Picture this: a U.S. government that swoops into Venezuela, arrests a sitting leader, reshapes another nation’s political future — and at the same time tells American businesses and hobbyists they can no longer buy the world’s best consumer drones because national security may be at risk.

Not in a dystopian novel. Not in some fevered internet thread. Today. Now. Under the banner of supposed security.

Ask yourself: When did “national security” become a one-size-fits-all justification for every policy whim Washington has? And who decides where that justification ends?

The Venezuelan Chapter: Power Projection Masked as Protection

In the last year, the U.S. took the extraordinary step of intervening in Venezuela — not through sanctions, not through rhetoric, but through direct action that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro. Supporters label it a strike against corruption and danger. Critics call it a blatant reenactment of a neo-Monroe Doctrine — an assertion of power in America’s hemisphere.

In Washington’s telling, Maduro was a threat. In Venezuela’s reality, millions watched as sovereign leadership was overturned by foreign force. Ask a Venezuelan whether this feels like protection or occupation. The answers won’t be found in official U.S. briefings.

This isn’t about debating who Maduro was. It’s about why an operation with no immediate threat to U.S. territory was framed as vital to U.S. security.
Is national security a principle or a narrative tool?

The DJI Ban: Tech Fear Wrapped in Red Scare Rhetoric

Now pivot to a completely different battlefield: the American skies. On this front, the enemy isn’t a hostile regime — it’s a drone built by a Chinese company, DJI, used on farms, by filmmakers, by first responders and hobbyists.

Because a bureaucratic deadline for a security review was missed, U.S. regulators slipped DJI onto a national security blacklist, meaning new DJI models can’t be imported or sold in the United States. No fiery executive order. No congressional debate. No transparent presentation of danger. Just: “National security risk.”

Here’s the uncomfortable reality: DJI drones don’t spontaneously fly off with classified data tucked in their batteries. They don’t drop bombs on U.S. soil. Their supposed threat has been assumed on the basis of potential risk, not documented harm.

Ask yourself: If we can block drones because they might — possibly — someday leech data, what’s next?
Foreign-made phones? Software? Cars with GPS? Smart devices? At this rate, anything with a chip could be labeled a security risk if it doesn’t hail from a politically acceptable flag.

National security used to be about evidence of threat. Today it’s about fear of possibility. And fear is a political superpower when wielded right.

Two Arenas, One Logic

What ties these moves together isn’t coincidence — it’s a governing ethos that uses national security as a universal catch-all.

• If a foreign leader is inconvenient, removing them becomes a security necessity.
• If a foreign tech product is successful, banning it becomes a security imperative.
• If evidence isn’t clear? That’s fine — the label of security fills the gap.

This isn’t just protectionism masquerading as defense. It’s the normalizing of a reasoning shortcut that erodes accountability.

Where Is the Threshold?

In a functioning democracy, extraordinary actions require extraordinary transparency: clear evidence, open debate, public reasoning. Here’s the problem:

✔ The government intervenes militarily with minimal transparent justification.
✔ It blocks a tech company’s products without presenting concrete evidence to the public.
✔ It expects acceptance because “it’s national security.”

But security shouldn’t mean sealed off from scrutiny.

And here’s the real question that goes beyond Venezuela or drones:

At what point does national security stop protecting the nation and start protecting the powerful — the policymakers, the political narratives, the unchallenged assumptions?
Because when anything can be justified in the name of security, nothing actually needs to be justified.

Is national security a shield for the common good — or a sword for political convenience?

If the answer isn’t clear, you’re not alone. We’re living it.

By the way, Skydio and BRINC Drones are read to replace DJI in US!

‍