Earlier this week, Dr. Jim Denison discussed the ongoing controversy surrounding Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and the accusations that he was responsible for war crimes. But while people continue to debate that question, other questions persist about what President Trump and his administration are preparing to do next about America’s intensifying conflict with Venezuela.

As is often the case, the president has not been shy with his plans.

In addition to parking the largest buildup of America’s naval forces since the Cuban Missile Crisis, with fifteen thousand troops parked just outside of Venezuela’s borders, Trump has also signed off on the CIA’s plans for covert measures inside the country. Moreover, he’s hinted at sending in ground forces, saying, “I don’t rule out anything. We just have to take care of Venezuela.”

And while the situation appears to be escalating quickly, recent reports indicate that the administration began preparing for these attacks as early as January. Emil Bove, who was the acting deputy attorney general at the time, recommended attacking drug boats leaving Venezuela in February, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio has advocated for a more forceful approach to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro since Trump’s first term.

So while the attacks in the Caribbean have sunk twenty-seven suspected drug boats and killed at least eighty-seven people as of this writing, it would appear that the administration’s plans for the region likely extend beyond slowing down the flow of drugs into America.

Is the real goal regime change? 

The Trump administration’s public justification for the conflict in the Caribbean is a war on deadly drugs, often citing fentanyl as the primary target. Fentanyl is indeed a massive problem and directly led to an estimated forty-eight thousand deaths last year (which was actually an improvement over the seventy-six thousand in 2023). As John Yoo points out, those deaths far outpace the number of Americans killed in any war since Vietnam.

However, the primary drug from Venezuela is cocaine, and most of that goes to Europe rather than the US. Consequently, it’s difficult to see how these attacks are truly aimed at halting the flow of drugs across our borders. Trump even stated back in October that “we’re not happy with Venezuela for a lot of reasons, drugs being one of them.”

The more likely scenario is that the attacks on drug boats are a prelude to regime change, and the recent escalation indicates that Maduro’s time in power may be running short. If his recent actions are any indication, the Venezuelan leader knows it too.

Maduro has recently taken to changing where he sleeps and showing up unannounced whenever he appears in public. Moreover, fearing that the people around him may eventually find the $50 million bounty that the United States has placed on his head too tempting to pass up, he has expanded the use of Cuban bodyguards in his personal security and among his counterintelligence officers as well.

Back in October, Maduro attempted to buy Trump’s favor by offering the United States a significant stake in Venezuela’s oil fields, along with other economic opportunities, in exchange for allowing him to remain in power. However, US officials refused, and the prevailing thought is that any resolution that does not include a change in leadership is a nonstarter.

Should the US eventually push for regime change, it doesn’t seem like most of the world would mind. More than a quarter of Venezuela’s population has left since he took office—a driving force in the rise of illegal immigration in America across recent years—and his approval rating among those who stayed is around 20 percent. And María Corina Machado—the leader of the resistance movement within Venezuela—won the Nobel Prize this year for her efforts to oppose him.

As such, there’s little doubt that the world would be a safer place without Maduro in power. However, the question remains whether the steps Trump is taking to ostensibly accomplish that end are legal.

Are Trump’s actions legal?

Earlier this year, President Trump designated Latin American drug cartels as terrorist organizations. He has since used that designation to justify deportations and military intervention, both inside and outside of America’s borders. Now, Trump has made claims that link Maduro to at least two of these cartels—Tren de Aragua and Cartel de los Soles—foundational to the increased pressure his administration has applied in Venezuela.

Still, bombing drug boats is a massive departure from the manner in which America has traditionally dealt with these groups. But even if you think the former approach of using the Coast Guard and DEA to intercept these shipments was not good enough (I tend to agree), that doesn’t mean Trump has the legal authority to go to war with them, much less to go to war with Venezuela.

Any such aggression—including when used against terrorist organizations—should require congressional approval. Even those who find Trump’s legal arguments persuasive tend to agree that the established legal precedent requires him to bring the matter before Congress. Unfortunately, the administration appears to have little interest in taking that step.

