Americans woke up Saturday to stunning news: after promising to end wars on the campaign trail, President Donald Trump sent the military into Venezuela to capture the country’s president and bring him to stand trial in the United States.

The conflict with Venezuela escalated quickly, as the administration moved from striking alleged narcoterrorist drug boats to surrounding Venezuela with warships and ultimately executing a decisive nighttime raid of Nicolas Maduro’s residence.

For the most part, the administration has been tight-lipped about its true motivations for initiating the conflict. Trump and administration officials have repeatedly pointed to Maduro’s hand in helping cartels smuggle drugs into the United States, an explanation that critics said was insufficient to justify the scale of the U.S.’s involvement.

White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles admitted as much in an interview with Vanity Fair, insinuating the drug boat strikes had something to do with regime change.

Keen observers who have studied Trump’s foreign policy, including some who have worked directly with the administration, theorized various triggers, from a fixation on the Monroe Doctrine to the influence of Marco Rubio.

A former administration official argued that the United States has to correct years of poor foreign policy that allowed threats to American safety and security to go unchecked.

“I think that they’re getting America back to a foreign policy that is actually focused on what matters to the American people’s physical safety,” the former official told the Caller. “I understand where some of the frustrations are coming from but it’s going to take a lot of time and effort and energy to untangle the mess that previous generations of foreign policy elites have made.”

“The Trump doctrine, if you will, is not about no war, but it’s about bringing military force to only the circumstances where you know the American people stand to benefit,” William Thibeau, the director of the American Military Project at The Claremont Institute, told the Caller.

Melissa Ford Maldonado, Director of the Western Hemisphere Initiative at the America First Policy Institute, told the Caller that Trump’s positioning on the Venezuela issue signifies a new Monroe Doctrine.

“The Western Hemisphere is our first line of defense. I believe the administration knows that, and that’s why they’ve chosen to put the Western Hemisphere front and center of U.S. foreign policy,” Ford Maldonado said.

The administration was already putting the screws to Venezuela long before striking the first alleged drug trafficking boat. Trump announced a secondary 25% tariff on any country buying Venezuelan oil as a part of his “Liberation Day” tariff policy in April.

Several months later, in August, Trump raised the bounty on Maduro to $50 million. Airstrikes began the same month, and a few weeks later the military began building up its presence in the Caribbean.

In November, the president told reporters he wouldn’t rule out “anything” when it came to the conflict with Venezuela, including potentially sending in ground troops. The president explained that Venezuela “dumped hundreds of thousands of people into our country from prisons.”

The same day, his administration designated the Venezuelan-based Cartel de los Soles (Cartel of the Suns) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). The State Department said it would use “all available tools to protect our national security interests and deny funding and resources to narco-terrorists.” A month later, he would designate fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction.

Ford Maldonado told the Caller that she could only speculate about the administration’s reasoning for going after Venezuela, but said she thought it was meant to send a message that the president is willing to protect his people from cartels and drugs — whether its on U.S. soil or not.

“I think they recognize that the stability, security, and prosperity of the United States is tied to what happens in our neighborhood. What happens in the region directly affects American security,” she added.

The biggest question remaining ahead of Saturday’s incursion was whether the administration’s ultimate goal was to remove Maduro from power. Operation Absolute Resolve ended the speculation as videos showed the deposed Venezuelan president being perp walked by federal officials in New York City.

The former official speculated that Secretary of State Marco Rubio was likely a big proponent of taking out Maduro.

“It absolutely is [about regime change] for Marco Rubio. I oppose regime change in Venezuela, but considering Marco’s history, his family history, you can understand why he feels this way,” the former official told the Caller.

“I really liked working with the State Department, and I actually came to really respect Secretary Rubio, but he absolutely is the chief proponent of regime change. I think other people in the admin are definitely more skeptical, but he does want this,” the former official added.

While on the campaign trail, Trump promised to end foreign conflicts and pull America out of unnecessary entanglements. Trump has faced some backlash from his supporters who feel his actions in Venezuela are evidence that he is spending too much time on foreign policy rather than domestic issues. The president justified his actions during an interview with Politico, arguing that those who feel that way aren’t really his supporters.

“I do think the MAGA base is willing to be patient with President Trump’s implementation of his foreign policy agenda. It’s common sense to understand a difference between military action in the Middle East for liberal ideological ends, and military action in America’s backyard to secure resources and check our adversaries,” Thibeau told the Caller, adding that the “Trump Doctrine” has never been about pacification.

“I do think a reasonable wariness of endless war does animate the MAGA base, so I don’t think patience is infinite, especially if future involvement requires the prolonged commitment of American boots on the ground,”

Following Operation Absolute Resolve, Trump started touting his foreign policy as the “Don-roe Doctrine,” a nod to President James Monroe’s foreign policy that established that the Western Hemisphere was no longer open to European colonization.

Touting the new title, Trump argued that “foreign adversaries in our region” were “acquiring menacing offensive weapons that could threaten U.S. interests and lives, and they used those weapons last night.”

“All of these actions were in gross violation of the core principles of American foreign policy, dating back more than two centuries, and not anymore,” the president said on Saturday after the mission was complete. “All the way back, it dated to the Monroe Doctrine. And the Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we’ve superseded it by a lot, by a real lot. They now call it the ‘Don-roe Doctrine.’”

Even before Trump pointed to the Monroe Doctrine, Ford Maldonado used the historical document to explain to the Caller how she thought the administration was approaching the conflict.

“That doctrine reflected a defensive posture, not an imperial posture. The U.S. was protecting Latin America from predatory outside powers, particularly European empires, at a time when many nations in the region were newly independent,” she told the Caller.

“The message was essentially ‘mind your own business, and we’ll mind ours,’ while the U.S. ensured the hemisphere wasn’t recolonized or dominated by foreign powers. That framework later expanded with the Roosevelt Corollary, and I think the president is invoking elements of both today,” she said.