In the calculus of modern-day populism, there is no greater currency than the decisive act. In an unprecedented moment this past week, the world watched as U.S. President Donald Trump cashed in, deploying American special forces to snatch illegitimate self-proclaimed leader of Venezuela Nicolás Maduro from Caracas and deliver him to a New York jail cell.
In the immediate aftermath, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre did not hesitate to add his own signature to the transaction. By congratulating Trump on this “arrest” and branding Maduro a “narco terrorist” who must rot in prison, Poilievre has done more than just celebrate the fall of a tyrant; he has signalled a willingness to dismantle the very international order that keeps a country like Canada safe.
To critique Poilievre’s stance is not to defend Maduro. The Venezuelan leader’s resume is a ledger of misery: stolen elections, state-sanctioned torture, and a humanitarian collapse that has scattered millions across the globe.
One of those millions was the likes of a young Anaida Galindo, now Poilievre’s wife. To appreciate the personal gravity of this moment for their family is essential; it is the human heart of the story.
But in the theater of global statecraft, a personal connection is an explanation, not a justification. Two wrongs — Maduro’s lawless autocracy and Trump’s lawless extraction —do not make a right. They simply make the world more dangerous and unstable.
The ‘Don-roe Doctrine’ emerges
By endorsing what Venezuela is calling a “cowardly kidnapping” by U.S. forces, Poilievre is embracing what analysts are calling the “Don-roe Doctrine” — a 21st-century mutation of the Monroe Doctrine that views the Western Hemisphere not as a community of nations, but as a private fiefdom for American interests.
Trump’s motive is not the liberation of the Venezuelan people; it is the requisition of their oil. His administration has already signalled that American firms will be the ones to “revitalize” Venezuela’s 300 billion barrels of reserves. This isn’t a victory for democracy; it’s a hostile takeover and an absolute erosion of the rule of law.
The precedent being set here is catastrophic. If we accept the premise that a superpower can unilaterally invade a sovereign nation (regardless of who is at the helm) to enforce its own domestic criminal indictments, we are essentially declaring the end of international law.
If the U.S. can ‘arrest’ Maduro today, what prevents Beijing from ‘arresting’ the leadership in Taipei tomorrow under the guise of domestic security? By validating the breach of Venezuelan sovereignty, Poilievre erodes Canada’s moral standing to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. If ‘spheres of influence’ justify military incursions in Caracas, they will be used to justify them in Kyiv.
Trading principles for strongman politics
This doctrine transforms every national border into a suggestion. It invites a world where ‘might makes right’ is the only statute that matters.
For Canadians, the most unsettling aspect of this alignment is what it reveals about Poilievre’s own political instincts. His rush to join the Trumpian chorus is a departure from the traditional ‘principled conservatism’ of past Canadian leaders who, while often hawkish, remained steadfastly committed to the multilateral institutions that protect middle powers.
Instead, Poilievre is increasingly mirroring the Trumpian ‘Great Man’ theory of history — the idea that norms are for the weak and that the ends always justify the means. He is trading the quiet, difficult work of international diplomacy for the dopamine hit of a ‘strongman’ victory.
This isn’t just a foreign policy shift; it is an ideological drift toward a world where institutional decay is rebranded as ‘common sense’ discipline.
We must be able to hold two thoughts at once: that Maduro belongs in a courtroom; and that a lawless military raid is the wrong way to get him there.
True leadership in Ottawa requires the courage to tell our closest ally that they cannot burn down the neighborhood to catch a thief. By choosing to be an echo rather than a voice, Poilievre has shown us which side of the rules-based order he truly stands on.
More from Sharan Kaur:
