(Photo by Travelling Pooh via Flickr/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
Since September 2, 2025, the Trump Administration has struck 26 boats and killed 99 people. The administration alleges these strikes are part of a counter-narcotics operation targeting boats transporting drugs from Venezuela to the U.S. Trump himself claims that Venezuela and the Maduro regime are major producers and exporters of Fentanyl.
On January 3, 2026, the situation escalated into a dramatic and unprecedented chapter. The U.S. launched large‑scale military strikes across Venezuelan territory and captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores in a special forces operation before flying them out of the country to face prosecution. Trump announced the strikes and framed them as necessary actions against narco‑crime and instability, and said the U.S. would temporarily oversee Venezuela’s governance and its oil infrastructure. The full details and legality of the intervention remain contested, and the situation continues to unfold.
In reality, Venezuela is not a major producer or exporter of any narcotics. However, it has a vast amount of natural resources and the world’s largest oil reserves. This resource wealth, more than anything, is likely the driving reason behind the Trump administration’s strikes off the South American nation’s coast.
Imperial Intervention
This is not the first time the U.S. has meddled in South America and Venezuela. In fact, the U.S. had a hand in creating Venezuela’s modern-day borders during a 19th-century feud between Great Britain and Venezuela over Guyana. The U.S. sided with Venezuela, blocking Great Britain’s claims to eastern Venezuela. The U.S. backed Venezuela not because of an anti-colonial stance, but to limit Great Britain’s influence and to be the region’s dominant power.
The U.S. continued to interfere throughout the next century. First, it helped Vice President Juan Vicente Gómez seize power in a coup in 1908, which then propped up his regime, allowing him to amass $200 million USD at the time of his death, worth approximately $4.7 billion USD today. In exchange for his personal fortune, Vicente Gómez gave multinational corporations unfettered access to the nation’s oil reserves.
After Gómez’s death in 1935, the U.S. and multinational corporations continued to plunder Venezuela’s resources. The U.S. installed a second dictator in 1948, the brutal Marcos Pérez Jiménez, who ruled until 1958. Even after a coup ousted Jiménez and democracy returned to Venezuela, the U.S. and its multinationals continued to influence Venezuelan affairs in order to secure natural resources.
The U.S. could no longer remain in the shadows when the country elected Hugo Chávez, a former army officer, in 1998. Chávez won on an openly socialist platform of social programs, ending corruption and the redistribution of oil wealth via nationalization. During his first term, he reached an 80% approval rating, allowing him to win reelection in 2000 with 60% of the vote, further cementing his popularity.
In 2002, a right-wing coup briefly ousted Chávez from power. Despite the U.S. recognizing the coup government, Chávez returned to power within 48 hours thanks to loyal troops and popular support. Declassified reports detail that at the very least, the CIA knew of the coup and did not warn the Venezuelan government. The U.S. government denied involvement in the coup, yet sources within the Organization of American States claim that members of the Bush administration had numerous meetings with the coup plotters in Washington, D.C.
Expanding Alliances
Funnily enough, prior to the coup, he enjoyed cordial relations with the U.S., visiting frequently. But after the coup, rightly suspecting heavy American involvement, Chavez charted a new path for Venezuela’s foreign policy. In 2005, he terminated a 35-year relationship between the American and Venezuelan militaries, and a year later, he signed a $2.9 billion USD arms deal with Russia.
He also started cozying up to many U.S. adversaries such as Iran, China, Russia, Cuba, Nicaragua and Bolivia. At the same time, he amped up his anti-American rhetoric, even calling President Bush “the Devil” at the United Nations. Chávez also attempted to break the American financial system by leaving the International Monetary Fund and World Bank after paying Venezuela’s debts five years ahead of schedule.
After withdrawing in 2007, he created the “Bank of the South” to fund development projects across South America and to increase South-South cooperation. That same year, he sought to nationalize several industries nationwide, including the world’s largest oil reserves. These actions evidently irritated the U.S., as within a year, relations deteriorated to the point that Chavez expelled the American ambassador and recalled his own from Washington. The Bush administration responded to this diplomatic feud by sanctioning Venezuelan officials and accusing them of “narco-trafficking”.
