Maduro’s Capture Was Justice, Not Imperialism

The Maduro capture has sparked outrage, celebration, confusion, and predictable backlash from people who seem to change their moral vocabulary depending on who is in the White House. I want to step back from the noise and talk plainly about what actually happened, why it matters, and why calling this “imperialism” is not only wrong but morally incoherent.

I’m writing this as a Christian, not as a foreign policy expert, not as a partisan strategist, and not as someone pretending America is morally pure. I’m writing as someone who believes evil exists, leadership matters, and justice is not defined by who finds it politically convenient at any given moment.

Featured Snippet Takeaway: The Maduro capture was not an act of imperialism but a long overdue act of accountability against a leader whose corruption and brutality were acknowledged for years, even by those now condemning the action. Justice does not become wrong simply because it is finally enforced.

The Question People Are Really Asking

The real question behind this moment is not whether Nicolás Maduro was corrupt. That has already been settled. The real question is whether justice is still justice when it is carried out decisively instead of discussed endlessly.

After Maduro was taken into U.S. custody and brought to New York to face federal charges, as detailed in Reuters’ reporting on his court appearance and detention, the moral debate suddenly shifted away from his record and toward outrage over enforcement.

For years, the world acknowledged that Maduro presided over one of the most corrupt and destructive regimes in the Western Hemisphere. His government dismantled democratic institutions, crushed dissent, enriched elites, and left millions of Venezuelans desperate enough to flee their own country. None of that was controversial until accountability stopped being theoretical.

Suddenly, when action replaced statements, the conversation changed. The same voices that once condemned Maduro now warn about sovereignty, precedent, and imperialism. That shift deserves scrutiny.

Maduro’s Record Was Never in Dispute

We do not need to exaggerate Maduro’s legacy to condemn it. The facts speak loudly enough on their own.

Under Maduro’s leadership, Venezuela collapsed economically despite sitting on vast natural resources. Corruption was not incidental. It was systemic. Political opponents were jailed or silenced. Elections were manipulated. Courts were weaponized. Security forces became tools of intimidation rather than protection.

These abuses were serious enough to prompt the International Criminal Court’s formal investigation into crimes against humanity in Venezuela, reinforcing that concerns about Maduro were never speculative or partisan.

This was not a government struggling to govern well. It was a regime surviving by force, fear, and control.

Even critics of American intervention acknowledged these realities for years. That includes Democratic leaders, international institutions, and human rights bodies. Maduro was repeatedly described as illegitimate, authoritarian, and abusive. Those words were not controversial then.

So we need to ask why accountability itself is now treated as scandalous.

When Condemnation Costs Nothing

There is a comfortable form of moral outrage that costs nothing. It looks like press releases, speeches, sanctions that change little, and endless calls for dialogue that never produce reform. It allows leaders to appear principled without ever confronting evil in a way that actually disrupts it.

That is the posture much of the world took with Maduro for years. Everyone agreed he was bad. Almost no one was willing to do anything meaningful about it.

When justice remains hypothetical, it offends no one. When justice becomes real, it suddenly becomes controversial.

Why the Charge of Imperialism Rings Hollow

The word “imperialism” is being used as a moral bludgeon, not a serious argument. Imperialism implies conquest, exploitation, and domination for self gain. It implies a nation seeking to expand power for its own enrichment at the expense of another people.

That description does not fit what happened here.

Maduro was not removed to install an American governor or annex Venezuelan territory. He was removed to face charges tied to corruption, criminal activity, and abuses that had already been acknowledged for years. The goal was accountability, not occupation.

Calling that imperialism requires redefining the word so broadly that it becomes meaningless. By that logic, any attempt to hold a tyrant accountable beyond his own borders would qualify as imperialism. That would leave the world morally paralyzed.

The Hypocrisy That Cannot Be Ignored

What makes the current outrage especially troubling is not disagreement over methods but moral inconsistency.

The same political leaders now condemning the Trump administration once spoke clearly about Maduro’s corruption. They imposed sanctions. They refused to recognize his legitimacy. They described his regime as criminal and oppressive. Some even supported efforts to bring him to justice.

None of that changed because Maduro suddenly reformed. It changed because the person enforcing accountability changed.

Justice did not become unjust overnight. The only thing that shifted was political alignment.

That kind of reversal does real damage. It teaches the public that moral language is situational, that evil matters only when it is politically useful, and that accountability is negotiable.

From a Christian perspective, that is deeply dangerous.

A Christian View of Authority and Justice

Christianity does not offer a simplistic foreign policy manual, but it does offer moral clarity about power, responsibility, and justice.

Scripture consistently affirms that authority exists to restrain evil, protect the vulnerable, and punish wrongdoing. Leaders are not morally neutral. They are accountable for how they wield power and for whom they serve.

When rulers exploit their people, crush dissent, and enrich themselves through corruption, they forfeit any claim to moral legitimacy. Justice delayed does not become justice denied only for the oppressed. It also becomes injustice normalized for everyone else.

I have written before about why biblical justice must confront a lawless culture rather than accommodate it, and that same principle applies just as much on the world stage as it does at home.

The Difference Between Justice and Performative Morality

There is a growing temptation in modern politics to confuse moral signaling with moral action. Saying the right things becomes more important than doing the right things.

Condemning Maduro while allowing him to remain untouchable was morally safe. Holding him accountable was not.

From a Christian worldview, justice is not performative. It is costly. It disrupts comfortable arrangements. It forces hard decisions. It exposes hypocrisy.

If accountability only applies when it is easy, then it is not accountability at all.

Why This Moment Matters Beyond Venezuela

This moment is bigger than Maduro. It reveals how fragile moral consensus has become.

If justice depends entirely on who enforces it, then justice is no longer a principle. It is a weapon. If corruption matters only when it belongs to the other side, then truth has been replaced by tribal loyalty.

That should concern Christians deeply, regardless of political affiliation.

The Church should be the first to insist that evil is evil, no matter who confronts it, and that justice does not lose its moral legitimacy because it is inconvenient, a tension I addressed directly in my earlier response to the Pope’s comments on the Maduro crisis.

A Necessary Caution Without Moral Retreat

It is fair to ask hard questions about precedent, international law, and long term consequences. Those questions should be asked. Wisdom demands it.

But those questions cannot be used to retroactively sanitize tyranny or excuse paralysis. Prudence is not the same as cowardice. Restraint is not the same as indifference.

Christians are called to hold both truth and humility together. That means acknowledging complexity without surrendering moral clarity.

Why I Believe This Was Just

I do not believe America is the moral savior of the world. I do not believe force is always the answer. I do believe that allowing evil leaders to operate with impunity while the world wrings its hands is not righteousness.

The Maduro capture was justice because it confronted a reality everyone already admitted. It was justice because it prioritized accountability over optics. It was justice because it refused to pretend that endless condemnation without consequence is morally sufficient.

Calling that imperialism is not principled. It is evasive.

The Deeper Question for Christians

The deeper question is not whether this makes us uncomfortable. The question is whether we still believe justice has meaning beyond words.

If Christians retreat into silence every time justice becomes controversial, then we have surrendered our moral voice to the loudest political faction. If we refuse to speak plainly when hypocrisy is obvious, then we are not being peacemakers. We are being spectators.

There is a difference.

Final Thoughts

This moment exposes how quickly moral clarity evaporates when justice stops being abstract. It reminds us that calling out evil is easy. Confronting it is not.

I believe accountability is not imperialism. I believe justice is not partisan. And I believe Christians should be the first to say so, even when it costs us approval.

Arch Kennedy
Bold, Unfiltered, and Unafraid

Watch my full commentary below: