Judging Freedom - Prof. Jeffrey Sachs : Venezuela and the Collapse of International Law

Episode Date: January 5, 2026

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs : Venezuela and the Collapse of International LawSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

New Year energy is all about resetting routines, feeling healthier, and starting fresh. Why not give your dog the same reset? From daily walks to better habits at home, our dogs are always right there with us. Ollie helps you start the new year with intention, beginning with your dog's bowl. With fresh, protein-packed meals crafted from real human-grade ingredients, your dog can start the year feeling their best, too. Choose from five recipes and get a personalized plan for your dog's needs. Meals arrive perfectly portioned with a scoop and storage container, so serving is fast and mess-free.

And with Ollie's in-app on-demand health screenings, tap real experts whenever you need peace of mind. Visit ollie.com slash crossover and use code crossover for 60% off your first box. Freedom is a fragile thing, and it's never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance. It must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. And those in world history who have known freedom and then lost it, have never known it again.

What if sometimes to love your country you had to alter or abolish the government? What if Jefferson was right? What if that government is best, which governs least? What if it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong? What if it is better to perish fighting for freedom than to live as a slave? What if freedom's greatest hour of danger is now? here for judging freedom. Today is Monday, January 5th, 2026, Professor Jeffrey Sachs in the midst of a very busy day, 11,000 miles from New York City joins us now. Thank you, Professor Sachs. How can the United States government possibly justify what happened over the weekend in Venezuela

under international law, under American law, or under the United States Constitution? Well, in my view, it cannot. I was just offering a testimony in the UN Security Council. That's why I was delayed, unfortunately, from being with you. This is a gross, reckless and dangerous violation of the UN Charter, of international law and, as you say, of American law and the American Constitution. First, let me. me point out, in the American Constitution, only the Congress has the power to declare war. Congress has played no role in this. This is a war. The United States has launched a war to run Venezuela. And President Trump has done this by his own personal order. Even kings in the past had more control and scrutiny than our president has. We are not in a constitutional order. Under the U.S. Constitution as well, U.S. treaty obligations are the national.

law. And the United States ratified the UN Charter in July 1945. The UN Charter is absolutely clear in Article 2, Section 4, that no country can use force or even the threat of force against another country that impairs its territorial integrity or its sovereign independence. And yet, President Trump and the U.S. government have done exactly that. So we are in gross violation of international law, but U.S. law also in which treaty obligations bear, in no way can this be conceived as anything other than a breakdown of our constitutional order, which of course has been long in coming. It has flagged for many, many years, but it has reached a point where for all intents and purposes, Congress does not exist. There are no checks on the president.

The U.S. has bombed seven countries in the past year, not one of which had an authorization by Congress, as far as I can recall, not one. And certainly, no authorization under the UN charter for a single one of those seven countries that the United States bombed. And President Trump, in the last days, just the last days, has threatened six countries directly with the use of force. Venezuela, obviously, Iran is saying that they're ready to go against Iran, Nigeria, where the U.S. bombed Nigeria, and President Trump has said, President Trump has said, more will come against Mexico, against Denmark, repeating, even today, as I understand it, though I'm halfway around the world, but from the news reports that I'm hearing against Denmark in Trump's claim that Greenland, which is part of Denmark, will be ours or is ours against Colombia.

I may have left a country off the list. Cuba. Well, Cuba actually is another case, so I think the list is even longer than I just said, because. because I had collected for the U.N. testimony, and I can just quickly refer to it, Venezuela, Colombia, Denmark, Mexico, Iran, and Nigeria. And let's add Cuba to the list making seven. I know you have another commitment in a few minutes, and I'm deeply grateful for you squeezing this in, particularly since it's probably already tomorrow where you are. Just a few more questions, and I promise to finish it. I just got a little bit of a, we have about seven more minutes. Oh, well, that's good to know.

Is the United States now regarded as a rogue state, which will use brute force to achieve its egemony and acquire riches? That is the predominant view around the world. I think it's probably the near universal view, if not universal view. Now, some countries applaud this. A few rogue states. Israel is a rogue state in the same way. Israel obeys no international law or morality. And so the United States and Israel are joined at the hip in this.

There are a few other states that applaud the U.S. lawlessness. And then there are a number of vassal states which don't dare to speak their mind. And I would put most of Europe in this category. Basically, it is a fact, although it seems a little strange, that when the U.S. has military bases in your country, you are in effect an occupied country. It may not seem like that on the surface, but basically the United States has a tremendous leverage. over your ability to stay in power, over your internal politics. And so there are a lot of vassal states. But for the vast majority of countries in the world, they view the United States as lawless.

And whether they say it or not, they know it. How can the United States possibly run the government of another country? The interim president, I'm not sure of exactly what our title is, said, we're not anybody's colony. If you listen to what President Trump said the other night, it sounds as though he views Venezuela as a colony of the United States. Well, what Trump wants in a operational sense is control over Venezuela's oil. And so the theory in the White House is that by force, quarantines, threats of further force, covert actions, maybe assassinations because the U.S. government security apparatus does all of these things, that they can basically determine what Venezuela will do and that Venezuela will hand over its assets to, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and whoever else Donald Trump in his circle would like to try to enrich. And indeed, Chevron shares a sword today, from what I understand before the market opened.

I haven't checked ExxonMobil and others, but, you know, this is the underlying game. Will Trump succeed in this? I doubt it, but the violence and the threats of force are obviously very real. And while you and I speak about the Constitution, and incidentally, when a congressman raised the question of constitutionality, Trump completely sneered at him as if this congressman were whining as what's a Congress anyway. but the contempt shown for the Constitution is extraordinary. So when you ask me the question, can the U.S. run Venezuela? Obviously not.

How much can the U.S. steal from Venezuela? That remains to be seen. The typical experience of regime change operations is that they don't work even on the terms of the malevolent ambition of these, which is to install a puppet government that will do the bidding of the U.S. They very rarely achieve these ends. We have overthrown many, many governments in recent history. Typically, the result is ongoing chaos. Professor Sachs, I know you have another commitment,

and I'm deeply grateful for your time. I hope you can come back with us later on this week as we learn more and more about what the government did and what it's what it's plans. Let's do that. Okay. Thank you. All the best, Jeff.

Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Bye-bye. Coming up at 1130 on all of this, Larry Johnson, and at 1 o'clock this afternoon, Anya Parenthill, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.