The public justification intertwines law enforcement objectives with broader economic and ideological disputes, framing intervention as a legitimate response to both criminal activity and contested resource nationalism. For international observers like Türkiye, which emphasize settled international law over unilateral enforcement of historical claims, such justifications raise concerns about the precedent of using military force to address commercial disputes and drug crimes, potentially legitimizing interventionism under expansive rationales.