January 9, 2026 • 39 mins
Elliott Abrams, who was U.S. special representative for Venezuela in President Trump’s first term, responds to the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro and discusses what it means for U.S. foreign policy.
Abrams, who also worked in the State Department under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, explains why he supported Trump taking action against Maduro and why he is alarmed by decisions the administration has made since. He details his concerns about the administration aligning with remnants of Maduro’s regime instead of supporting the democratic opposition.
Abrams comments on Trump’s fixation on Venezuelan oil and the administration’s “might makes right” mindset that he says is inconsistent with America’s history. He also questions Trump’s push to seize control of Greenland.
Abrams assesses Marco Rubio’s performance as secretary of state and the potential ramifications of unseating Maduro for other countries in the region, including Cuba. He talks about Trump’s effort to dominate the Western Hemisphere and the importance of asserting America’s values in the year of the nation’s 250th anniversary.
Support for Firing Line with Margaret Hoover is provided by Robert Granieri, Vanessa and Henry Cornell, The Fairweather Foundation, The Tepper Foundation, Peter and Mary Kalikow, Pritzker Military Foundation, Cliff and Laurel Asness, Katharine J. Rayner, Charles R. Schwab, Lindsay and George Billingsley, The Meadowlark Foundation, Jared Stone, and Al and Kathy Hubbard.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:01):
A world in which powerful countries simply take what they
want has never been the goal of United States foreign policy.
Never ever. The idea that you just go around
the world saying I want that andI'm taking it.
That has not been American foreign policy and shouldn't be.
That's Elliott Abrams, PresidentTrump's former special
(00:22):
representative for Venezuela. Challenging the Trump
administration's might makes right mindset.
I'm Margaret Hoover. This is the FIRING LINE podcast.
Elliott Abrams served in the State Department under
Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W Bush and under Donald
Trump in his first term unsuccessfully pushing for
(00:44):
regime change in Caracas. We want a region that is stable
and prosperous and at peace. The democratic Venezuela will
contribute to those goals. But after Nicolas Maduro's
dramatic capture, Abrams says Trump is not going far enough,
leaving dangerous Maduro loyalists in power.
I don't think there can be the kind of economic recovery they
(01:05):
want and we want for them with this unbelievably corrupt
regime. So what should Trump do now in
Venezuela? This is a process.
Maybe it takes a year, but she started with the negotiation
with the bad guys and you end itwith the full transition to
democracy. And is Greenland really his next
target? The idea that we would say to a
(01:26):
NATO ally, Denmark, we want Greenland, you have it, we're
taking it, we'll destroy, as thenames have said, just destroy
NATO. Elliot Abrams, welcome back to
FIRING LINE. Thank you, it's been a long
time. You served in the
administrations of Ronald Reagan, of George W Bush and of
(01:48):
Donald Trump. Yeah.
Most recently, you were a special representative to
Venezuela in Donald Trump's first term.
Of all the countries that are relevant to America's national
interest and security and globalstability, how do you understand
President Trump's focus on Venezuela now?
(02:11):
That's a very good question and I'm not sure I understand it.
That is, I can make the argumentthere's a migration issue, drug
issue, there really is a national security issue because
there are plenty of Hezbollah and Iranian agents in Venezuela.
There are Russians that are Chinese, they're certainly
Cubans. I wouldn't have put it at the
(02:33):
top. You know, in a world where we're
worried about Ukraine, for example, and Gaza and Taiwan,
why the president decided to make this such a big deal now
actually is a little mysterious to me.
I'm not quite sure. Do you?
Think we'll ever know? Yeah, memoirs, yeah, I mean.
We'll understand the confluence of events that that persuaded
(02:56):
him. Initially, you thought regime
change in Venezuela was the onlyway forward.
Now you express reservations about the way the Trump
administration is handling Venezuela.
It's not going as you envisioned.
It's not 'cause I wanted regime change, I still do.
(03:18):
We removed Maduro. Can I just mention you argued as
recently as November of 2025 andthe pages of Foreign Affairs
that the regime change is the only way forward.
So this is, this is. You're not new to this argument,
but it's not going the way you envision.
It's not because I thought we would remove the regime and the
regime consists of more than Nicolas Maduro.
(03:39):
It's it was really what in the old ladies we call a junta.
I mean, it's a group of really bad people running that country
and they're all there except forNicolas Maduro, and they're in
charge. Venezuela's government is now
run by Delci Rodriguez, who had been the vice president.
(03:59):
Senior cabinet officials, as youmentioned, the minister of the
interior and others remain in charge in Venezuela.
And you have recently said the situation was much like
capturing Saddam Hussein and saying the transition will be
hard. So we're going to leave his sons
in power? Yeah.
Why is this unworkable in your view?
(04:20):
First of all, it's immoral for the United States to say, well,
all we want is oil, and we don'tcare how many Venezuelans are,
you know, jailed, shot, exiled, turned into refugees.
If we can get a little bit of oil, that should never be the
position of the United States. But it's also not going to work.
It's not going to work because Venezuelans voted, you know, 70%
(04:43):
just under for the Maria Corina Machado ticket.
They want change. They don't want this regime.
This regime has destroyed the country.
And I think this situation is kind of unstable.
And the example I give is a month from now there's a big
demonstration in Caracas againstthe regime and they beat
(05:06):
everybody up. They kill a few people.
Is that OK with us? Do we really think that's a
stable situation? Well, they're putting
journalists in jail now, which I'm going to ask you about.
But to your point about oil, it has been announced that
Venezuela will be giving the United States up to 50 million
barrels of oil. But President Trump told Joe
Scarborough this week, quote, the difference between Iraq and
(05:29):
this is that Bush didn't keep the oil.
We are going to keep the oil. Now people who share your
worldview, who have been in positions of power in
government, have spent and, and who, who are your colleagues and
friends have spent decades persuading the American public
that we did not go to war for oil in places like Iraq, right?
(05:52):
And now the president's explicitly saying that's why
we're there. You just said the United States
should never be in a position we're we're in a country for
their resources or for oil. You said there's a moral
argument. Can you make that moral case for
us? I think I can.
I mean, we believe in private property.
(06:13):
We believe in national sovereignty.
What are we doing? The going around the world
saying you've got gold, we're taking it, and you've got oil,
we're taking that, you've got rare earths, we like that too.
And so we'll send in the army totake it.
That is not the kind of world that any of us wants to live in.
That's a might makes right world.
Now, we've heard from Stephen Miller in the White House in the
(06:35):
last few days. Yeah, well, that is the world.
That is not the world that the United States tried to create
after World War 2. There's a second argument, by
the way, which is Trump is wrongabout how much oil we can get
out of Venezuela. But I would first make that case
that a world in which powerful countries simply take what they
(06:56):
want has never been the goal of United States foreign policy.
Never, ever. Yes, we had dollar diplomacy
Once Upon a time. I don't think we look back on
that as a wonderful era of American foreign policy.
When we want something like oil or gold, you know, we negotiate
(07:17):
with the government in power in Venezuela, we did it.
We invest. We get the benefits of the
investment. It's called capitalism.
But the idea that you just go around the world saying I want
that and I'm taking it, that hasnot been American foreign policy
and shouldn't be. I mean, it strikes me that as we
approach the 250th anniversary of this country, which came into
(07:40):
its own existence by rejecting colonial powers, the embrace of
the current president of a rather colonial or imperialist
scheme is not just a throwback to a previous time in our
history. It's actually never happened in
our history. You know, I think you get here
into the question of Greenland because judging by what the
(08:02):
president and others are saying,we want Greenland.
So maybe we'll take it. I have felt that the one of the
great assets of the United States since the Second World
War is this vast alliance system.
