Rep. Ro Khanna blasted President Trump’s reported deal for U.S. control of Venezuelan oil reserves as “morally wrong” and a rollback to colonial-era foreign policy, putting a spotlight on the left’s deepening rift over American power abroad.
On Friday, Rep. Ro Khanna appeared on MS NOW’s “All In” and delivered a sweeping condemnation of what he described as a new agreement giving the United States majority control over more than 65 billion barrels of Venezuelan oil reserves. Khanna argued that President Trump’s approach was not only wrong in strategy but fundamentally at odds with America’s founding principles, likening it to the “era of gunboat diplomacy.”
Host Chris Hayes opened the segment by asking Khanna to respond to Trump’s announcement, which Hayes described as the United States “now going to essentially get all [Venezuela’s] oil reserves” after “having abducted a president of that country.” Hayes pressed Khanna on whether “there’s still like a core of anti-imperial civic culture in this country” and if Americans understand “there’s something wrong about abducting a country’s leader to take their oil.”
Khanna didn’t hold back. “It’s morally wrong,” he said, repeating the point several times throughout the interview. He went further, saying, “Sad to see. It’s like we’ve rolled back the clock 100 years. Yeah, the era of gunboat diplomacy and, you know, the history. So what we did in Guatemala, what we did in El Salvador, what we did in Haiti, but it’s wrong.” Khanna argued that backing a “colonial model of the world” flies in the face of what he sees as America’s postwar legacy: “I mean, my grandfather was in jail twice fighting for British independence. And it was FDR who pushed Churchill to decolonize. And I thought America, had stood for decolonization.”
He charged that “Trump is rolling it all back because he simply believes in a world where might makes right, where you take what you can. And we need to oppose it on moral grounds. It’s not just that it’s strategically wrong. It’s morally wrong. It’s not what America should be, given our principles.”
Khanna’s comments on MS NOW’s national platform marked a new escalation in the public rift among Democrats over how to confront Trump’s foreign policy moves. While some in the party have focused on legislative or legal tactics, like the repeated attempts to impeach Trump, seen in efforts by figures such as Rep. Al Green, others, like Khanna, are aiming at the broader philosophical stakes and America’s role in the world. The language Khanna used, “colonial model,” “gunboat diplomacy,” “might makes right”, evokes a sharp break from traditional postwar American rhetoric, and signals a willingness by the Democratic left to frame Trump’s foreign policy as a fundamental moral and cultural regression.
That approach stands in contrast to more procedural or partisan attacks, such as the latest impeachment push from Rep. Al Green and the splits it exposed within his own caucus. While Green’s repeated impeachment filings have forced Democrats to take public stances, Khanna’s rhetoric aims at the nation’s broader conscience. In both cases, however, the party continues to grapple with how to respond to Trump’s assertive agenda, both at home and abroad.
The specific mechanism, date, and legal authority of the reported U.S.-Venezuela oil agreement remain unclear from the available reporting. The only concrete figures supplied are the “more than 65 billion barrels” of oil reserves described as now under majority U.S. control. There is no independent confirmation in the broadcast or in the Breitbart News report of the deal’s exact terms, timing, or scope. What is clear is the intensity of the reaction it has triggered among progressive lawmakers like Khanna, who see it as a return to the worst chapters of U.S. interventionism in Latin America.
The absence of official government statements, details on implementation, or corroboration of Hayes’s language about “abducting a president” leaves open questions about the full context of the agreement. Still, the rhetorical lines are drawn: Trump and his supporters are portrayed as embracing a “world where might makes right,” while critics on the left claim the moral high ground and warn that such actions undermine America’s global standing.
Khanna’s critique is part of a pattern of Democratic infighting that has dogged the party since Trump first took office. From the repeated impeachment efforts led by Al Green to recent public jabs from Democratic figures like Hillary Clinton, who drew mockery after her Lake Ontario remarks about Trump, the party’s efforts to counter Trump have often divided its own ranks or backfired with the broader public.
Biden’s own team has struggled to find a clear answer to Trump’s resurgence, with reports that the president weighed, then ultimately rejected, pardoning Trump, a decision that the White House itself admitted “tells you everything” about the current climate. The Democratic establishment’s response to Trump’s foreign and domestic moves often appears reactive, inconsistent, or out of step with the realities on the ground, as seen in Biden’s approach to Trump’s legal troubles and the party’s scramble to manage other internal crises.
Even as Khanna and others aim to reclaim a moral narrative, the Democratic Party’s official leadership has often hesitated to adopt clear lines, especially when the facts are murky. This pattern of uncertainty has played out not just in foreign policy, but also in electoral strategy, as seen when party leaders like Chuck Schumer distanced themselves from embattled candidates in high-profile races, another example of Democrats scrambling for footing as Trump’s influence grows in Senate races and beyond.
For voters who expect American power to serve the national interest, not serve as a punching bag for progressive grievances, Khanna’s “morally wrong” label says more about the left’s priorities than about the facts on the ground.