Two days after the United States launched military strikes on Venezuela, killing 100 people and leading to the capture of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller was asked whether the United States was running Venezuela. Miller's answer perfectly captured Trump's philosophy of governance.
“You can talk all you want about international niceties and all that, but we live in a world … ruled by force, ruled by force, ruled by power,” he told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “Those are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time … By definition, we are in charge because we have the United States military stationed abroad.”
Three days later, Trump gave an interview to a group of New York Times reporters, during which he was asked: "Do you see anything on the world stage that would be a brake on your power? Is there anything that could stop you if you wanted to?"
Trump: “Yes, there is one thing. My own morals. My own mind. That’s the only thing that can stop me, and that’s a very good thing.”
“What about international law?” another reporter asked. Trump replied: “I don’t need international law. I don’t want to hurt people.”
When asked directly whether he believed his administration had to abide by international law on the global stage, Trump said yes, but added: “It depends on what you mean by international law.” The reporters, however, did not ask Trump what his definition of international law was.
Trump's claim that his administration must abide by international law is difficult to reconcile with any plausible definition of international law, which is the system of rules and principles that govern relations between sovereign states. The use of force to arrest Maduro was a clear violation of a fundamental principle of international law enshrined in the United Nations Charter.
Even more revealing is Trump's earlier statement that the only thing that will stop him from doing what he wants on the world stage is his own morality. But what does that morality represent?
In his first inaugural address, Trump shared with the world his belief that “it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.” This was no surprise, given that his campaign slogan was “Make America Great Again,” and his “drill, baby, drill” stance on fossil fuels clearly puts America’s interest in cheap energy ahead of the well-being of people who will be threatened by climate change. Trump’s morality, then, appears to be a pursuit of his own national interest.
Such morality, however, is vulnerable to the objection that if we all did the same thing and acted solely in our own interests, we would all end up worse off. Remember the tragedy of the commons? Climate change is just such a tragedy, but on a global scale. Yet Trump has now withdrawn the United States from a key agreement, signed in 1992 by President George W. Bush Sr., that provides the basis for international cooperation to reduce emissions of gases that warm our planet.
We should ask ourselves whether what drives Trump is any form of morality at all. Miller's worldview is not new. In his interview with CNN, Miller echoed the words attributed to the Athenians by the ancient Greek historian Thucydides when their vast military force arrived on the small island of Melos:
“The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must... for we know that, by the necessary law of their nature, men rule wherever they can. And it is not as if we were the first to make this law or to act upon it: we found it existing before us, and we will leave it existing forever, after us.”
Although this stance is often described as “might makes right,” the Athenians were not seeking to justify the conquest of Melos, but rather to persuade its inhabitants to acknowledge what Miller calls “the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time” and surrender. There are good reasons to dispute the accuracy of the Athenians’ bleak portrayal of human nature, but even if it were true, it does not follow that it is right for the strong to make the weak suffer.
What is so shocking about Miller's appeal to what he sees as the iron law of history is that it forecloses any hope of moral progress. And the evidence of moral progress is all around us. Unlike the Athenians, who may have seen slavery as another example of the strong doing what they can, we have no slaves and recognize equal legal status for men and women. We prohibit torture and have laws against cruelty to animals.
True, that progress is often far from complete. But would Miller and Trump deny that it is indeed progress? If not, then the very possibility of further progress is reason to try to make it, not to discard the achievements we have made.
The same is true for international relations. Woodrow Wilson, one of Trump’s predecessors, called for the creation of the League of Nations at the end of World War I to prevent similar disasters in the future. Although the League failed to prevent World War II, its successor, the United Nations, may have, along with nuclear deterrence, helped prevent a real, hot war between the great powers over the past 80 years.
This is not an achievement to be dismissed lightly. The course of international relations in the coming decades will be determined by whether the rest of the world accepts Trump's return to unbridled great-power dominance or holds even the most powerful states accountable.
The author is Professor Emeritus of Bioethics at Princeton University; is the founder of the non-profit organization The Life You Can Save
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2026. (translation: NR)
Bonus video:
