Trump STUNS EVERYONE by openly admitting it

The so-called peace president is talking about war again, this time, not even bothering to hide why.

Before we get into it: if you’re receiving this via email, thank you. You’re already subscribed. If you’re not, now is the time.

Donald Trump built a big part of his political brand on a simple promise: no new wars.

He criticized George W. Bush for Iraq. He mocked neocon foreign policy. He told his supporters that he alone would keep the United States out of endless overseas conflicts. He even picked up a tongue-in-cheek reputation as an “anti-war” president, complete with absurd honors like the so-called FIFA Peace Prize.

Which is why what Trump said last week about Venezuela matters.

The remark that gave the game away

Before boarding his plane, Trump was asked about Venezuela. His response was unusually blunt.

He complained that the United States had lost land, oil rights, and business interests. He said American companies had been thrown out. And then he said it plainly: “We want it back.”

He added that Venezuela “took our oil,” and that the United States had a lot of it there.

This was not coded language. This was not a vague reference to national security or democracy. This was the sitting American president openly suggesting military action to reclaim oil.

In a strange way, it was almost refreshing in its honesty. Normally, when presidents want to start wars driven by material interests, they dress it up in moral language. They talk about freedom, human rights, or stability. Trump skipped that step entirely.

But honesty does not make the idea any less disturbing.

The contradiction

Trump’s statement is a direct contradiction of everything he claimed to stand for.

The “anti-war” president is now floating the possibility of war for oil. The man who attacked Bush for Iraq is openly entertaining the same underlying logic. The candidate who promised fewer conflicts is hinting at a new one in Latin America.

If this were actually about oil, it would already be indefensible on moral grounds. But there is another layer here that makes it even more incoherent.

Do we even need the oil?

The United States is currently extracting more crude oil than any country at any point in human history.

This is not a partisan talking point; it was true under Biden and it remains true now. When Trump complained that energy production was down, the numbers said otherwise, and the U.S. is producing more oil and natural gas than ever before.

If there were ever a moment when the United States least needed to seize oil from another country, this would be it.

So even if you strip away the moral argument, even if you accept the premise that fighting wars for resources is legitimate, the timing makes no sense. We already have more oil than we know what to do with. At the same time, much of the world is trying, however imperfectly, to move away from fossil fuels altogether.

Why now?

Or Is This Really About Regime Change?

There is another possibility here: This may not actually be about oil.

It may be about regime change.

Trump may simply want Nicolás Maduro out. If that is the case, he should say it. It would at least be honest. I would respect the honesty more, even while opposing the policy.

As someone from Argentina, I am acutely aware of the history of U.S.-backed regime change in Latin America. It has a long and ugly track record, but removing bad leaders and installing friendly ones rarely works out the way it’s promised to. It creates instability, resentment, and long-term harm.

But if Trump’s real motivation is personal animus, power projection, or a desire to look strong, that is still a clearer explanation than this half-baked oil rationale.

What Americans Would Be Asked to Accept

Here is the question Trump never answers.

How many Americans would actually support a war against Venezuela right now? How many parents would be eager to send their children to fight and possibly die for this?

Is this really a cause that people would view as a noble contribution to American leadership? Or would it feel like the last thing anyone wants, another round of war games driven by grievance, ego, and nostalgia for imperial resource politics?

When you strip away the slogans, it is hard to imagine broad public support for this, and Trump knows it.

The “Peace President” problem

Trump cannot simultaneously be the anti-war president and the guy openly talking about taking another country’s oil. He cannot run against the legacy of Iraq while flirting with the same logic. He cannot claim restraint while threatening escalation.

If this is bluster, it is reckless bluster. If it is a serious signal, that’s even worse.

Either way, it exposes the hollowness of the “no new wars” branding. When pressure builds, when grievances pile up, Trump’s instincts look a lot like the ones he used to mock.

---

We’re reaching over 150 million people every month across YouTube, podcasts, Substack, and beyond. But algorithms can change. Platforms can fold. And when that happens, this newsletter is how we stay connected.

If you’re not yet a paid subscriber, please consider joining.
If you’re already paid on one platform, consider supporting us on both Substack and our website.

You can subscribe on our website and right here on Substack.

And if you’re really on fire, consider gifting a subscription—we’ve got thousands on our waiting list ready to read, watch, and fight back.

Let’s keep building.

—David

PS: Can’t contribute right now? No problem. You can support us for free by subscribing on YouTube, listening to our audio podcast on Spotify or Apple Podcasts, or become a free subscriber to this very Substack. Every bit counts.