Donald Trump’s second-term foreign and domestic policies reflect an increasingly unrestrained “shoot first, explain later” approach that undermines international law, destabilises global order, and mirrors authoritarian governance at home and abroad.
This intervention in Venezuela, described by the administration as a “law-enforcement” action “supported” by military force, has been widely condemned internationally as an unlawful aggression and kidnapping, lacking congressional authorization or any grounding in international law. President Trump has asserted that the United States will “run” Venezuela until a transition occurs, emphasizing access to its oil resources as a key objective. Funnily enough, Trump has ruled out the idea of new elections, or of the darling the western media, Machado, taking over, maybe he’s bitter about the Nobel peace prize?
What or who will be the next target (targets) of US policy?
The world map is being riddled with buckshot as to interventions such as Nigeria and Venezuela – the only question is who is next and under what concocted pretexts: Mexico, Panama, Columbia, Cuba, and Greenland, or perhaps the Suez, taking a lesson from 1956. First it is war on drugs, then to reclaim oil and investments made in Venezuela; as for other countries, attacking Christians in Nigeria and blaming the government for Islamic rebels killing Christians, rebels the government has been fighting against for years, any pretext or target of convenience will do in these times.
Even to discuss who is next in the crosshairs is but a rhetorical exercise. It is more interesting to understand Trump’s likely motivations. This is a lot of effort to distract from his intimate involvement with a sex-trafficking pedophile and unscrupulous business activities, all of which are causing domestic problems for Trump. It is not about drugs, human rights, or terrorism. It is all about controlling the oil supplies, especially to China, as it is now the BIGGEST threat to US economic policy and regional hegemony.
It is so easy to blame Maduro for the nationalisation of the oil fields dating back to 1975, for bad management, and for being a Tin horn Dictator, and Trump should know, as it takes one to know one.
Let us not forget about Cuba and what Castro did. There most definitely appears to be a deliberate plan to destroy the rule of law, especially international law.
He mocks the world, and his own ignorance was shown during an interview with the New York Times, where he bluntly claims that there are basically no limits, and His ONLY Limit on His Global Powers Is His Own Morality – as he brushed aside international law and stated his goal is for the US to own Greenland.
“Yeah, there’s one thing: my own morality, my own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me. And that’s very good. I don’t need international law. I’m not looking to hurt people.”
Tell that to the victims of his good intentions as a shoot-first-and-explain-later president, especially to the Palestinians and others who are on the receiving end of his policies and the deliberate ignoring of UN Resolutions, customary international law, and his blatant failure to even inform Congress of his punitive actions under the pretext of enforcing US law and order on another sovereign state.
These comments were made in the context of broader reflections on the constraints—or lack thereof—on American military and geopolitical actions, where Trump expressed a preference for national strength over established post-World War II international norms, i.e., the so-called “rules-based international order.”
Trump repeated his long-standing interest in U.S. ownership of Greenland, emphasizing its psychological and strategic importance. He described ownership as providing unique advantages beyond mere treaties or leases, and when questioned about potential trade-offs with NATO commitments, he noted that “it may be a choice” without elaborating further.
Naturally, all that is transpiring stands in direct opposition to any semblance of law, especially recent actions against Venezuela, which expose a deeper cancer. Why only after the fact does the Senate vote to curb executive authority in military engagements, which some analysts link directly to Trump’s statements in the NYT and other media outlets.
The Trump administration has, however, maintained a pro-Israel stance, a blatant “Israel can do no wrong” policy, including the continuation of a U.S. funding ban on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) and support for UN Security Council Resolution 2803, adopted on November 17, 2025.
Trump turns a blind eye to Israeli war crimes with a U.S.-drafted “Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict,” which includes provisions for the disarmament of Hamas, demilitarization of the Gaza Strip, a partial Israeli withdrawal, and the establishment of a transitional “Board of Peace” for governance. Proponents describe it as a pathway to stability, citing improvements in humanitarian conditions in Gaza as noted in UN reports. In reality, it is a plan for ethnic cleansing, and it appears that the Israeli recognition of the breakaway region of Somaliland is tied to this as a place to dump Palestinians driven from their native lands.
Since the ceasefire, nearly 500 Palestinians have been killed on a daily basis, and it looks like Trump has given the green light to further Israeli attacks on Lebanon.
It is clear that Trump supports a “shoot first and explain later” policy, not only on the international level. This is highlighted with the fallout of the January 2026 ICE shooting in Minneapolis, as discussed in the interview, whereby he defended the agent’s actions despite video evidence suggesting the motorist posed no immediate threat and this was an execution.
Broader critiques of his policies carried out under the fig leaf of law and order are commonplace now; however, what is happening in his second term shows a pattern flagrant disregard for the law, both national and international. It also put friends and allies in an inconvenient situation by forcing support for Trump as he insults international organizations and circumvents bodies such as the UN at every opportunity.
Trump’s interview speaks for itself, a self-indictment, and underscores his disdain for any law that could restrict his behavior.
President Donald Trump’s second term continues to exemplify a form of gunboat diplomacy that prioritizes unilateral assertions of American power over established international norms, as evidenced by the recent U.S. intervention in Venezuela, the expressed interest in acquiring Greenland by any means , and the unwavering support for Israel’s actions in Gaza and Lebanon amid ongoing violations of the fragile ceasefire.
The fatal ICE shooting in Minneapolis earlier this month further underscores a domestic extension of this “shoot first, explain later” ethos, where executive authority appears unbound by congressional oversight or legal accountability, despite belated Senate efforts to invoke the War Powers Resolution. Trump’s own statements, framing his personal morality as the sole restraint on global actions, reveal a narcissistic approach that risks escalating tensions with adversaries like China through resource control strategies, while alienating allies by undermining institutions such as the UN and even NATO.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander
This unfortunate pattern not only distracts from personal scandals but also signals a deliberate erosion of the post-World War II rules-based order, potentially inviting retaliatory measures from targeted nations and setting precedents for both future administrations and their adversaries.
Internationally, you could well see Russia use the precedent to remove irritants like the Azeri President Aliyev, or, more likely, go after the illegitimate regime of Zelensky, while Chine could invoke its territorial integrity over Taiwan by a decapitation strike to uplift the so-called President of Taiwan and return him to Beijing for trial for treason.
Domestically, incidents like the ICE shooting (s) highlight risks to hard earned civil liberties and public safety under expansive law enforcement mandates, while broader geopolitical maneuvers—such as eyeing strategic assets like Greenland—could provoke alliances to realign, diminishing U.S. influence in critical areas like the Arctic, Europe, or Latin America.
Ultimately, these developments challenge the foundational principles of diplomacy, demanding much-needed vigilance from policymakers, journalists, and citizens to safeguard against unchecked executive overreach and its long-term consequences for global peace and prosperity.
Henry Kamens, columnist and expert on Central Asia and the Caucasus
Follow new articles on our Telegram channe