The Russians don't have it, the Chinese don't have it.
We have it. And not just NATO, we have it
(08:22):
all over the world. So the idea that we would say to
a NATO ally, Denmark, we want Greenland, you have it, we're
taking it, we'll destroy, as thenames have said, just destroy
NATO. And the idea that we are
actually a faithful ally ourselves.
What will be the consequences ofthe destruction of NATO along
(08:44):
those lines? It it's the greatest military
alliance that's ever existed. And I don't think it really
survives whatever is on paper. If the main actor in NATO, which
is supposed to defend against outside sources, actually
attacks another member of NATO, that's it.
(09:08):
And then, you know, what we're saying to the Europeans now is
you need to spend more on defense.
Why? Because of Russia.
It never would have occurred to anyone until the Greenland deal
that no, you need to spend more on your defense because we might
attack you. It's nuts.
Do you think Trump cares about the dissolution of NATO?
(09:29):
I mean, you just said we can't go.
We we are not a country that believes and might makes right.
But it strikes me that perhaps the president and his allies in
the White House do believe that might makes right.
And could they change 250 years of American foreign policy right
in front of our eyes? They could it.
(09:51):
It's a reasonable fear. What's going on in the
president's mind about this? I don't know.
What are his sources of information?
I think that's another question.How does he get to these
conclusions? I don't know, but I would hope
that there are people and not just Secretary of State Rubio
he's often pointed to, but people in the US military who
(10:13):
will tell him this is a really bad direction to go in because
you're going to, you're going todestroy our alliance system this
way. And it is critical for us in a
in a world that's remains quite dangerous.
There's some speculation about why now.
Fiona Hill testified in 2019 to a conversation between Russians
(10:37):
that and the Americans that perhaps there was a swap to be
made between Venezuela and Ukraine.
There are others who have pointed out that all of the
domestic issues that had riled the president's agenda are now
off the front pages. What is your sense, having
(10:58):
worked in many administrations and knowing many of the
individuals in charge in this administration, why now?
Why Venezuela now? There's speculation about this,
and part of it is the president got tired of Maduro, with whom
he thought he could get a deal, and reached the conclusion that
Maduro was, to use Trumpian language, tapping him along, and
(11:23):
he just sort of got tired of it.If you look at it in terms of
Ukraine, I really don't think that's it.
I mean, I think the president isannoyed at Putin for not being
willing to reach any kind of agreement on Ukraine.
That ought to lead you to put more pressure on Putin, on
(11:45):
Russia, not to, you know, arrestthe president of Venezuela.
So to me, this is actually the greatest mystery, not what we're
doing once we decide to prioritize Venezuela.
But why did the president decidenow?
I mean, not six months ago, not five years ago.
I mean, you, you could say he did six months ago.
(12:07):
I mean, he needed time to do this military buildup, but, you
know, could have done this, could have done this in 2020,
and he was not even thinking about it.
If it's a mystery to you, do youthink it's a mystery to all of
our allies? Yes, I think the idea that in
his first year back when we've seen action in in Iran, we've
(12:29):
seen war in Gaza, we have this ongoing question of is Xi
Jinping and we invade Taiwan forthe president to decide.
OK, I'm back and in the summer of his first year to decide on
Venezuela. I, I, I would suggest one thing.
It was June of 2025 when we did the attack on the Iranian
(12:51):
nuclear sites. It was fabulous.
I mean, it was a great success. Then in the summer he decides
maybe maybe I'm on a roll. The American military is
fantastic and invincible. Venezuela.
And then you start the military built up in the Caribbean, which
did start in late summer. It's the theory.
(13:14):
It is unclear that the Trump administration is in fact
committed to regime change, which you have supported.
Make the case why a democratic Venezuela is better than a
Venezuela that is operated by remnants of the Maduro regime
but but compliant to the United States.
(13:38):
OK, first a Venezuela, it is runby those remnants, will always
be a producer of vast refugee flows.
In fact, we'll see it now. That is if the Venezuelan
people, 1/4 of population is left.
If they are persuaded there's nochange coming.
These guys are going to be in charge forever.
(13:58):
Another million or two or three or four are going to leave.
Second, I don't think there can be the kind of economic recovery
they want and we want for them with this unbelievably corrupt
regime. And it is unbelievably corrupt.
And one of the things that struck me when I was doing this
(14:19):
in the State Department in the first term, we were not finding
that people in the regime had a secret bank account with $5
million. We were finding they had a
secret bank account with $405 million.
I mean, the amounts of money stolen are incredible.
Third, the presence of hostile forces, Hezbollah, Iran, Russia,
(14:42):
China, Cuba, in Venezuela. This regime was relying on
Cubans. The fact that in capturing
Maduro, we had to kill what the Cuban government has said was 32
security guards of Maduros reveals that what we'd always
said was true, which is his guards were not Venezuelans,
(15:05):
they were Cubans. And you've got Hezbollah and
Iran there. You've got Iran there with a,
with a drone program that eithernow or soon would be able to
reach us. You had Hezbollah, you had the
regime giving Hezbollah blank passports so that their agents
could roam around Latin America and the rest of the world.
So you're saying none of this will stop under a Maduro
(15:29):
adjacent regime? Some of it might stop in the
sense that for example, we can say to them you you've been
giving oil to Cuba for free or subsidized.
That has to stop and we can measure that.
The rest of it, you know, we cantell them get get the Iranians
out, but they are the same people they were two weeks ago.
(15:54):
They're anti American, they're pro Russian, pro China, they're
thieves, they're criminals, they're drug traffickers.
We want a region that is stable and prosperous and at peace.
A democratic Venezuela will contribute to those goals.
A Venezuela under the current regime, which is still there,
(16:16):
undermines those goals by destabilizing, by creating
refugees, by inviting hostile foreign powers in.
It's part of the problem. When I was in the Reagan
administration, Venezuela was a prosperous democracy, and it was
part of the solution to democracy in Latin America.
(16:36):
It can be again, but not with this regime.
The Trump administration's lift list of demands to Tulsi
Rodriguez, the new president, has included we as we just as
cracking down on the flow of drugs, extricating hostile
Iranians, Cubans and other operatives, halting the sale of
oil to our adversaries, and eventually holding free and fair
(16:57):
elections. Is she actually in a position to
deliver all these things? No, first, I don't think she's
actually running the country. I think she is the front for the
two strong men who are minister of defence, minister of the
Interior, both of whom are underindictment.
So how do we sort of, you know, happily deal with these people?
(17:20):
Given where we are now, and given that your ideal objective
would be a democratic Venezuela,how would you advise that we
would get from point A to point?BI still think it's possible.
First of all, we should be politically as well as morally
supporting the Democratic opposition, which had a
(17:42):
landslide in the last election. That doesn't mean that we insist
that Edmundo Gonzalez, who won the election, is inaugurated
tomorrow, but it means that we say he's the legitimate
president and at the end of the road, either he needs to be
inaugurated or there has to be anew election.
We there needs to be a negotiation between the
(18:04):
democratic opposition and the regime.
Either we do that negotiation asthe kind of moderator or we ask,
you know, somebody else. The Vatican is an example to do
it. What do you need to negotiate?
You need to negotiate an amnestywhich is taking place in every
democratic transition in Latin America, in Eastern Europe, in
(18:25):
South Africa. So there needs to be a
negotiation over what are the terms of that amnesty.
Who runs the army? Civilian control of the military
is tough in a situation like this.
It doesn't happen overnight, butwhen freeing political persons
(18:46):
ought to be day one. But when do you have the first
municipal elections? When do you have the first state
elections? This is a process.
Maybe it takes a year, but you started with a negotiation with
the bad guys and you end it withthe full transition to
democracy. Respectfully, I'm an idealist.
