(Photo by The White House via Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain)
In the early morning of January 3, 2026, United States (U.S.) forces launched a sneak attack—in violation of international law—in Caracas, the capital of Venezuela. Forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. The pair were brought to the U.S., where they are being held in custody and tried for “narco-terrorism.” The American government alleges that Maduro’s family collaborated with cartels to traffic cocaine into the U.S.
The U.S. operation brought an abrupt end to Maduro’s dictatorial rule. Since taking the role of president in 2013, Maduro has held on to power by suppressing dissent and falsifying election results. However, Maduro’s abrupt departure leaves behind a country in economic turmoil.
Venezuela Before U.S. Intervention
During Maduro’s time in office, Venezuela’s economy was among the worst-performing worldwide. Venezuelans found it hard to buy essential items due to sky-high inflation, which peaked at 130,000% year-over-year in 2018. The economic downturn was caused by a sharp decrease in oil exports, particularly damaging in a country where oil funding makes up half to two-thirds of government revenue. Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita shrank 73% between 2013 and 2020.
Mismanagement and corruption by the state-owned petroleum company, Petroleum of Venezuela (PDVSA), have caused poor infrastructure maintenance. Western nations have also imposed sanctions on Venezuela due to human rights violations, including preventing their companies from paying PDVSA for Venezuelan oil. Combined, these are the main reasons behind Venezuela’s nosediving oil exports.
The ongoing economic crisis has caused, and continues to cause, dire living conditions in the country. For years, crumbling infrastructure, a failing healthcare system, and a shortage of simple daily materials drove millions of Venezuelans to emigrate. But will Maduro’s ouster solve any of these problems?
No Democratic Progress in Venezuela
Since Maduro’s capture, the former vice president in his administration, Delcy Rodriguez, has taken over. Months after the invasion, Rodriguez is still in power, along with many of the same officials present during Maduro’s reign. Thus, while the U.S. invasion removed Maduro as the leader of Venezuela, it left the government that supported him largely intact.
Under the same ruling apparatus, many Venezuelan political prisoners remain behind bars or continue to face restrictions even if nominally released from prison. The United Nations has noted that the system that persecutes political prisoners continues in post-invasion Venezuela, with no signs of its dismantling. In other words, no significant progress has been made towards improving democracy or human rights in Venezuela since the U.S. intervention.
Though many feared what the U.S. military operation meant for their country and families, some members in Venezuela and the Venezuelan diaspora were hopeful that the U.S. intervention would lead to democratic reform. Venezuela is an example of why American-forced regime change does not necessarily bring about democracy.
Oil: The Driving Force for American Involvement?
Trump has been open about his interest in American companies acquiring and selling Venezuelan oil. Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world, but most of its market is closed off to Western oil companies and consumers.
Since 2007, the oil industry in Venezuela has been nationalized, with the state-owned PDVSA holding a majority stake in all oil projects in the country. In the aftermath, all but one major Western oil company—Chevron—withdrew from the country. Rather, a state-owned company controls most oil production and exports. Sanctions on the Venezuelan government also prevent many Western-aligned countries from importing Venezuelan oil.
(Photo by Génesis García via Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0 DEED)
Less than a week after the American military operation, the Trump administration struck a deal with Venezuela to buy millions of barrels of oil. Soon after, Venezuela’s government opened its oil sector to privatization, ending years of nationalization. On oil sales, both the U.S. and Venezuela have moved fast, compared to democratic reforms. Nonetheless, despite increased oil sales, little progress has been made to improve the affordability of necessities since the military operation in January.
A More U.S.-Aligned Venezuela?
Since the invasion, the previously sworn anti-American Venezuelan government has rapidly improved its relationship with Washington. Venezuela and the U.S. re-established diplomatic relations in March 2026, seven years after they were broken under Maduro’s rule. Further, both Rodriguez and the main opposition figure, Maria Corina Machado, have cooperated closely with the U.S. government since the military intervention in January. Thus, a Venezuelan government led by either will likely remain more aligned with the U.S.
Improving relations with the U.S. may come at the cost of Venezuela’s relations with traditional American rivals. One particular example is China, which had a deep financial relationship with Venezuela before the U.S. invasion. Most of the country’s oil exports had gone to China pre-invasion, while China has invested over $100 billion USD across various sectors in the country since 2000. Since the U.S. intervention, experts have noted that China’s investments in the country have become increasingly risky.
Trump has stated his goal to dominate the Western Hemisphere and ensure it remains aligned with U.S. policy, in a callback to the historical Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine asserts that the U.S. is the dominant power in the Western Hemisphere, and rejects the influence of other countries in the region.
In particular, the U.S. government aims to decrease Chinese influence in the hemisphere, including trade and economic partnerships, which have grown to hundreds of billions of dollars annually since the early 2000s. The U.S. military operation serves as a warning for China that the U.S. government, under Trump, will not hesitate to use force to assert its sphere of influence over the region.
What’s Next for Venezuela?
Neither the Venezuelan nor U.S. governments seem to be in a hurry to introduce democratic reforms in Venezuela. In fact, the status quo benefits both governments. American companies have been reluctant to heed Trump’s call to invest more in Venezuela due to political instability in the country, seeking guarantees that Venezuela will not nationalize their investments again, as it did in 2007. Experts have noted that the Trump administration has been able to influence Venezuela’s acting president, Rodriguez, allowing Trump to achieve his economic goals.
Meanwhile, Trump’s public support for Rodriguez legitimizes her regime at the expense of Venezuelan democracy figures. The U.S. government has been ambivalent about the holding of free and fair elections in Venezuela, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio only saying as of March that free and fair elections should happen “ultimately,” without calling for a firm timeline. Experts have noted that the U.S. government is anxious about any change in leadership in Venezuela jeopardizing deals struck regarding oil in the country, thereby prioritizing oil over democratic reforms.
(Photo by Vicepresidencia de Venezuela via Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain)
Regardless, economic concerns remain top of mind for Venezuelans. Inflation remains stubbornly high in Venezuela even after the country struck deals with the U.S. to sell millions of barrels of oil. To date, the new Venezuelan administration seems unable to tackle the cost-of-living crisis.
What’s Next for Other Countries?
While Venezuela builds its future, it also serves as an example for other countries under military threat by the U.S. It is important to note that the U.S. has a long history of military intervention in other countries, with at least 10 countries impacted this century alone. Under Trump, the U.S. has expanded its streak of imperialism, threatening more and more countries both in the Western Hemisphere and globally who he perceives to be misaligned with U.S. objectives.
After just over a year in office, Trump’s administration has already directly invaded at least two countries—Venezuela and Iran. He has also threatened a third country, Cuba, with takeover. All three countries have been ruled by dictatorships for years, if not decades, and many members of their diasporas have expressed cautious hope that American intervention can overthrow these regimes and usher in democratic changes.
Nevertheless, Venezuela’s example shows that this hope may be misplaced. The Trump administration has shown that its interest is not in promoting democracy or improving local living standards, but rather in bringing more countries into its sphere of influence.
In particular, the U.S. is interested in imposing more pro-American governments abroad and limiting their cooperation with other world powers, such as China or Russia. The U.S. has shown a prioritisation of collaboration on resource extraction over social improvement. Unless the American government judges building a democratic government to serve resource extraction or expansion interests, those wishing for a democratic transition to stem from American intervention may be disappointed.
Edited by Emma Webb
