The Dispatch Podcast – "Taking Maduro: Wise or Foolish?"

Date: January 9, 2026
Host: Steve Hayes
Panel: Jonah Goldberg, Kevin Williamson, David French

Episode Overview

This roundtable episode tackles one of the most audacious and consequential recent moments in U.S. foreign policy: the capture of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro by U.S. special forces and his transfer to the U.S. for trial. The panel takes a deep dive into the motivations, legality, wisdom, and international implications of the operation, situating it within the broader context of Trump-era foreign policy, shifting justifications, and emerging global disorder. The conversation is spirited, rigorous, and laden with pointed skepticism—both of the act itself and Trump’s penchant for ad hoc rationale and self-aggrandizement.

Additional topics include:

• The legal and moral complexities behind the U.S. action
• Precedent and the risk of “might makes right”
• The contemporary world order and historical analogies
• The shooting incident in Minneapolis and political polarization
• A light “not worth your time” segment: nostalgic city choices from the panelists

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Was Maduro’s Capture About Oil?

(03:03–06:00)

• Steve opens by questioning if the U.S. acted primarily to control Venezuelan oil, citing direct references from Trump and his officials to oil opportunities.
• Kevin Williamson argues that oil was certainly a factor but not the sole motivator. He describes it as a “target of opportunity” composed of multiple elements: political pressure, Venezuela’s autocracy, drugs, immigration, and oil.
  • “The oil's certainly a part of it, but I don't think the oil is the only part of it.” (03:51)
  • Points out the absurdity of justifying the operation solely on narco charges, drawing parallels to hypothetical scenarios with world leaders and sectors ("Does that mean we can kidnap Modi and take over the Indian IT sector?").

2. Is It Legal?

(06:02–11:06)

• David French delivers a scathing legal breakdown:
  • Asserts unequivocally that the operation is "illegal, illegal, illegal, illegal" under U.S. law, the UN Charter (a ratified treaty), and international law.
  • Cites Jack Goldsmith and the 1989 Bill Barr opinion on Panama as insufficient and “absurd” legal grounds.
  • Argues the main problem is the lack of enforcement mechanisms—the Supreme Court will not enjoin active military operations, and Congress abdicates oversight responsibility.
  • “If you're going to do a substantive analysis... this violates the UN Charter, it's not even close.” (06:54)
• Kevin further underlines the weak legal rationale by referencing the Russian indictment of now-foreign leaders as farcical international tit-for-tat.

3. Is It Wise?

(12:09–22:30)

• Jonah Goldberg admits moral satisfaction at seeing Maduro ousted but condemns the operation's pretext and legal shoddiness. He frames Trump’s reasoning as crude, opportunistic, and psychologically driven by vindication fantasies stemming from past U.S. interventions.
  • “He wants to say we’re taking the oil. Right. And to vindicate himself for arguments that he made about Iraq.” (13:34)
  • Argues that while regime change can be morally justifiable, the process and pretext matter—particularly for international precedent and long-term U.S. credibility.
  • Willingly accepts aggressive stretches of legality “if it passes a cost-benefit test,” but recognizes the hypocrisy and moral hazards involved. “In the international arena, our national security interests trump most of the kind of considerations that you were talking about as a prudential matter.” (19:26)
• French & Williamson repeatedly return to the dangerous precedent: if the U.S. can snatch foreign leaders at will, so can other sovereign nations.

Notable Exchange:

• David French: “There is nothing practically restraining Donald Trump so long as Congress refuses to do it. Because the Supreme Court has decided for a long time that it's not going to be in the business of enjoining a military operation.” (08:21)
• Jonah Goldberg: “My only point is that, look, I've always been a defender of regime change if it passes a cost-benefit test ... But at the expense of losing a city in a nuclear exchange or something, not worth it. Right? It's a cost-benefit thing to me.” (20:12)

4. Precedent, Prudence, and the Erosion of Restraint

(22:30–30:51)

• Steve Hayes expresses concerns about both the prudence of choosing Trump as the leader of such a monumental shift and the dangerous precedent it sets for future actions, especially with Trump enjoying political rewards for such bold moves.
• Kevin Williamson worries: “The fundamental problem with having an administration that is this obviously morally corrupt is that they can't even do notionally good things well because they pollute everything they touch.” (28:26)
• The panel notes the shift from post-World War II principles of restraint and just war, to a “might makes right” approach, particularly troubling now as U.S. power faces greater global competition.

5. Iran, Regime Change, and Comparative Legitimacy

(35:24–41:32)

• The panel discusses burgeoning Iranian protests and the repercussions of U.S.-Israeli military action against Iran.
• French credits the IDF for weakening Iran but grants Trump some credit for “bombing the nuclear facilities.”
• Differentiates Iran’s situation from Venezuela: The former was collective self-defense under shooting war, while the latter lacked similar legal and moral justification.
• Kevin highlights the new incentive for nuclear proliferation: “If you’ve got nuclear weapons, you can do whatever the Hell you want, apparently.”