(19:07):
I want that to happen. Respectfully, that feels like a
stretch based on where we are now.
I don't think so. I don't think it is if we are
behind it. We have just demonstrated this
fantastic military. We're behind.
We're behind, Delci Rodriguez. That's why it feels like a
stretch. No.
Oh, yes. I mean, if you're asking what do
I think the White House is doingnow?
The White House seems to be saying, you know, But of course,
(19:31):
I mean, someday there'll be an election.
Meanwhile, however, we are not doing anything that would lay
the foundation for that, like saying, you know, fundamentally
we are behind the people who wonthe election and we start a
process here. We're not.
We're not doing that. Beyond that, the President of
the United States denigrated Maria Carina Machado in his
(19:51):
first press conference in front of the world.
I think it would. Be very tough for her to be the
leader. She doesn't have the support
within or the respect within thecountry.
She's a very nice woman, but shedoesn't have the respect to.
I thought that was the lowest point of the press conference
and one of the low points of theTrump.
Administration, what is the impact of that on the opposition
movement that is a severe set back.
(20:12):
It's a severe set back not just to the movement in the sense of
politicians, but to all Venezuelans who are looking and
saying, well, we want the door is now open to change.
And the president seems to have said, no, not really.
It's terrible. There are reports that the
Venezuelan government has launched nationwide crackdowns,
including the detention of journalists, the deployment of
(20:34):
armed gangs in the streets. Is it possible that the US
offered Delcio Rodriguez a handsoff policy as long as we're the
United States is controlling Venezuelan oil?
Or is it possible that the newlysworn in President Rodriguez has
tricked Trump in some way, has offered support for his goals,
(20:54):
is playing for time, and is using her time to prepare her
government for a fight with the United States in case it
returns? I don't think she tricked him, I
think. Playing for time.
She's definitely playing for time.
And I would say, look, what would you and I do if we were in
the shoes of Delcio Rodriguez and the, you know, minister of
(21:17):
defence minister and Jerry, these other criminals?
We would say, well, it's not entirely clear what Trump's
going to do. We may get to stay here forever.
He talks about elections, but he'll be gone in three years.
Maybe we can keep pushing it off.
What does he want now? Let's beat up some
demonstrators. Let's see what Trump does
because the answer might be he does nothing.
(21:40):
Let's push it. Let's see what we can get away
with. And my fear, of course, is
they're going to find that as long as the oil begins to flow,
the president is not particularly interested.
Why is the oil important to Trump?
We have a glut of oil on in the global markets.
(22:00):
We produce plenty of oil ourselves.
The only people the oil it seemsto impact will be Iran and
Russia potentially, and Cuba. So that actually seems to
contradict the Trump corollary of only caring about our region
because if the people it's goingto impact the most are in Europe
and the Middle East, then perhaps he's not So a wedded to
(22:22):
the Trump corollary. I mean what do you make of?
I mean could there be a Geo strategic method to the madness
when it comes to the oil? That would be true if there was
going to be a lot of oil available and soon.
I don't think there is going to be a lot of oil available soon.
(22:44):
It it's a very debilitated oil sector now.
Everybody I talked to says, yeah, you could get this year
with 300,000 more barrels a day,maybe 500,000, which is not a
lot. 10s of billions of dollars have got to be invested in order
to produce, say, 1,000,000 barrels a day more five years
(23:07):
from now, Trump will be gone forone thing.
But I think you are not going tosee American oil companies
jumping at this. I think that they're going to
make all wonderful positive noises.
They don't want to anger the president.
But you know, the, the, the, then they need to make a
decision about $10 billion of investments.
(23:27):
Where does it go? How about Texas?
I mean, as opposed to Venezuela?I don't I don't think that
they're going to do this unless they get a lot from Trump.
All sorts of guarantees or partnerships where the president
says, well, I'll tell you what, you produce more oil. the US
(23:48):
government will cover the five $10 billion you pay us back over
a 20 year period. Why are we doing this?
The oil industry is the last industry in the world that needs
the federal government to take it over and invest.
So back to my question, why is he so obsessed with the oil?
(24:09):
You know, you asked before, why has Venezuela ridden to the top
of his priority list? Why oil in a world where oil is
now selling at about $60.00 a barrel, there's lots of oil.
You can argue well, yeah, but you know, 10 years from now
we'll need more oil. This is an industry which is
(24:30):
very good at planning for 10 years from now, investing for 10
years from now. They do not need the federal.
The last thing they need is federal government saying do
what we want you to do and do itwhere we tell you to do it.
I I thought we believed in free market capitalism.
Which is all to say, you don't know, and many people don't know
(24:51):
and just can't understand the rhyme or reason for these
actions. If we're moving Maduro was so
clearly in America's interests, why not make the case to
Congress or the American people beforehand?
And I, I, I ask you this in particular because you have
(25:12):
spent a lot of time in previous administrations talking to
Congress. Yep, coordinating with the
intelligence committees and coordinating with the relevant
committees of jurisdiction in the Senate and the House.
Why not collaborate with the thethe first branch of government?
Well, a number of answers. 1st for the military operation
(25:36):
itself. Of course you you couldn't talk
to. Congress, I understand that
argument, but I understand that argument, except for it doesn't
really hold to I mean, the Washington Post and the and the
New York Times held stories about the attack in order to
spare the lives of American soldiers.
Yes, but we. Must believe that the but the
the top those top aid on those intelligence committees rarely
(25:58):
leak. No, that's right.
I mean, if you brief one of the committees, you're finished.
But so one, one question was just the military operation.
But the deeper question, when I was doing this in 2019 and 20, I
briefed Congress all the time, bipartisan support, the policy
we had of promoting democracy inVenezuela, of essentially trying
(26:19):
to get rid of the regime, supporting Juan Guaido, his
interim president, bipartisan support.
I'd go brief. Dick Durbin was the number two
Democratic leader. No arguments.
I think it's a combination of the weakness of Congress and a
mistake on the part of the administration.
Some of this, you know, is goes back a long ways.
(26:41):
Congress I I came to Washington a long time ago, 1975, to be a
committee chairman, then Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Senate Finance. Committee to the most powerful
positions in Congress. You were a Grand Duke.
Yeah. Congress is really spying these
days. And you can blame a series of
presidents. And you you should.
(27:03):
And the expansion of executive power, but you got.
To blame the Congress, too, for not standing up and, and
demanding its own constitutionalprerogatives.
And then the president has, you know, basically it's a slow
process. I mean, it certainly goes back
to Obama basically saying, I, I can do what I want.
(27:24):
Remember Obama saying, I have a pen, I can do what I want.
But we could have gotten, the president could have gotten very
substantial bipartisan support from Congress for, well, for the
promotion of democracy and I would say for regime change in
(27:46):
Venezuela. And he just wasn't apparently
interested in it. They've really ignored the
Congress for most of the last year of the administration so.
They they've ignored the Congress and they've gotten away
with it. OK, partly because they had
Republican majorities in both houses.
That's true. And that may change in the next
election. But the fact that they've gotten
(28:08):
away with it shows a dysfunctionon the Hill that you can't
really blame Donald Trump for. Donald Trump has threatened
military action if Delci Rodriguez is uncooperative.
And certainly the officials justSado Cabello and the the other
(28:29):
minister Pedrino understand thatthe threat of military action
could be quite meaningful to their futures.
The initial operation was so remarkably successful that I
wonder if against the backdrop of the success of Midnight
Hammer in Iran and this, there is a risk of hubris with respect
(28:53):
to the abilities of the Americanmilitary and that future actions
may not be so easy. Is there a risk of American
lives in the future with future and continued military action?
