Metro readers have delivered a fierce and wide-ranging response to former US President Donald Trump's renewed threats towards Greenland and the ongoing military action in Venezuela, with opinions sharply divided on legality, morality, and global power dynamics.
Boycotts and Bullying: Readers Condemn US Actions
In a letter published on January 8, 2026, reader Roger Morris from Mitcham argued that Trump's threat to annex Greenland must be taken with the utmost seriousness. He described the former president as "drunk on the power he wields" and warned he "will not stop at Venezuela." Morris expressed concern that European politicians are paralysed, fearing that antagonising Trump could cut off vital arms supplies to Ukraine, potentially leaving Europe vulnerable to conflict with Russia.
His proposed solution lies with public action: an intensified boycott of American goods and services. He urged following a Canadian example by cutting out bourbon, Harley-Davidson, Californian wine, and major US corporations like Netflix, Disney, and Amazon. "We cannot fight directly but we can hit Trump’s paymasters where it hurts – in the bottom line!" he concluded.
Echoing a theme of diminished US stature, Sally Wilton from Bournemouth suggested Trump's attempt to forcibly bring Venezuela under US influence is a sign of weakness and "declining power." She compared his actions to a "heavyweight boxer who beats up a flyweight," arguing he has ceded global influence to Russia and China to become a "big fish in a much smaller pond."
Questioning Legality and Highlighting Double Standards
The legal and ethical justification for the Venezuela invasion was hotly contested. Reader Robert Boston from Kent challenged another correspondent, David Frencel, who had dismissed questions of legality as "laughable" due to Venezuela's alleged drug links and alliance with Iran. Boston posed a pointed question: "I wonder whether David would take the same attitude if Trump ordered his armed forces into Colombia, Cuba, Panama or even Greenland?"
This theme of global double standards was expanded by Phil from Chester, who asked if it would be acceptable for Dutch special forces to capture Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu under an ICC warrant, mirroring US actions in Venezuela.
Further scrutiny was applied to the Trump administration's stated reasons for the intervention. Gavin from Birmingham directly countered the claim that fentanyl enters the US via Venezuela, stating it "goes via Mexico." He accused Trump of using a "Netanyahu playbook of creating an emergency to stay out of jail." Martin from London expressed amazement at the "mental gymnastics" of Trump supporters, comparing the fentanyl claim to other disputed statements about windmills killing whales and ending the Ukraine war in a day.
Civilian Casualties and the Human Cost
A powerful contribution from Jane Edwards in Edinburgh focused on the human cost, highlighting the reported 80 civilian deaths during the attack on Venezuela. She contrasted the detailed media coverage of 40 fire victims in Switzerland with the anonymous tally of Venezuelan casualties. "Where is the official apology for the manslaughter of 80 Venezuelan civilians? What are their names?" she demanded, urging the public to be concerned about becoming "'collateral damage' without warning."
The collective response from MetroTalk presents a UK readership deeply engaged with and critical of US foreign policy under Donald Trump. The letters reveal significant anxiety over escalating aggression, scepticism towards official justifications, and a passionate debate about the appropriate international response to perceived American overreach and the tragic consequences of military intervention.
