WASHINGTON, January 26, 2026 — A U.S. military operation to seize Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, launched in the dead of night, stemmed from a surprisingly personal grievance: President Donald Trump felt mocked by Maduro’s dancing.
A President’s Fury: When a Dance Became a Matter of National Security
Table of Contents
The extraordinary military intervention in Venezuela was reportedly triggered by President Trump’s perception that his counterpart was publicly ridiculing him.
- The decision to authorize a military seizure of a foreign leader was heavily influenced by personal feelings rather than strategic interests.
- Trump’s leadership style, characterized as “personalist,” prioritizes individual fixations over established policy frameworks.
- The incident highlights a growing trend of personalist leadership globally, raising concerns about international stability.
- The operation was widely condemned internationally, signaling a potential shift in global alliances.
While Trump initially cited concerns about Maduro’s alleged drug trafficking, repressive governance, and reluctance to grant U.S. companies favorable access to Venezuelan oil, experts suggest these were secondary justifications. Maduro had, in fact, offered nearly unlimited access to Venezuela’s crude oil reserves after months of pressure from the White House.
The turning point, according to reporting in The New York Times, came when Maduro began mimicking Trump’s dance moves at rallies in Caracas. “Maduro’s regular public dancing and other displays of nonchalance in recent weeks helped persuade some on the Trump team that the Venezuelan president was mocking them,” the newspaper reported the day after the operation. “So the White House decided to follow through on its military threats.”
The Rise of the ‘Personalist’ Leader
Scholars of American foreign policy were stunned by the idea that a U.S. president would authorize such a drastic action based on a perceived personal slight. However, the incident underscores the characteristics of a “personalist” leader—one who concentrates power within a small circle and disregards established institutions and collective deliberation.
Unlike traditional autocrats, personalist leaders are driven by private fixations and incentives, rather than coherent national interests. In Trump’s case, these include a desire for flattery, personal enrichment, access to natural resources, and dominance in the Western Hemisphere. Attacking Venezuela and removing Maduro aligned with these personal goals, even if it did not advance broader U.S. strategic objectives. The move was widely condemned by U.S. allies and is likely to push Latin American nations toward closer ties with other global powers.
“My own morality. My own mind,” Trump told The New York Times when questioned about the limits of his global power. “It’s the only thing that can stop me. I don’t need international law.”
A Global Trend: Personalism on the World Stage
Trump is not alone in exhibiting this leadership style. For the first time since the 1930s, the world’s most powerful nations—China, Russia, and the United States—are all led by personalist leaders. These leaders tend to hoard authority and operate within informational bubbles, isolating themselves from dissenting viewpoints.
Chinese President Xi Jinping, for example, has centralized policymaking, purged senior officials, and discouraged open debate among his advisors. Russian President Vladimir Putin has similarly consolidated power and retreated into a self-made echo chamber, frequently lecturing the world on revisionist interpretations of Russian history to justify his geopolitical ambitions, particularly regarding Ukraine.
While personalist rulers may occasionally facilitate unexpected deals that resolve conflicts, a world dominated by such leaders is unlikely to foster global stability. Research consistently demonstrates that personalist regimes are more reckless, aggressive, and prone to conflict than other forms of government. They are more likely to break alliances, stumble into crises, and initiate unnecessary wars.
A Historical Precedent
Personalist governments are not a new phenomenon. Throughout history, absolutist monarchs have pursued foreign policy objectives based on personal whims and familial grievances, often waging war over perceived slights or territorial claims rooted in family honor. Charles XII of Sweden, for instance, repeatedly rejected reasonable peace offers during the Great Northern War due to a personal obsession with defeating Russia’s Peter the Great, ultimately leading to his country’s decline.
However, personalist systems declined throughout the 20th century as many nations democratized and autocracies became more professionalized, dispersing power among officials and establishing mechanisms for internal debate. While personalist regimes like the Kim dynasty in North Korea persisted, they became the exception rather than the rule. Even brutal autocracies often allowed for some level of deliberation within the ruling structure.
Russia and China: The Return of Personalism
Russia, under Vladimir Putin, has been at the forefront of this resurgence of personalism. Since assuming power 27 years ago, Putin has systematically weakened opposition parties, manipulated the judicial system, and populated the bureaucracy with loyalists. This has created a distorted perception of reality, driven by a shrinking inner circle prioritizing fealty over expertise.
This personalist approach contributed to Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine in 2022. His historical musings, combined with isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic, led him to believe that conquest was both necessary and easily achievable. Despite warnings from analysts that the invasion would be prolonged and costly, Putin reportedly received little dissenting counsel from his advisors, who reinforced his illusions about Russia’s military capabilities and Ukraine’s resistance.
Personalists are more likely to break alliances, stumble into crises, and start dumb wars.
China, too, has seen a rise in personalism under Xi Jinping. While the Chinese Communist Party was once characterized by a more collaborative leadership style, Xi has abolished term limits, purged critics, and consolidated power. This has resulted in policy errors, such as the prolonged and economically damaging “zero COVID” policy and aggressive “wolf warrior” diplomacy, which alienated potential partners.
The U.S. Exception
Trump’s personalist leadership style is unique in that he still faces legal constraints and opposition, unlike Xi or Putin. However, he has bypassed institutional checks in pursuit of personally motivated actions, such as his past proposals regarding Greenland and lucrative business deals involving his family. His insistence on U.S. possession of Greenland, despite existing treaty arrangements allowing for naval bases, stemmed from a desire for recognition or personal satisfaction. “That’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success,” he said on January 8.
While Trump faces criticism, he has cultivated an inner circle of loyalists who echo his views and sideline dissenting voices. He has also dismissed career officials and attacked experts who challenge his beliefs, creating a system where disciplined advice is replaced by flattery and sycophancy.
A Fractured Global Order
The rise of personalism complicates the future of the global order. The potential for a tripartite pact between the U.S., China, and Russia seems unlikely, as personalist leaders are poor partners, lacking the mutual restraint necessary for stable alliances. Instead, the world is likely to see increased uncertainty, corruption, and private bargains.
Personalist leaders are open to deals that weaken alliances and prioritize immediate personal gains. The Trump administration’s attempts to broker a land-for-peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine and secure a trade deal with China are examples of this trend. These settlements, however, are often brittle and short-lived, lacking the institutional support of traditional international agreements.
Alliances are also vulnerable in a personalist world, as leaders may embrace or abandon partners based on personal preferences. Trump’s hostility towards NATO, rooted in his transactional view of foreign policy, exemplifies this. This unreliability weakens U.S. leverage and encourages allies to invest in their own defense capabilities.
The global system is also becoming less democratic, as personalist leaders often disregard democratic principles. The U.S. has effectively abandoned democracy promotion and is forging ties with authoritarian leaders who offer personal benefits to Trump.
The Risks Ahead
The flexibility afforded by personalist rulers may occasionally resolve conflicts, but it is equally likely to ignite new ones. Russia’s overextension in Ukraine may deter further aggression, but Putin’s insular system is prone to miscalculation. The potential for escalation remains high, particularly given the nuclear arsenals of China, Russia, and the United States.
Flashpoints exist in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East, where personalist leaders pursue risky gambits driven by individual fixations. The emerging global system is one in which three nuclear-armed leaders, insulated from dissent, pursue policies based on whim rather than strategic calculation.