6. The Dangers of Trump’s Approach: Lies, Process, & American Leadership

(41:32–49:14)

• Jonah rails against the disregard for honest process and lying to the public about military motives. “When you move the largest armada in South American history into the Caribbean in the name of interdicting drugs, and then... say, okay, it's great, we're gonna keep the evil, torturous regime in place, but we're gonna take all of their oil... we just were lied to.” (43:22)
• They discuss American postwar restraint, contrasting prior U.S. interventions (e.g., Iraq 2003) which did not seize resources—even when critics claimed otherwise.

Memorable Quote:

• Kevin: “I think that period was a lot less might makes right than right makes might. Particularly in the immediate post war years, the United States became an enormously wealthy and dynamic and powerful country because we had the right principles, the right kind of economic ideas, the right sort of national values.” (47:05)

7. Segment: Minneapolis Shooting & Political Rhetoric

(50:14–60:54)

• The panel pivots to the Minneapolis shooting, emphasizing how administration rhetoric and lack of prudence can fuel and exacerbate tragic outcomes.
• David French is troubled by the administration’s immediate and inflammatory characterization: “The idea that this was domestic terrorism is laughable.” (50:29)
• They analyze the problem of diffuse blame and poor training amidst militarized, politically charged law enforcement.
  • Kevin: “It was a road rage incident is what it was... ICE agents are not authorized to make traffic stops. They're authorized to make immigration stops… If someone's blocking the intersection, what you can do, you can call the police and have them towed off or arrested or ticketed or otherwise.” (58:30)
  • Jonah: “I think this is prelude to a lot more ugliness.” (58:29)

8. Not Worth Your Time: Cities We’d Return To

(61:30–67:21)

• A closing, light-hearted segment where panelists reflect on former cities they’d consider returning to, with reflections on nostalgia, family, and meaningful places.
  • Jonah: New York, Baltimore, Prague—"I like DC the least and that's the place I've stayed for 30 something years." (61:30)
  • Kevin: “Austin's pretty nice. Although as I’ve often said, I often, I used to really think I liked Austin. I think what I really liked was being 20.” (64:24)
  • David: Philadelphia: “Philly, I mean, this is good choice... I love the old, the city center colonial part of Philly. It's charming, it's beautiful, it's historic.” (65:23)
  • Steve: Madrid: “I think Madrid is one of the warmest cities and most welcoming cities you can ever imagine.” (67:21)

Memorable Quotes & Moments (w/ Timestamps)

• Kevin Williamson:
  • “The oil's certainly a part of it, but I don't think the oil is the only part of it.” (03:51)
• David French:
  • “If you're going to do a substantive analysis... this violates the UN Charter, it's not even close.” (06:54)
  • “There is nothing practically restraining Donald Trump so long as Congress refuses to do it. Because the Supreme Court has decided for a long time that it's not going to be in the business of enjoining a military operation.” (08:21)
• Jonah Goldberg:
  • “He wants to say we’re taking the oil. Right. And to vindicate himself for arguments that he made about Iraq.” (13:34)
  • “I've always been a defender of regime change if it passes a cost-benefit test.” (20:12)
  • “We just were lied to. And to forgive, that is just. That’s the real moral hazard.” (43:22)
• Steve Hayes:
  • “Do we want this kind of delicate diplomacy and risky undertaking led by somebody who has the character and the judgment of Donald Trump? And my answer to that is a definitive and very clear no.” (25:24)
• Kevin Williamson:
  • “The fundamental problem with having an administration that is this obviously morally corrupt is that they can't even do notionally good things well because they pollute everything they touch.” (28:26)
  • “I think that period was a lot less might makes right than right makes might.” (47:05)
• David French:
  • “If we think that we can become greater by becoming worse, we’re not just going to betray the American promise, we’re going to betray the reality of American prosperity.” (48:41)

Additional Notes

Each panelist brings a distinct but overlapping blend of skepticism about the Trump administration’s motivations and methods, concern for U.S. global credibility, and deep worries about both legal precedent and the quality of American leadership. The tone is insightful, sardonic, and exasperated in equal measure—balancing legal expertise, foreign policy realism, and political critique.

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Maduro’s Capture: Oil & Motivation: 03:03–06:00
• Legal Analysis: 06:02–11:06
• Prudence & Precedent: 22:30–30:51
• Iran, Israel, and Regional Change: 35:25–41:32
• Process, Lies, and American Leadership: 41:32–49:14
• Minneapolis Shooting: 50:14–60:54
• Not Worth Your Time – Cities: 61:30–67:21

Conclusion

This episode is a must-listen for those seeking a nuanced, critical examination of the tension between just cause and just means in U.S. foreign policy, the perils of executive overreach, and the fragility of the postwar rules-based order. The Dispatch team identifies not only what has changed, but why it matters—and why even victories achieved with bad process may portend greater long-term dangers. The panel's exchanges are as witty as they are worried, making for both a sobering and entertaining roundup of the state of American power—and its pitfalls—on the world stage.