There is a risk. I spoke with Aaron McClain,
who's got the School of War podcast and, and is himself an
(29:15):
Afghanistan veteran. And the way he put it was it's
law of averages. It's not saying the American
military is not as good as we think it is.
It's fantastic. But in the next operation or the
one after that, we're going to start having casualties.
It's it's bound to happen. No, no series of operations
going to be absolutely flawless.And even if they are flawless,
(29:38):
what would it have taken for oneof those Cubans to get off a
better shot and kill an Americansoldier?
So I do think that the fantasticsuccess in the killing of
Soleimani and then in Midnight Hammer and now this, which was
much more complicated and flawless, runs the risk of
(30:01):
teaching the president a lesson,which is that the American
military can do literally anything and there's no risks.
And of course, that's a the onlything that makes me think maybe
that won't happen. November is coming and he knows
that if he tries something and it doesn't work, the the
repercussions could come pretty quickly.
(30:21):
Electorally, Trump has also threatened action against
Colombia and Mexico without congressional approval or
support from these countries. Democratically elected leaders.
Would that be appropriate, or isVenezuela a unique situation?
I think Venezuela is unique partly because it's such a
hostile regime with, you know, with, with, with Cubans and, and
(30:45):
Iranians, etcetera. That's certainly not the
situation with Mexico. And President Scheinbaum is
really trying to cooperate with the president and lower the
temperature. In fact, she had the best
reaction to the president's remarks.
She didn't, you know, scream and, and and call a special
session of Congress. She said that's how the
(31:06):
president talks, which is a niceway to kind of try to cool it.
I do think the possibility of military action in Colombia
exists. I don't think it really exists
in Mexico. I mean, I think all the
president's friends on Wall Street would tell him do not do
that. Our economies are.
(31:27):
Yeah, absolutely. Colombia is a different story.
It's not such a cooperative government right now.
Lots of cocoa growing, so I I think that'll still be on the
president's mind. You've worked for many
secretaries of state in the Reagan administration, the Bush
administration, also in the Trump administration.
You have known Marco Rubio for many years, and we have all
(31:48):
observed his evolution from being a rather hawkish member of
the United States Senate to fully embracing the MAGA agenda
and now serving as the Viceroy of Venezuela.
Some some joke How? How is Marco Rubio doing?
How? What grade do you give Marco
(32:09):
Rubio, Secretary of State, so far in this administration?
I think time's up. We have to go now.
I mean, that's. That's a really hard question.
Look, every Secretary of State has to do this.
I remember with George Schultz abig discussion of Poland at one
time and somebody on the staff was objecting to what we were
doing. And Schultz's reaction was, you
(32:31):
may, you may be right now, all you need to do is get yourself
elected president. But Ronald Reagan got himself
elected. So we're going to do it his way.
So that's in a sense what Rubio is doing.
He's not president. He actually ran for president.
I supported him when he ran 2016, but it didn't happen.
(32:51):
So one of the things he's doing,you take orders from the guy
who's president. He's also trying to survive in a
very difficult environment. You you mean the political
environment within the White House and that.
I do. I mean the whole administration,
the vice president, other peoplein the White House, other people
in the Cabinet, the MAGA movement, Republicans on the
(33:14):
Hill, the whole Republican Party, That can't be easy.
So I have a lot of sympathy for how hard it must be to do that.
I I do not think that he has, you know, cashiered a whole
lifetime of views about Americanforeign policy.
I think he's trying to figure out how to make it work.
(33:35):
You know, Rex Tillerson in the Trump first term just basically
walked out. I mean, said, I'm going to do it
my way. That doesn't work.
So, you know, the the outcome, Ican't, I can give Rubio, I
guess, AAB, I'm sure there are many things that he would like
to do or not do. I mean, it's hard for me to
(33:56):
believe that he thinks it's great for the president or
Stephen Miller to threaten to take Greenland.
But again, you know, you live inan environment and you make the
choice. Donald Trump was not new to the
scene. He'd been president.
So Rubio knew what he was getting into.
Marco Rubio, of course, is of Cuban descent.
(34:18):
This action in Venezuela probably puts more pressure on
the Cuban government than anyoneelse, any other government in
this hemisphere. What are the consequences
potentially? I think potentially the fall of
the regime. I mean, you know, they're.
In of the Cuban regime. The Cuban regime, I mean, the,
the economy in Cuba is the economy is collapsing now with
(34:41):
the Venezuelan oil. It's really a desperate
situation. You know, daily blackouts,
shortages of food, take that away and add to it, take away in
a sense of solidarity of, of Caracas.
I think the regime's in real trouble.
Not tomorrow morning, but Trump has and Rubio has presumably 3
(35:02):
years the chances that that regime collapses.
In the next three years. I think it's a real possibility.
Would that be a win for Marco Rubio?
Huge. Amazing.
I mean a lifetime achievement asthe son.
Of a lifelong dream. Cuba, absolutely.
Yeah, I remember the criticisms at the beginning of this
(35:23):
administration when he oversaw the shutting down of Radio
Marti. I guess that would vindicate the
criticism that he has abandoned his generational homeland.
Absolutely. I mean, this is something that
not just Cubans have dreamed about since Castro took over in
what, Christmas 59? John Kennedy tried it.
(35:44):
I mean, every president has, in a sense, wanted to get rid of
that regime. If Donald Trump can achieve it,
if Marco Rubio can achieve it, it's fantastic.
In 1987, you were a guest on William F Buckley Junior's
program Firing Line. You actually appeared twice on
Firing Line, but in this particular episode you're
(36:04):
working in the State Department and in Reagan's State
Department, and you were talkingabout the interventions of the
American government in South America and Central American
countries. The goal of our policy, as in
Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemalaand the rest of Latin America,
is democracy. Democracy.
That's the goal of the policy. The the we hope that democracy
(36:28):
can be obtained through a negotiating track.
If it cannot, I had hoped it clear that our view is you need
to continue aid to the resistance as the only other
method short of US use of force to attain that goal.
But that's the goal, democracy. I'm using the same lines.
So you haven't changed much. I have not changed.
(36:49):
My You have not had the same evolution as Marco Rubio.
No, I, I, You know, if Reagan's ultimate goal in the region was
democracy, how would you define Trump's, the Trump
administration's goal? Dominance of the Western
Hemisphere. That's what he said in his
national security strategy. And yet, when he was asked by a
press, a pool reporter on the plane, what is the goal of this
(37:12):
action in Venezuela, his answer was World Peace.
It was not peace in the region, it was World Peace.
There will be consequences from this action that echo far more
broadly than just this region. Do you think he is wedded to the
Trump corollary? I think he does want to be the
dominant power in this region. But he also wants to be the
(37:34):
dominant power in the world. He, he wants, I think part of
this. And, you know, look, I'm not a
shrink, But I think part of thisis he wants admiration, he wants
respect. He wants not to be viewed as a
sort of accidental figure way out of the history of American
presidents. He wants to be viewed as a great
(37:54):
success who brought peace. And my criticism is not that he
wants peace. We all want peace.
It's that he doesn't seem to realize that that there are
regimes in the world, the Chinese regime, the Russian
regime, that don't want peace, that never want peace.
You can't have peace with Vladimir Putin because he wants
(38:14):
to recreate the Soviet empire. So doing deals with him is
necessary sometimes, but in the long run, that's not how you get
to World Peace. When you joined the State
Department in 1981, you wrote a memo declaring that human rights
is core to our foreign policy because it is central to
America's conception of itself. Trump's National Security
(38:37):
Strategy completely rejects pursuing democratic and social
change abroad. It has tried to cut funding for
American soft power, like the National Endowment for
Democracy, where you serve as a senior fellow.
