WASHINGTON — New York Times columnist Bret Stephens is drawing renewed backlash after arguing in a Nov. 17 opinion column that the United States should move to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Critics say Bret Stephens is again treating regime change as an option of first resort — and that a U.S.-led effort to depose a foreign government by force would violate the U.N. Charter’s limits on the use of force, Dec. 15, 2025.
In “The Case for Overthrowing Maduro”, Stephens argued there is a “vital American interest at stake” and portrayed Maduro’s government as an “importer and exporter of instability,” according to a Latin Times summary of the column. The recap said Stephens pointed to Caracas’ ties with China, Russia and Iran and to the regional spillover from migration, while also warning that Venezuela’s armed forces could either put up “a serious fight” or melt into the hinterland and spark an insurgency.
The criticism has been swift — and unusually blunt. A Current Affairs critique described the column as the latest in a repeat pattern, noting Bret Stephens made a similar pitch in January in a column titled “Depose Maduro.” The essay also argued Stephens offers little legal justification for forcibly removing a sitting government and, in its view, glosses over the historical record of interventions sold as manageable and morally necessary.
“WHAT RIGHT DOES THE U.S. HAVE TO OVERTHROW A SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENT?” THE CURRENT AFFAIRS ESSAY ASKED.
Why Bret Stephens is colliding with the U.N. Charter
That question is where critics keep landing: international law. The U.N. Charter sets out a baseline rule that member states must refrain from the “threat or use of force” against another state’s territorial integrity or political independence, with limited exceptions such as Security Council authorization or self-defense after an armed attack. Opponents of a military overthrow say Stephens’ argument skips past that threshold — treating legality as an afterthought rather than the first test.
The legal framing has also surfaced in high-stakes regional diplomacy. Cuba’s foreign minister said a violent effort to overthrow Maduro would violate international law and the U.N. Charter, according to a Nov. 25 Reuters report. Reuters noted President Donald Trump has said repeatedly he is not pursuing regime change, but the Cuban statement urged Americans to resist escalation: “We appeal to the people of the United States to stop this madness,” Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez said.
A long paper trail of regime-change pressure
The dispute over Bret Stephens’ column also taps into years of precedent — and controversy — around U.S. policy toward Venezuela. In January 2019, opposition leader Juan Guaidó declared himself interim president and quickly won U.S. backing, as Reuters reported from Caracas. Later that year, an American Journal of International Law analysis laid out how recognition and sanctions became central tools in a U.S. campaign designed to oust Maduro — even as he remained in power.
By March 2020, the pressure escalated again: the Trump administration indicted Maduro and more than a dozen Venezuelan officials on narco-terrorism and other charges — a step Reuters described at the time as part of a campaign aimed at ousting the Venezuelan leader.
Supporters of a harder line argue Maduro’s government has entrenched authoritarian rule and fueled a crisis that spills across borders. Opponents counter that proposals like Bret Stephens’ risk turning a real humanitarian emergency into a rationale for a war that could violate international law — and once unleashed, outrun its authors. For now, the fight over Bret Stephens is less about a single columnist than about how quickly regime-change rhetoric can slide from opinion pages into policy debates.
