Venezuela is a reminder: Government is never morally neutral
The dramatic U.S. military operation that led to the capture of Venezuela’s longtime dictator, Nicolás Maduro, has plunged our hemisphere into debate, and for good reason. What is happening in Venezuela is not merely a geopolitical moment; it’s an opportunity to confront a lie Western societies increasingly accept: that the government can be a morally neutral arbiter of power.
On January 3, U.S. forces seized Maduro in Caracas and transported him to New York, where he now faces federal charges related to drug trafficking and narco-terrorism. President Trump has defended the operation as a fit response to threats emanating from Venezuela, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized that the United States will not allow the Western Hemisphere to become a base for drug traffickers, hostile regimes, or foreign proxies that endanger our security.
At first glance, this might look like a bold foreign policy maneuver, perhaps even a purely strategic one. But the deeper moral questions beneath it scratch at the heart of how we view government itself. Too often in modern political discourse, we act as if the state is a neutral tool, as if it is something that can be wielded without moral consequence so long as the ends appear expedient. Yet Scripture and history teach us otherwise.
The Bible makes clear that the institution of government was created by God and has a divinely ordained role: to restrain evil and to reward righteousness. In Romans 13, the Apostle Paul writes that “rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad,” and that the governing authority “does not bear the sword in vain.”
Government, in the biblical worldview, is a moral authority. It is not a neutral referee, but a steward of justice, accountable ultimately to God. When that authority becomes the author of oppression, it forfeits its moral legitimacy. The Venezuelan crisis, with its years of tyranny and human suffering, is a stark display of what happens when a regime rejects this fundamental purpose.
But consider the broader implications of how we react, not just in Venezuela but in our own country. Western societies increasingly embrace technocratic governance, reducing the role of government to a series of transactional problems to be optimized or fixed. If a policy works, it is deemed good; if it fails, it is adjusted. Or worse, we judge the government by its good intentions.
Morality, in this framework, becomes optional or subjective. Yet the violent abuses of Maduro’s regime — the dismantling of lawful institutions, the neglect of human life, the corruption, the weaponization of power — remind us that government is never merely functional. It is moral or immoral by the effect it has on God’s image-bearers, and on human flourishing.
This matters not only for how we evaluate foreign policy but also for how we judge public service at home. When government becomes a neutral manager of interests rather than a bulwark against evil, it endangers the very freedoms and moral order it is meant to protect.
This, of course, makes the objective understanding of moral right and wrong an absolute necessity for an effective government that respects human rights and individual freedoms. There is a reason John Adams wrote in 1798, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Some will caution that the U.S. intervention sets a dangerous precedent or that wielding military power abroad is fraught with risk. These concerns aren’t trivial. Indeed, many international voices — from allied capitals to global institutions — have expressed alarm over the operation and its implications for sovereignty and international norms.
Yet we must not let caution become an excuse for moral paralysis. If government is to be more than a ground of indifference, it must be willing to confront forces of violence and oppression, whether they take the form of drug cartels, authoritarian rulers, or corrupt systems that trample human dignity. To do less would be to surrender the moral purpose of government altogether.
Government also bears a moral duty to confront evil that harms its people even when that evil originates beyond its borders, because protecting the innocent is not suspended by geography.
The Venezuelan people have endured a humanitarian catastrophe for years. Their neighbors have suffered under a regime that trafficked in fear and death. This moment is not just about strategy. It is about justice. And biblical justice is not a buzzword; it is a moral imperative.
In reflecting on these events, Christians and all people of conscience should ask themselves: What is the role of government in a fallen world? Is it merely to balance interests? Is it merely to execute the will of the majority? Or is it to mitigate evil and uphold righteousness wherever it finds it? Romans 13 answers with clarity; rulers are supposed to be God’s servants for the good of society.
As the situation in Venezuela unfolds, and as policymakers in Washington, Caracas, and capitals around the world weigh their next moves, let us not forget this foundational truth: Governments are not morally neutral. They either restrain evil or become agents of it.
History will judge this moment, and so should we, by the standards of moral justice that transcend politics.
Josue Sierra is the Director of Communications for the PA Family Institute, and a writer and speaker on Biblical worldview and Christian discernment in cultural engagement. He lives in the Mid-Atlantic region together with his wife and 5 kids.