It seems to me there's a battle right now between what America
was and the values that you havesaid, suggested we have always
(39:01):
stood for and the values the current administration is
promoting. I think that's right, and it's
ironic that it happens in the 250th anniversary year of the
United States. If the administration is not
itself going to be fighting for those values and promoting them
and explaining them, then othersare going to have to do it.
(39:24):
Maybe it's maybe it's us, maybe it's people on the Hill, maybe
it's probably not, but people inuniversities.
We're going to have to do it without Donald Trump, but it
needs to be done. And this 250th year is a great
year to do it. I.
Could talk to you forever. Elliot Abrams, thank you for
joining me on Firing LINE. Thanks for inviting me back.
A world in which powerful countries simply take what they
want has never been the goal of United States foreign policy.
Never ever. The idea that you just go around
the world saying I want that andI'm taking it.
That has not been American foreign policy and shouldn't be.
That's Elliott Abrams, PresidentTrump's former special
(00:22):
representative for Venezuela. Challenging the Trump
administration's might makes right mindset.
I'm Margaret Hoover. This is the FIRING LINE podcast.
Elliott Abrams served in the State Department under
Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W Bush and under Donald
Trump in his first term unsuccessfully pushing for
(00:44):
regime change in Caracas. We want a region that is stable
and prosperous and at peace. The democratic Venezuela will
contribute to those goals. But after Nicolas Maduro's
dramatic capture, Abrams says Trump is not going far enough,
leaving dangerous Maduro loyalists in power.
I don't think there can be the kind of economic recovery they
(01:05):
want and we want for them with this unbelievably corrupt
regime. So what should Trump do now in
Venezuela? This is a process.
Maybe it takes a year, but she started with the negotiation
with the bad guys and you end itwith the full transition to
democracy. And is Greenland really his next
target? The idea that we would say to a
(01:26):
NATO ally, Denmark, we want Greenland, you have it, we're
taking it, we'll destroy, as thenames have said, just destroy
NATO. Elliot Abrams, welcome back to
FIRING LINE. Thank you, it's been a long
time. You served in the
administrations of Ronald Reagan, of George W Bush and of
(01:48):
Donald Trump. Yeah.
Most recently, you were a special representative to
Venezuela in Donald Trump's first term.
Of all the countries that are relevant to America's national
interest and security and globalstability, how do you understand
President Trump's focus on Venezuela now?
(02:11):
That's a very good question and I'm not sure I understand it.
That is, I can make the argumentthere's a migration issue, drug
issue, there really is a national security issue because
there are plenty of Hezbollah and Iranian agents in Venezuela.
There are Russians that are Chinese, they're certainly
Cubans. I wouldn't have put it at the
(02:33):
top. You know, in a world where we're
worried about Ukraine, for example, and Gaza and Taiwan,
why the president decided to make this such a big deal now
actually is a little mysterious to me.
I'm not quite sure. Do you?
Think we'll ever know? Yeah, memoirs, yeah, I mean.
We'll understand the confluence of events that that persuaded
(02:56):
him. Initially, you thought regime
change in Venezuela was the onlyway forward.
Now you express reservations about the way the Trump
administration is handling Venezuela.
It's not going as you envisioned.
It's not 'cause I wanted regime change, I still do.
(03:18):
We removed Maduro. Can I just mention you argued as
recently as November of 2025 andthe pages of Foreign Affairs
that the regime change is the only way forward.
So this is, this is. You're not new to this argument,
but it's not going the way you envision.
It's not because I thought we would remove the regime and the
regime consists of more than Nicolas Maduro.
(03:39):
It's it was really what in the old ladies we call a junta.
I mean, it's a group of really bad people running that country
and they're all there except forNicolas Maduro, and they're in
charge. Venezuela's government is now
run by Delci Rodriguez, who had been the vice president.
(03:59):
Senior cabinet officials, as youmentioned, the minister of the
interior and others remain in charge in Venezuela.
And you have recently said the situation was much like
capturing Saddam Hussein and saying the transition will be
hard. So we're going to leave his sons
in power? Yeah.
Why is this unworkable in your view?
(04:20):
First of all, it's immoral for the United States to say, well,
all we want is oil, and we don'tcare how many Venezuelans are,
you know, jailed, shot, exiled, turned into refugees.
If we can get a little bit of oil, that should never be the
position of the United States. But it's also not going to work.
It's not going to work because Venezuelans voted, you know, 70%
(04:43):
just under for the Maria Corina Machado ticket.
They want change. They don't want this regime.
This regime has destroyed the country.
And I think this situation is kind of unstable.
And the example I give is a month from now there's a big
demonstration in Caracas againstthe regime and they beat
(05:06):
everybody up. They kill a few people.
Is that OK with us? Do we really think that's a
stable situation? Well, they're putting
journalists in jail now, which I'm going to ask you about.
But to your point about oil, it has been announced that
Venezuela will be giving the United States up to 50 million
barrels of oil. But President Trump told Joe
Scarborough this week, quote, the difference between Iraq and
(05:29):
this is that Bush didn't keep the oil.
We are going to keep the oil. Now people who share your
worldview, who have been in positions of power in
government, have spent and, and who, who are your colleagues and
friends have spent decades persuading the American public
that we did not go to war for oil in places like Iraq, right?
(05:52):
And now the president's explicitly saying that's why
we're there. You just said the United States
should never be in a position we're we're in a country for
their resources or for oil. You said there's a moral
argument. Can you make that moral case for
us? I think I can.
I mean, we believe in private property.
(06:13):
We believe in national sovereignty.
What are we doing? The going around the world
saying you've got gold, we're taking it, and you've got oil,
we're taking that, you've got rare earths, we like that too.
And so we'll send in the army totake it.
That is not the kind of world that any of us wants to live in.
That's a might makes right world.
Now, we've heard from Stephen Miller in the White House in the
(06:35):
last few days. Yeah, well, that is the world.
That is not the world that the United States tried to create
after World War 2. There's a second argument, by
the way, which is Trump is wrongabout how much oil we can get
out of Venezuela. But I would first make that case
that a world in which powerful countries simply take what they
(06:56):
want has never been the goal of United States foreign policy.
Never, ever. Yes, we had dollar diplomacy
Once Upon a time. I don't think we look back on
that as a wonderful era of American foreign policy.
When we want something like oil or gold, you know, we negotiate
(07:17):
with the government in power in Venezuela, we did it.
We invest. We get the benefits of the
investment. It's called capitalism.
But the idea that you just go around the world saying I want
that and I'm taking it, that hasnot been American foreign policy
and shouldn't be. I mean, it strikes me that as we
approach the 250th anniversary of this country, which came into
(07:40):
its own existence by rejecting colonial powers, the embrace of
the current president of a rather colonial or imperialist
scheme is not just a throwback to a previous time in our
history. It's actually never happened in
our history. You know, I think you get here
into the question of Greenland because judging by what the
(08:02):
president and others are saying,we want Greenland.
So maybe we'll take it. I have felt that the one of the
great assets of the United States since the Second World
War is this vast alliance system.
The Russians don't have it, the Chinese don't have it.
We have it. And not just NATO, we have it
(08:22):
all over the world. So the idea that we would say to
a NATO ally, Denmark, we want Greenland, you have it, we're
taking it, we'll destroy, as thenames have said, just destroy
NATO. And the idea that we are
actually a faithful ally ourselves.
What will be the consequences ofthe destruction of NATO along
(08:44):
those lines? It it's the greatest military
alliance that's ever existed. And I don't think it really
survives whatever is on paper. If the main actor in NATO, which
is supposed to defend against outside sources, actually
attacks another member of NATO, that's it.
(09:08):
And then, you know, what we're saying to the Europeans now is
you need to spend more on defense.