New President, Same Old Tactics
After Obama’s 2009 inauguration, he sought to improve relations between the U.S. and Venezuela, and even Chavez seemed to embrace the possibility. At the 2009 Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, they even met privately and shook hands.
Yet, relations did not improve, as Obama maintained the Bush policy of condemning Chavez and supporting the opposition. In fact, before even taking office, Obama called Chavez and Venezuela exporters of terrorism, without providing evidence, much like his predecessors did and his successors would do.
Despite this aggressive rhetoric, Obama chose to moderate at times, even attempting to extend olive branches to Venezuela. After Chávez’s death in 2013, Obama stated he was open to a “more constructive relationship” with Venezuela. However, Obama did not meaningfully change policy towards Venezuela.
Obama continued to fund the Venezuelan opposition to the tune of 40 million USD between 2008 and 2011, and 5 million USD in 2012. He even took the extraordinary step of issuing an executive order declaring a “national emergency,” and Venezuela a “threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”
Obama then twice doubled down on this executive order, which claimed Venezuela as a “threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States”, in 2016 and 2017. The executive order allowed, amongst many other things, the U.S. to impose sanctions on “any person determined to be a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela.”
Obama’s executive order was extremely hostile; it opened the door for future sanctions, labelled Venezuela a threat (when it posed none), and it did not provide an off-ramp towards better relations between the two nations. Ultimately, Obama continued to pave the way for the current Venezuela policy and regime change.
Trump Turns the Screws
Merely six months after his first inauguration as U.S. President, Donald Trump threatened Venezuela with military action. This threat characterized Trump’s posture towards Venezuela throughout the entirety of his 1st term.
Two weeks after his threat, Trump issued a slate of sanctions against Venezuela, building on Obama’s 2015 “national emergency” declaration. The sanctions severely restricted any U.S. individual or entity from doing business with Venezuela or its government, especially in the oil sector. Before this order, the U.S. imported an average of 678.75 thousand barrels of oil a month in 2017.
Trump continued targeting Venezuela’s oil industry, attempting to suffocate the country’s economy. In 2019, he enacted the most severe American sanctions on Venezuela, which froze Venezuelan government assets in the U.S. and effectively barred entities from doing business with the country.
Trump administration officials claim the sanctions aimed to remove Maduro from power and install Juan Guiadó, the leader of the opposition in the national assembly, as President. It should be noted that Guaidó did not even run in the contested 2018 elections, and that at his peak, only 60 out of the 193 U.N. member countries recognized him as the legitimate President of Venezuela. The sanctions also sought to isolate Venezuela from its closest allies: Russia and China.
In 2020, the U.S. took two highly aggressive steps towards Venezuela. Firstly, in March, the Department of Justice charged Maduro with narco-terrorism, amongst other things, and put a $15 million USD bounty on his head. This is only the third time the U.S. has placed a bounty on a foreign leader. The other two were Panamanian President Manuel Noriega in 1989 and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in 2003. Shortly after issuing the bounties, the U.S. invaded the countries and arrested the leaders.
Secondly, in May 2020, a group of 60 people, including ex-American Military personnel, attempted to invade Venezuela, seeking to overthrow Maduro. The group was directly linked to the Venezuelan opposition and Silvercorps, an American private security contractor. Certain people attached to the operation believe it was a “US government-backed mission”.
The mission dubbed “Operation Gideon” was a failure of legendary proportions. The Venezuelan government, and even the Associated Press, knew of the plans in advance. Venezuela’s army was prepared and met the invaders at the border, killing eight and capturing nearly all the rest. After this abysmal failure and his election defeat, Trump imposed his final round of sanctions against Venezuela, again targeting its oil industry. The sanctions aimed to isolate Maduro even further and squeeze Venezuela’s economy to the brink, and eventually cause the government’s collapse.
Biden Stays the Course
Biden initially maintained the previous administration’s positions towards Venezuela. He kept the sanctions in place until October 18, 2023. Biden’s reversal allowed Venezuela the ability to sell oil “to its chosen markets for the next six months without limitation”, in exchange for a free and fair 2024 election.