Trump would hardly be the first president to bypass Congress and launch attacks without the legal backing to do so. American leaders have been abusing the statutes put in place in the wake of 9/11 for the better part of two decades now. However, just because previous presidents did it—including Trump during his first term—doesn’t make these actions any more legal today.

It’s understandable if you look at the influx of drugs across our borders, the plague that both Maduro and the cartels have been on the people of Venezuela, and the precedent established by other recent presidents and conclude that Trump’s actions in the Caribbean are justified. In many ways, they are. However, justified doesn’t mean legal, and we don’t get to ignore the means simply because we like the end results they bring about.

And that truth is relevant to far more than the situation in Venezuela.

Two crucial questions

As Christians, we’re not permitted to take an “ends justify the means” approach to anything in life because God cares about both the ends and the means. Sin is still sin, even when done for noble or righteous reasons.

Throughout his ministry, Jesus emphasized the importance of paying attention to our motivations and to the state of our hearts because he understood how every word, thought, and action impacts our walk with the Lord. After all, he’d seen the failure to do so drive a wedge between God and his people for generations.

By the first century, religious leaders had instituted hundreds of additional laws intended to prevent the Jews from transgressing the really important ones in the Torah. And their reasoning for doing so was both sound and justified. They were intent on making sure that Israel never fell into the kind of sins and idolatry that had caused the Lord to exile their ancestors.

Yet, along the way, they became so focused on the end goal of not angering the Lord that they lost sight of the true purpose of those laws: to help God’s people spend each day walking in close communion with him.

So, how can we make sure we avoid that mistake today?

George MacDonald—a nineteenth-century Scottish author, poet, and minister—once noted that “God never gave a man a thing to do, concerning which it were irreverent to ponder how the Son of God would have done it.”

And if you ever find yourself wondering how Jesus would accomplish something, just take a moment to ask him. Then, once you get your answer, do what he says.

A great deal of the sin in our lives could be avoided if we simply took the time to ask God for his help in knowing not only what he wants us to do, but how he wants us to do it.

Will you ask both questions today?

Quote of the day:

“Let no man turn aside, even so slightly, from the broad path of honor, on the plausible pretense that he is justified by the goodness of his end. All good ends can be worked out by good means. Those that cannot, are bad; and may be counted so at once, and left alone.” —Charles Dickens

Our latest website resources:

• When are kids old enough to have a smartphone?
• What is the second-most “sinful city” in America?
• Ukraine, Hegseth, American work, box office booms & College-football chaos | Ep. 47
• Managing holiday loneliness, controversial cloning, and the spiritual revival of Millennials and Gen Z
• Why did Cloudflare and Amazon Web Services fail?

Denison Forum

New study finds smartphones linked with depression, obesity, and poor sleep in kids under 12 years of age

I’m deeply grateful for my smartphone-free childhood. I remember when a middle school friend received their first iPhone. My friends and I were in awe at the responsive touchscreen, app games, and agile texting. How could you not be jealous of this technological miracle in his pocket?

My parents gave me a simple phone when I was around 15, but I didn’t get a smartphone until I was 17. I wouldn’t change that experience. With no neighborhood kids to play with in our isolated suburb, I still thrived in church, playing in the woods, getting lost in books, and hanging out with my siblings.

This is why I’m so passionate about this topic. I wonder how different, and worse, my teen years would have been without this independence, freedom, and real-world socializing.

Social media, Smartphones, and teens

I’ve written extensively about social media and teen mental health. According to Pew Research, 95 percent of teens report having, or having access to, a smartphone. Nearly half of teens say they are online “almost constantly.” Only a quarter of teens said this a decade ago. Most of this time is spent on social media like TikTok, SnapChat, YouTube, and Instagram.

Last year, the US Surgeon General wanted to put warning labels, like the ones on alcohol and cigarettes, on social media, specifically cautioning children and teens. Australia announced it would ban social media for users under 16 this week. Jonathan Haidt’s The Anxious Generation is a great place to start for parents and educators.