Why? Because of Russia.
It never would have occurred to anyone until the Greenland deal
that no, you need to spend more on your defense because we might
attack you. It's nuts.
Do you think Trump cares about the dissolution of NATO?
(09:29):
I mean, you just said we can't go.
We we are not a country that believes and might makes right.
But it strikes me that perhaps the president and his allies in
the White House do believe that might makes right.
And could they change 250 years of American foreign policy right
in front of our eyes? They could it.
(09:51):
It's a reasonable fear. What's going on in the
president's mind about this? I don't know.
What are his sources of information?
I think that's another question.How does he get to these
conclusions? I don't know, but I would hope
that there are people and not just Secretary of State Rubio
he's often pointed to, but people in the US military who
(10:13):
will tell him this is a really bad direction to go in because
you're going to, you're going todestroy our alliance system this
way. And it is critical for us in a
in a world that's remains quite dangerous.
There's some speculation about why now.
Fiona Hill testified in 2019 to a conversation between Russians
(10:37):
that and the Americans that perhaps there was a swap to be
made between Venezuela and Ukraine.
There are others who have pointed out that all of the
domestic issues that had riled the president's agenda are now
off the front pages. What is your sense, having
(10:58):
worked in many administrations and knowing many of the
individuals in charge in this administration, why now?
Why Venezuela now? There's speculation about this,
and part of it is the president got tired of Maduro, with whom
he thought he could get a deal, and reached the conclusion that
Maduro was, to use Trumpian language, tapping him along, and
(11:23):
he just sort of got tired of it.If you look at it in terms of
Ukraine, I really don't think that's it.
I mean, I think the president isannoyed at Putin for not being
willing to reach any kind of agreement on Ukraine.
That ought to lead you to put more pressure on Putin, on
(11:45):
Russia, not to, you know, arrestthe president of Venezuela.
So to me, this is actually the greatest mystery, not what we're
doing once we decide to prioritize Venezuela.
But why did the president decidenow?
I mean, not six months ago, not five years ago.
I mean, you, you could say he did six months ago.
(12:07):
I mean, he needed time to do this military buildup, but, you
know, could have done this, could have done this in 2020,
and he was not even thinking about it.
If it's a mystery to you, do youthink it's a mystery to all of
our allies? Yes, I think the idea that in
his first year back when we've seen action in in Iran, we've
(12:29):
seen war in Gaza, we have this ongoing question of is Xi
Jinping and we invade Taiwan forthe president to decide.
OK, I'm back and in the summer of his first year to decide on
Venezuela. I, I, I would suggest one thing.
It was June of 2025 when we did the attack on the Iranian
(12:51):
nuclear sites. It was fabulous.
I mean, it was a great success. Then in the summer he decides
maybe maybe I'm on a roll. The American military is
fantastic and invincible. Venezuela.
And then you start the military built up in the Caribbean, which
did start in late summer. It's the theory.
(13:14):
It is unclear that the Trump administration is in fact
committed to regime change, which you have supported.
Make the case why a democratic Venezuela is better than a
Venezuela that is operated by remnants of the Maduro regime
but but compliant to the United States.
(13:38):
OK, first a Venezuela, it is runby those remnants, will always
be a producer of vast refugee flows.
In fact, we'll see it now. That is if the Venezuelan
people, 1/4 of population is left.
If they are persuaded there's nochange coming.
These guys are going to be in charge forever.
(13:58):
Another million or two or three or four are going to leave.
Second, I don't think there can be the kind of economic recovery
they want and we want for them with this unbelievably corrupt
regime. And it is unbelievably corrupt.
And one of the things that struck me when I was doing this
(14:19):
in the State Department in the first term, we were not finding
that people in the regime had a secret bank account with $5
million. We were finding they had a
secret bank account with $405 million.
I mean, the amounts of money stolen are incredible.
Third, the presence of hostile forces, Hezbollah, Iran, Russia,
(14:42):
China, Cuba, in Venezuela. This regime was relying on
Cubans. The fact that in capturing
Maduro, we had to kill what the Cuban government has said was 32
security guards of Maduros reveals that what we'd always
said was true, which is his guards were not Venezuelans,
(15:05):
they were Cubans. And you've got Hezbollah and
Iran there. You've got Iran there with a,
with a drone program that eithernow or soon would be able to
reach us. You had Hezbollah, you had the
regime giving Hezbollah blank passports so that their agents
could roam around Latin America and the rest of the world.
So you're saying none of this will stop under a Maduro
(15:29):
adjacent regime? Some of it might stop in the
sense that for example, we can say to them you you've been
giving oil to Cuba for free or subsidized.
That has to stop and we can measure that.
The rest of it, you know, we cantell them get get the Iranians
out, but they are the same people they were two weeks ago.
(15:54):
They're anti American, they're pro Russian, pro China, they're
thieves, they're criminals, they're drug traffickers.
We want a region that is stable and prosperous and at peace.
A democratic Venezuela will contribute to those goals.
A Venezuela under the current regime, which is still there,
(16:16):
undermines those goals by destabilizing, by creating
refugees, by inviting hostile foreign powers in.
It's part of the problem. When I was in the Reagan
administration, Venezuela was a prosperous democracy, and it was
part of the solution to democracy in Latin America.
(16:36):
It can be again, but not with this regime.
The Trump administration's lift list of demands to Tulsi
Rodriguez, the new president, has included we as we just as
cracking down on the flow of drugs, extricating hostile
Iranians, Cubans and other operatives, halting the sale of
oil to our adversaries, and eventually holding free and fair
(16:57):
elections. Is she actually in a position to
deliver all these things? No, first, I don't think she's
actually running the country. I think she is the front for the
two strong men who are minister of defence, minister of the
Interior, both of whom are underindictment.
So how do we sort of, you know, happily deal with these people?
(17:20):
Given where we are now, and given that your ideal objective
would be a democratic Venezuela,how would you advise that we
would get from point A to point?BI still think it's possible.
First of all, we should be politically as well as morally
supporting the Democratic opposition, which had a
(17:42):
landslide in the last election. That doesn't mean that we insist
that Edmundo Gonzalez, who won the election, is inaugurated
tomorrow, but it means that we say he's the legitimate
president and at the end of the road, either he needs to be
inaugurated or there has to be anew election.
We there needs to be a negotiation between the
(18:04):
democratic opposition and the regime.
Either we do that negotiation asthe kind of moderator or we ask,
you know, somebody else. The Vatican is an example to do
it. What do you need to negotiate?
You need to negotiate an amnestywhich is taking place in every
democratic transition in Latin America, in Eastern Europe, in
(18:25):
South Africa. So there needs to be a
negotiation over what are the terms of that amnesty.
Who runs the army? Civilian control of the military
is tough in a situation like this.
It doesn't happen overnight, butwhen freeing political persons
(18:46):
ought to be day one. But when do you have the first
municipal elections? When do you have the first state
elections? This is a process.
Maybe it takes a year, but you started with a negotiation with
the bad guys and you end it withthe full transition to
democracy. Respectfully, I'm an idealist.
(19:07):
I want that to happen. Respectfully, that feels like a
stretch based on where we are now.
I don't think so. I don't think it is if we are
behind it. We have just demonstrated this
fantastic military. We're behind.
We're behind, Delci Rodriguez. That's why it feels like a
stretch. No.
Oh, yes. I mean, if you're asking what do
I think the White House is doingnow?
The White House seems to be saying, you know, But of course,
(19:31):
I mean, someday there'll be an election.
Meanwhile, however, we are not doing anything that would lay
the foundation for that, like saying, you know, fundamentally
we are behind the people who wonthe election and we start a
process here. We're not.