Biden had also continued to recognize Guaidó as Venezuela’s legitimate leader until the sanctions were removed. However, after the 6-month grace period expired, Biden reimposed sanctions on Venezuela, “accusing President Nicolás Maduro of failing to commit to free and fair elections”.
The U.S. then imposed a new set of sanctions against Venezuelan officials after its July 2024 elections. Several countries and international organizations had outright rejected the results showing Maduro won a third term. The same month Biden imposed these new sanctions, the U.S. also seized Maduro’s Presidential plane from the Dominican Republic, further ramping up pressure on Venezuela’s embattled leader.
As he left office, Biden set up Trump’s bellicose actions and rhetoric towards Venezuela. He imposed another round of sanctions against the country, this time targeting Maduro and his “inner circle”. Biden also raised Maduro’s bounty by 10 million USD.
Trump Terror
As Trump entered office, he had his sights set on Venezuela. During the campaign trail, he lamented, “When I left, Venezuela was ready to collapse, we would have taken it over, we would have gotten all that oil, it would have been right next door”. This quote and the colonial arrogance which exudes from it characterize his 2nd term’s approach to Venezuela.
Trump sought to continue his policy of “maximum pressure” by banning all imports of Venezuelan oil in February. In March, he took the unprecedented step of imposing tariffs on countries that purchased Venezuelan oil. All these moves were aimed at isolating the country and regime change.
In September, Trump started bombing boats off Venezuela’s coast. His administration claimed the boats were carrying drugs directly into the U.S. This is impossible because the type of boat they are targeting would have to refuel nearly 15 times to reach the U.S. from Venezuela’s north coast.
Simply put, Trump’s rationale is built on a lie, but that has not stopped him from continuing to portray Maduro as a terrorist. Trump is set to declare Maduro the head of a terrorist organization, Cartel del Soles, which is in reality a loose network of Venezuelan officials who have allegedly enriched themselves through drug running. The administration has offered no proof to back their claims.
Trump has also allowed the CIA to operate covertly in Venezuela, while amassing a huge military presence just off Venezuela’s coast, including the world’s most advanced aircraft carrier. U.S. warplanes also entered Venezuelan airspace as a “show of force”. Despite these bellicose actions, Trump “doubts” the U.S. would go to war with Venezuela. This would not be the first time Trump lied about U.S. military action. In June, he stated he would mull over striking Iran for his favourite period of time, “two weeks”. He bombed Iran 2 days later. During his first term, he also told upwards of 30,000 lies. It is foolish and dangerous to trust Trump, and most U.S. presidents, as a matter of fact.
What is the Endgame?
After over two decades of an increasingly aggressive posture towards Venezuela, the Trump administration came to the logical conclusion of that policy: regime change and resource extraction. Before daybreak on January 3rd the U.S. military unilaterally invaded Venezuela and kidnapped President Maduro. This regime change war satisfies many within Trump’s orbit and base of support.
For the war hawks, such as Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, who has long wanted regime change in Cuba and Venezuela, it gives the opportunity to install a leader friendly to America. To the oil and resource barons, it opens new markets and further allows them to exploit as they please. To racists like Steven Miller, the Deputy Chief of Staff, who has frequently espoused racist and white-nationalist views, it gives a rationale to invoke the Alien Enemies Act and dramatically accelerate the inhumane deportation program.
Trump had previously tried to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, but a judge he had appointed rebuked him, stating, “[Trump and other administration officials] do not possess the lawful authority under the AEA, and based on the Proclamation, to detain Venezuelan aliens, transfer them within the United States, or remove them from the country.”
For Trump, it allows him to act as a strong, decisive leader who can bully the world and achieve several of his aims at once. However, when a powerful state acts with impunity, kidnapping the leader of another country, it chips away at the norms and institutions that underpin international law. This risks destabilizing the region, emboldening other states to disregard legal constraints, and eroding global mechanisms designed to prevent conflict. Far from ushering in order or justice, this approach leaves the world more anarchic, where might increasingly dictates right, and the authority of international law diminishes.
Edited by Gustavo Villela