As I wrote, even kids wish they didn’t have social media: “It seems that around half of teens would prefer a world without social media but feel trapped because they would be socially outcast without it.”

What about even younger than teens? By the age of eleven, over half (53%) of kids have a smartphone. Twelve is the average time when kids receive a phone, but some have reported getting one as early as 4 years old.

There’s a high bar to establish definitive causality between social media and mental health issues, but study after study tends toward this direction.

Some studies focus on the effects of smartphones in classrooms. Even college students did better when their phones were physically removed during class: “Results indicated that students whose smartphones were physically removed during class had higher levels of course comprehension, lower levels of anxiety, and higher levels of mindfulness than the control group.” If this is the effect for college-age kids, how much greater is the impact for younger kids?

Younger than twelve: Depression, obesity, and bad sleep

A new study shows a connection between smartphone ownership in kids under twelve and health risks. With data from more than 10,000 children, the study’s findings were robust, though not surprising.

They conclude, “Smartphone ownership was associated with depression, obesity, and insufficient sleep in early adolescence. Findings provide critical and timely insights that should inform caregivers regarding adolescent smartphone use and, ideally, the development of public policy that protects youth.”

Dr. Barzilay, lead author on the study, talked to the NY Times: “The takeaway, [Dr. Barzilay] said, is that age matters. ‘A kid at age 12 is very, very different than a kid at age 16,’ he said. ‘It’s not like an adult at age 42 versus 46.’”

The years from 10 to 25 are crucial for psychological development, particularly in establishing a sense of self, developing social skills, and achieving independence. This study isn’t saying that twelve is a good time to get a smartphone, but rather pointing to how the risks associated with that decision only increase the younger a child is.

Another expert, Dr. Jacqueline Nesi, cautioned, it is difficult to prove that phones are causing these risks. However, she says this study should “nudge” parents to wait for longer than they would’ve first thought, and to make sure the deciding factor isn’t just what everyone else is doing.

As the article goes on to decsribe, parents should “feel empowered to trust their gut . . . and to hold off on giving their child a smartphone until everyone is ready—including parents, who have to do the very hard work of putting protections and limits in place.”

If you’re interested in ways to get involved, as well as what some of those protections and limits might look like, check out the Anxious Generation website. Here are the four core tenets Dr. Haidt argues for:

1. No smartphones before high school
2. No social media before 16
3. Phone-free schools, from bell to bell
4. More independence, free play, and responsibility in the real world

The site offers other resources to get parents, schools, kids, and policymakers engaged.

What does the Bible say about parenting smartphones? 

God does not control us like a puppeteer, but as a good father, he disciplines his people. He is compassionate, loving, caring, and lays down clear guidance. We are good parents insofar as we emulate God’s character in these ways.

Proverbs says we should discipline children so they aren’t spoiled—and that this is done from love (Proverbs 13:24). Several passages talk about respecting and obeying parents. “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right” (Ephesians 6:1).

But it’s a two-way street. “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). Or, as it says in Colossians, “Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged” (3:21).

How can we emulate God’s parental love?

• Give clear guidance.
• Keep firm to boundaries.
• Give independence when they earn trust.
• Set them up to handle screens when they leave your house.

As God says to Isaiah, “come now, let us reason together.” (Isaiah 1:18) Give reasons, when possible, for your decision. Listen to your children as God listens to us.

Earthly parents are flawed. We can never be 100 percent certain about tricky issues like phone use, where studies are sometimes confusing or contradictory. We can only do our best.

But we can pray for wisdom, grow in character, and take our responsibility as parents seriously—don’t be passive. The voices on social media will almost always draw them away from Christ. Silicon Valley does not have your children’s best interests at heart.

Examine your own heart. Do you idolize your phone and the quasi-social connections on social media? What does your screentime say about your heart? How can you model better habits for your children?

If you’ve never asked God these questions—or if it’s been a while since you last did—let’s start there. After all, your heavenly Father loves your kids and wants what’s best for them just as much as you do. Be sure to include him in the conversation.

Denison Forum