America's new Age of Empire and the costs of unchecked intervention

Trump's hardline moves in Venezuela ignite fears of a new American imperialism, shaking global stability, the rule of law, and trust in US leadership

United States President Donald Trump has drawn a wave of criticism for his actions in Venezuela, violations of international law, disdain for longstanding norms, and threats against other countries — not least allies like Denmark and Canada. Around the world, there is a palpable sense of uncertainty and foreboding. But it should already be obvious that things will not end well, neither for the US nor the rest of the world. None of this comes as a surprise to many on the left. We still remember US President Dwight Eisenhower’s valedictory warning about the industrial-military complex that had emerged from World War II. It was inevitable that a country whose military spending matched that of the rest of the world combined would eventually use its arms to try to dominate others. 

 

To be sure, military interventions became increasingly unpopular following the American misadventures in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. But Mr Trump has never shown much concern for the will of the American people. Since he entered politics (and no doubt earlier), he has considered himself above the law, boasting that he could shoot someone on New York’s Fifth Avenue without losing a vote. The January 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol — whose anniversary we have just “celebrated” — showed that he was right. The 2024 election reinforced Mr Trump’s hold on the Republican Party, ensuring that it will do nothing to hold him accountable. 

The capture of Venezuela’s dictator, Nicolás Maduro, was brazenly illegal and unconstitutional. As a military intervention, it required congressional notification, if not approval. And even if one stipulates that this was a case of “law enforcement,” international law still requires that such actions be pursued through extradition. One country cannot violate another’s sovereignty or snatch foreign nationals — let alone heads of state — from their home countries. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and others have been indicted for war crimes, but no one has proposed deploying soldiers to seize them wherever they happen to be. 

Even more brazen are Mr Trump’s subsequent remarks. He claims that his administration will “run” Venezuela and take its oil, implying that the country will not be permitted to sell to the highest bidder. 

Many commentators have already addressed the implications for global peace and stability. If the US claims the Western Hemisphere as its sphere of influence (the “Donroe Doctrine”) and bars China from accessing Venezuelan oil, why shouldn’t China claim East Asia and bar the US from accessing Taiwanese chips? Doing so would not require it to “run” Taiwan, only to control its policies, particularly those allowing exports to the US. 

It is worth remembering that the great imperial power of the 19th century, the United Kingdom, did not fare well in the 20th. If most other countries cooperate in the face of this new American imperialism — as they should — the long-term prospects for the US could be even worse. After all, the UK at least tried to export salutary governing principles to its colonies, introducing some modicum of the rule of law and other “good” institutions. 

Prosperity requires the rule of law. Without it, there is ever-present uncertainty. Will the government seize my assets? Will officials demand a bribe to overlook some minor peccadillo? Will the economy be a level playing field, or will those in power always give the upper hand to their cronies? 

Lord Acton famously observed that, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” But Mr Trump has shown that one does not need absolute power to engage in unprecedented corruption. Once the system of checks and balances starts to fall apart — as indeed it has in the US — the powerful can operate with impunity. The costs will be borne by the rest of society, because corruption is always bad for the economy. 

One hopes that we have reached “peak Trump,” that this dystopian era of kakistocracy will end with the 2026 and 2028 elections. But Europe, China, and the rest of the world cannot rely on hope alone. They should be devising contingency plans which recognise that the world does not need the US. 

What does America offer that the world cannot do without? It is possible to imagine a world without the Silicon Valley giants, because the basic technologies they offer are now widely available. Others would rush in, and they may well establish much stronger safeguards. It is also possible to imagine a world without US universities and scientific leadership, because Mr Trump has already done his utmost to ensure that these institutions struggle to remain among the world’s best. And it is possible to imagine a world where others no longer depend on the US market. Trade brings benefits, but less so if an imperial power seeks to grab a disproportionate share for itself. Filling the “demand gap” posed by the US’s persistent trade deficits will be a lot easier for the rest of the world than the challenge facing the US of dealing with the supply side. 

A hegemon that abuses its power and bullies others must be left in its own corner. Resisting this new imperialism is essential for everyone else’s peace and prosperity. While the rest of the world should hope for the best, it must plan for the worst; and in planning for the worst, there may be no alternative to economic and social ostracism — no recourse but a policy of containment. 

---

The author is a Nobel laureate in economics. © Project Syndicate, 2026