We're not doing that. Beyond that, the President of
the United States denigrated Maria Carina Machado in his
(19:51):
first press conference in front of the world.
I think it would. Be very tough for her to be the
leader. She doesn't have the support
within or the respect within thecountry.
She's a very nice woman, but shedoesn't have the respect to.
I thought that was the lowest point of the press conference
and one of the low points of theTrump.
Administration, what is the impact of that on the opposition
movement that is a severe set back.
(20:12):
It's a severe set back not just to the movement in the sense of
politicians, but to all Venezuelans who are looking and
saying, well, we want the door is now open to change.
And the president seems to have said, no, not really.
It's terrible. There are reports that the
Venezuelan government has launched nationwide crackdowns,
including the detention of journalists, the deployment of
(20:34):
armed gangs in the streets. Is it possible that the US
offered Delcio Rodriguez a handsoff policy as long as we're the
United States is controlling Venezuelan oil?
Or is it possible that the newlysworn in President Rodriguez has
tricked Trump in some way, has offered support for his goals,
(20:54):
is playing for time, and is using her time to prepare her
government for a fight with the United States in case it
returns? I don't think she tricked him, I
think. Playing for time.
She's definitely playing for time.
And I would say, look, what would you and I do if we were in
the shoes of Delcio Rodriguez and the, you know, minister of
(21:17):
defence minister and Jerry, these other criminals?
We would say, well, it's not entirely clear what Trump's
going to do. We may get to stay here forever.
He talks about elections, but he'll be gone in three years.
Maybe we can keep pushing it off.
What does he want now? Let's beat up some
demonstrators. Let's see what Trump does
because the answer might be he does nothing.
(21:40):
Let's push it. Let's see what we can get away
with. And my fear, of course, is
they're going to find that as long as the oil begins to flow,
the president is not particularly interested.
Why is the oil important to Trump?
We have a glut of oil on in the global markets.
(22:00):
We produce plenty of oil ourselves.
The only people the oil it seemsto impact will be Iran and
Russia potentially, and Cuba. So that actually seems to
contradict the Trump corollary of only caring about our region
because if the people it's goingto impact the most are in Europe
and the Middle East, then perhaps he's not So a wedded to
(22:22):
the Trump corollary. I mean what do you make of?
I mean could there be a Geo strategic method to the madness
when it comes to the oil? That would be true if there was
going to be a lot of oil available and soon.
I don't think there is going to be a lot of oil available soon.
(22:44):
It it's a very debilitated oil sector now.
Everybody I talked to says, yeah, you could get this year
with 300,000 more barrels a day,maybe 500,000, which is not a
lot. 10s of billions of dollars have got to be invested in order
to produce, say, 1,000,000 barrels a day more five years
(23:07):
from now, Trump will be gone forone thing.
But I think you are not going tosee American oil companies
jumping at this. I think that they're going to
make all wonderful positive noises.
They don't want to anger the president.
But you know, the, the, the, then they need to make a
decision about $10 billion of investments.
(23:27):
Where does it go? How about Texas?
I mean, as opposed to Venezuela?I don't I don't think that
they're going to do this unless they get a lot from Trump.
All sorts of guarantees or partnerships where the president
says, well, I'll tell you what, you produce more oil. the US
(23:48):
government will cover the five $10 billion you pay us back over
a 20 year period. Why are we doing this?
The oil industry is the last industry in the world that needs
the federal government to take it over and invest.
So back to my question, why is he so obsessed with the oil?
(24:09):
You know, you asked before, why has Venezuela ridden to the top
of his priority list? Why oil in a world where oil is
now selling at about $60.00 a barrel, there's lots of oil.
You can argue well, yeah, but you know, 10 years from now
we'll need more oil. This is an industry which is
(24:30):
very good at planning for 10 years from now, investing for 10
years from now. They do not need the federal.
The last thing they need is federal government saying do
what we want you to do and do itwhere we tell you to do it.
I I thought we believed in free market capitalism.
Which is all to say, you don't know, and many people don't know
(24:51):
and just can't understand the rhyme or reason for these
actions. If we're moving Maduro was so
clearly in America's interests, why not make the case to
Congress or the American people beforehand?
And I, I, I ask you this in particular because you have
(25:12):
spent a lot of time in previous administrations talking to
Congress. Yep, coordinating with the
intelligence committees and coordinating with the relevant
committees of jurisdiction in the Senate and the House.
Why not collaborate with the thethe first branch of government?
Well, a number of answers. 1st for the military operation
(25:36):
itself. Of course you you couldn't talk
to. Congress, I understand that
argument, but I understand that argument, except for it doesn't
really hold to I mean, the Washington Post and the and the
New York Times held stories about the attack in order to
spare the lives of American soldiers.
Yes, but we. Must believe that the but the
the top those top aid on those intelligence committees rarely
(25:58):
leak. No, that's right.
I mean, if you brief one of the committees, you're finished.
But so one, one question was just the military operation.
But the deeper question, when I was doing this in 2019 and 20, I
briefed Congress all the time, bipartisan support, the policy
we had of promoting democracy inVenezuela, of essentially trying
(26:19):
to get rid of the regime, supporting Juan Guaido, his
interim president, bipartisan support.
I'd go brief. Dick Durbin was the number two
Democratic leader. No arguments.
I think it's a combination of the weakness of Congress and a
mistake on the part of the administration.
Some of this, you know, is goes back a long ways.
(26:41):
Congress I I came to Washington a long time ago, 1975, to be a
committee chairman, then Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Senate Finance. Committee to the most powerful
positions in Congress. You were a Grand Duke.
Yeah. Congress is really spying these
days. And you can blame a series of
presidents. And you you should.
(27:03):
And the expansion of executive power, but you got.
To blame the Congress, too, for not standing up and, and
demanding its own constitutionalprerogatives.
And then the president has, you know, basically it's a slow
process. I mean, it certainly goes back
to Obama basically saying, I, I can do what I want.
(27:24):
Remember Obama saying, I have a pen, I can do what I want.
But we could have gotten, the president could have gotten very
substantial bipartisan support from Congress for, well, for the
promotion of democracy and I would say for regime change in
(27:46):
Venezuela. And he just wasn't apparently
interested in it. They've really ignored the
Congress for most of the last year of the administration so.
They they've ignored the Congress and they've gotten away
with it. OK, partly because they had
Republican majorities in both houses.
That's true. And that may change in the next
election. But the fact that they've gotten
(28:08):
away with it shows a dysfunctionon the Hill that you can't
really blame Donald Trump for. Donald Trump has threatened
military action if Delci Rodriguez is uncooperative.
And certainly the officials justSado Cabello and the the other
(28:29):
minister Pedrino understand thatthe threat of military action
could be quite meaningful to their futures.
The initial operation was so remarkably successful that I
wonder if against the backdrop of the success of Midnight
Hammer in Iran and this, there is a risk of hubris with respect
(28:53):
to the abilities of the Americanmilitary and that future actions
may not be so easy. Is there a risk of American
lives in the future with future and continued military action?
There is a risk. I spoke with Aaron McClain,
who's got the School of War podcast and, and is himself an
(29:15):
Afghanistan veteran. And the way he put it was it's
law of averages. It's not saying the American
military is not as good as we think it is.
It's fantastic. But in the next operation or the
one after that, we're going to start having casualties.
It's it's bound to happen. No, no series of operations
going to be absolutely flawless.And even if they are flawless,
(29:38):
what would it have taken for oneof those Cubans to get off a
better shot and kill an Americansoldier?
So I do think that the fantasticsuccess in the killing of
Soleimani and then in Midnight Hammer and now this, which was
much more complicated and flawless, runs the risk of
(30:01):
teaching the president a lesson,which is that the American
military can do literally anything and there's no risks.
