When Power Stops Pretending: Trump, Venezuela, and the Moment the Rules Became Optional

Why the strike itself matters less than what it tells us about how power now operates

When Power Stops Pretending: Trump, Venezuela, and the Moment the Rules Became Optional

Why the strike itself matters less than what it tells us about how power now operates

The Jack Hopkins Now Newsletter #708: Tuesday, December 30th, 2025.

If you felt a quiet jolt when you read that the United States carried out a strike inside Venezuela…you’re not imagining it.

That feeling wasn’t about Venezuela.
It wasn’t about drugs.
It wasn’t even about foreign policy.

It was about recognition.

Because something just crossed from theoretical to real…and once that happens… pretending otherwise becomes dangerous.

This wasn’t a policy debate.
It wasn’t a diplomatic misstep.
It was a signal.

And if you understand what kind of signal it was…a lot of other things suddenly snap into focus.

This Isn’t About Whether the Strike Was Legal

(It Wasn’t.)

Let’s dispense with the easy part first.

Under international law, unilateral military strikes inside another sovereign nation… absent UN authorization…host-nation consent, or an imminent self-defense justification…are illegal. Full stop.

That’s not a fringe opinion.
That’s black-letter international law.

And here’s the part that matters: the Trump administration knows this.

This wasn’t ignorance.
It wasn’t confusion.
It wasn’t a clerical oversight.

So the question worth asking isn’t “Was this legal?”

The question is:

Why would an administration knowingly cross a line like this now…and not bother pretending otherwise?

That’s where the real story begins.

The Moment the Cost of Rules Dropped to Zero

There’s a truth about power most people don’t like to confront:

Rules don’t disappear because they’re disproven.
They disappear when violating them stops being costly.

And for the United States…particularly under Trump…international law has become just that: cheap to break.

No enforcement mechanism.
No meaningful penalties.
No political price at home.

What remains is a simple calculation:

What do we gain by acting-and what do we actually lose?

From the administration’s perspective…the answer is brutally clear.

They gain:

• The appearance of decisive action

• A demonstration of force

• A headline that reframes the day’s news cycle

• A reminder to allies and adversaries alike…that restraint is optional

They lose:

• Strongly worded statements

• Diplomatic discomfort

• Editorial outrage

In other words: nothing that constrains behavior.

That’s not recklessness.
That’s rationality inside a system with no brakes.

Why Venezuela? Why Now?

If this were purely about drugs…there are dozens of other targets that would make more sense.

If it were purely about Maduro…there were years when pressure would have been more strategically effective.

So why this strike, now?

Because this wasn’t primarily aimed at Venezuela.

It was aimed at everyone watching.

This was a demonstration of something far more important than firepower:

A willingness to act first and argue later…or not at all.

That posture matters domestically as much as internationally.

At home…it reinforces the idea that:

• Process is weakness

• Law is optional

• Decisiveness equals legitimacy

Abroad…it sends a quieter message:

• Norms are conditional

• Sovereignty is negotiable

• Power defines legality…not the reverse

Once that posture is adopted…escalation becomes easier…not harder.

This Fits a Pattern You’ve Seen Before

(You Just Haven’t Labeled It This Way)

If this feels familiar…it should.

This is the same logic that powered:

• The Gulf of Tonkin escalation

• The Iraq WMD justification

• The post-9/11 expansion of executive authority

Different contexts. Same move.

Something small happens.
It’s framed as urgent.
Legal complexity is brushed aside.
Authority consolidates.

And the public is told:

We’ll sort out the rules later.

Except “later” never comes.

What changes instead is the baseline…of what’s acceptable.

Why This Is Happening Under Trump-Specifically

Here’s where psychology matters.

Trump doesn’t see law as a constraint.
He sees it as a narrative weapon…useful when it protects him…disposable when it doesn’t.

International law..in particular..offends his instincts because:

• It limits unilateral action

• It distributes authority

• It implies accountability beyond personal power

So when faced with a choice between:

• Observing norms

• Or demonstrating dominance

He will choose dominance…every time.

Not because he’s irrational, (even though he is) but because his incentives reward it.

And those incentives…haven’t changed.

The Dangerous Precedent No One Is Saying Out Loud

Here’s the part that should make you uneasy.

Once the U.S. normalizes unilateral land strikes…under thin justifications…every other powerful country takes notes.

They don’t need to match the action.
They only need to cite the precedent.

This is how the erosion spreads:

• Russia invokes it

• China internalizes it

• Regional powers imitate it

Each time….with a slightly weaker justification.

This isn’t about one dock.
It’s about what becomes sayable…and then doable.

“But Isn’t This Just Another Strongman Move?”

Yes.

And that’s precisely why it’s dangerous.

Strongman tactics don’t fail because they’re unpopular.
They fail because they corrode systems from the inside.

Every time process is bypassed:

• Congress matters less

• Law matters less

• Accountability becomes theatrical

Eventually…the system still exists…but it no longer governs.

That’s the transition people miss.

Why This Also Matters Domestically

(More Than People Want to Admit)

Foreign actions like this don’t stay foreign.

They:

• Expand executive precedent

• Normalize unilateral decision-making

• Reduce expectations of explanation

If the president can:

• Strike abroad without authorization

• Ignore international constraints

• Act first and justify later

It becomes much easier to argue the same logic at home.

This is how foreign overreach…and domestic overreach reinforce each other.

Not overnight.
Incrementally.

The Quiet Truth About “Deterrence”

Supporters will tell you this is about deterrence.

It’s not.

Deterrence requires:

• Clear rules

• Predictable consequences

• Stable thresholds

What this signals…instead…is volatility.

Volatility doesn’t deter.
It destabilizes.

And destabilization always creates opportunities…for the bold…the reckless..and the opportunistic.

The Question You Should Be Asking Now

The question isn’t:

“Will there be another strike?”

There almost certainly will be.

The question is:

What justification will be considered sufficient next time?

Because once a line is crossed without consequence, it stops being a line.

It becomes a suggestion.

This Is the Part Where You’re Told Not to Overreact

You’ll hear that this is:

• Being blown out of proportion

• Just another headline

• Nothing new

That reassurance is familiar…and historically unreliable.

Every major erosion of norms comes wrapped in calm language.

“This is limited.”
“This is targeted.”
“This is temporary.”

Until it isn’t.

A Final Orientation Before You Scroll Away

This article isn’t a call to panic.

It’s a call to pay attention to inflection points.

Moments when:

• Power stops pretending

• Rules become optional

• And justification becomes an afterthought

Those moments matter more than elections, speeches, or scandals…because they change the terrain everyone else has to operate on.

We just crossed one.

And the most dangerous thing we could do now…is pretend it was routine.

#HoldFast

Back soon,

-Jack

Jack Hopkins