And of course, that's a the onlything that makes me think maybe
that won't happen. November is coming and he knows
that if he tries something and it doesn't work, the the
repercussions could come pretty quickly.
(30:21):
Electorally, Trump has also threatened action against
Colombia and Mexico without congressional approval or
support from these countries. Democratically elected leaders.
Would that be appropriate, or isVenezuela a unique situation?
I think Venezuela is unique partly because it's such a
hostile regime with, you know, with, with, with Cubans and, and
(30:45):
Iranians, etcetera. That's certainly not the
situation with Mexico. And President Scheinbaum is
really trying to cooperate with the president and lower the
temperature. In fact, she had the best
reaction to the president's remarks.
She didn't, you know, scream and, and and call a special
session of Congress. She said that's how the
(31:06):
president talks, which is a niceway to kind of try to cool it.
I do think the possibility of military action in Colombia
exists. I don't think it really exists
in Mexico. I mean, I think all the
president's friends on Wall Street would tell him do not do
that. Our economies are.
(31:27):
Yeah, absolutely. Colombia is a different story.
It's not such a cooperative government right now.
Lots of cocoa growing, so I I think that'll still be on the
president's mind. You've worked for many
secretaries of state in the Reagan administration, the Bush
administration, also in the Trump administration.
You have known Marco Rubio for many years, and we have all
(31:48):
observed his evolution from being a rather hawkish member of
the United States Senate to fully embracing the MAGA agenda
and now serving as the Viceroy of Venezuela.
Some some joke How? How is Marco Rubio doing?
How? What grade do you give Marco
(32:09):
Rubio, Secretary of State, so far in this administration?
I think time's up. We have to go now.
I mean, that's. That's a really hard question.
Look, every Secretary of State has to do this.
I remember with George Schultz abig discussion of Poland at one
time and somebody on the staff was objecting to what we were
doing. And Schultz's reaction was, you
(32:31):
may, you may be right now, all you need to do is get yourself
elected president. But Ronald Reagan got himself
elected. So we're going to do it his way.
So that's in a sense what Rubio is doing.
He's not president. He actually ran for president.
I supported him when he ran 2016, but it didn't happen.
(32:51):
So one of the things he's doing,you take orders from the guy
who's president. He's also trying to survive in a
very difficult environment. You you mean the political
environment within the White House and that.
I do. I mean the whole administration,
the vice president, other peoplein the White House, other people
in the Cabinet, the MAGA movement, Republicans on the
(33:14):
Hill, the whole Republican Party, That can't be easy.
So I have a lot of sympathy for how hard it must be to do that.
I I do not think that he has, you know, cashiered a whole
lifetime of views about Americanforeign policy.
I think he's trying to figure out how to make it work.
(33:35):
You know, Rex Tillerson in the Trump first term just basically
walked out. I mean, said, I'm going to do it
my way. That doesn't work.
So, you know, the the outcome, Ican't, I can give Rubio, I
guess, AAB, I'm sure there are many things that he would like
to do or not do. I mean, it's hard for me to
(33:56):
believe that he thinks it's great for the president or
Stephen Miller to threaten to take Greenland.
But again, you know, you live inan environment and you make the
choice. Donald Trump was not new to the
scene. He'd been president.
So Rubio knew what he was getting into.
Marco Rubio, of course, is of Cuban descent.
(34:18):
This action in Venezuela probably puts more pressure on
the Cuban government than anyoneelse, any other government in
this hemisphere. What are the consequences
potentially? I think potentially the fall of
the regime. I mean, you know, they're.
In of the Cuban regime. The Cuban regime, I mean, the,
the economy in Cuba is the economy is collapsing now with
(34:41):
the Venezuelan oil. It's really a desperate
situation. You know, daily blackouts,
shortages of food, take that away and add to it, take away in
a sense of solidarity of, of Caracas.
I think the regime's in real trouble.
Not tomorrow morning, but Trump has and Rubio has presumably 3
(35:02):
years the chances that that regime collapses.
In the next three years. I think it's a real possibility.
Would that be a win for Marco Rubio?
Huge. Amazing.
I mean a lifetime achievement asthe son.
Of a lifelong dream. Cuba, absolutely.
Yeah, I remember the criticisms at the beginning of this
(35:23):
administration when he oversaw the shutting down of Radio
Marti. I guess that would vindicate the
criticism that he has abandoned his generational homeland.
Absolutely. I mean, this is something that
not just Cubans have dreamed about since Castro took over in
what, Christmas 59? John Kennedy tried it.
(35:44):
I mean, every president has, in a sense, wanted to get rid of
that regime. If Donald Trump can achieve it,
if Marco Rubio can achieve it, it's fantastic.
In 1987, you were a guest on William F Buckley Junior's
program Firing Line. You actually appeared twice on
Firing Line, but in this particular episode you're
(36:04):
working in the State Department and in Reagan's State
Department, and you were talkingabout the interventions of the
American government in South America and Central American
countries. The goal of our policy, as in
Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemalaand the rest of Latin America,
is democracy. Democracy.
That's the goal of the policy. The the we hope that democracy
(36:28):
can be obtained through a negotiating track.
If it cannot, I had hoped it clear that our view is you need
to continue aid to the resistance as the only other
method short of US use of force to attain that goal.
But that's the goal, democracy. I'm using the same lines.
So you haven't changed much. I have not changed.
(36:49):
My You have not had the same evolution as Marco Rubio.
No, I, I, You know, if Reagan's ultimate goal in the region was
democracy, how would you define Trump's, the Trump
administration's goal? Dominance of the Western
Hemisphere. That's what he said in his
national security strategy. And yet, when he was asked by a
press, a pool reporter on the plane, what is the goal of this
(37:12):
action in Venezuela, his answer was World Peace.
It was not peace in the region, it was World Peace.
There will be consequences from this action that echo far more
broadly than just this region. Do you think he is wedded to the
Trump corollary? I think he does want to be the
dominant power in this region. But he also wants to be the
(37:34):
dominant power in the world. He, he wants, I think part of
this. And, you know, look, I'm not a
shrink, But I think part of thisis he wants admiration, he wants
respect. He wants not to be viewed as a
sort of accidental figure way out of the history of American
presidents. He wants to be viewed as a great
(37:54):
success who brought peace. And my criticism is not that he
wants peace. We all want peace.
It's that he doesn't seem to realize that that there are
regimes in the world, the Chinese regime, the Russian
regime, that don't want peace, that never want peace.
You can't have peace with Vladimir Putin because he wants
(38:14):
to recreate the Soviet empire. So doing deals with him is
necessary sometimes, but in the long run, that's not how you get
to World Peace. When you joined the State
Department in 1981, you wrote a memo declaring that human rights
is core to our foreign policy because it is central to
America's conception of itself. Trump's National Security
(38:37):
Strategy completely rejects pursuing democratic and social
change abroad. It has tried to cut funding for
American soft power, like the National Endowment for
Democracy, where you serve as a senior fellow.
It seems to me there's a battle right now between what America
was and the values that you havesaid, suggested we have always
(39:01):
stood for and the values the current administration is
promoting. I think that's right, and it's
ironic that it happens in the 250th anniversary year of the
United States. If the administration is not
itself going to be fighting for those values and promoting them
and explaining them, then othersare going to have to do it.
(39:24):
Maybe it's maybe it's us, maybe it's people on the Hill, maybe
it's probably not, but people inuniversities.
We're going to have to do it without Donald Trump, but it
needs to be done. And this 250th year is a great
year to do it. I.
Could talk to you forever. Elliot Abrams, thank you for
joining me on Firing LINE. Thanks for inviting me back.
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com