When the United States captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in an overnight military operation on January 3, President Donald Trump wasted little time celebrating. He called the strikes on Caracas “brilliant tactically,” framing the raid as a triumph and demanding praise from political opponents. The brazen attack marked a major shift in American foreign policy, in which the old pretexts of “democracy” have been replaced with overtly imperialist assertions of power.
The raid came six years to the day after the Trump administration ordered the drone strike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, another episode in which Trump deployed U.S. power swiftly against a foreign leader.
Shortly after the Venezuela operation, Trump said the United States would “run the country” until a Western-aligned leader was in power, even as Venezuela’s interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, affirms otherwise. Whether or not the administration ultimately pursues an extended occupation, the rhetoric alone is alarming.
As details of the operation continue to emerge, Venezuela’s defense minister said a “large part” of the president’s security team was killed, along with soldiers and “innocent civilians.” Separate statements from Venezuela and Cuba reported at least 24 Venezuelan security officers and 32 Cuban military and security personnel killed during the operation. U.S. troops said no American troops were killed, though six were injured.
The overnight seizure of Maduro and his wife was justified by the administration on the claim that Maduro led a “narco-state.” Yet the administration has provided no public evidence to support that allegation. The claim also rings hollow given Trump’s recent pardon of the former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez, who was convicted in U.S. court and sentenced to 45 years in federal prison for drug trafficking while serving as a close U.S. ally.
Approval of Venezuelan leadership has been low since 2014, with disapproval among Venezuelans as high as 67 percent in 2015, according to Gallup. In 2023, Gallup polled Venezuelans on whether they feel elections in the country are honest and just 26 percent of respondents said yes.
Regardless of Maduro’s lack of popularity, the overnight operation has been widely criticized as a violation of both national and international law. While these kinds of violations have become commonplace in American foreign policy over recent years, such repeated violations have rippling consequences on the global stage.
Any remaining illusion of pretext collapsed in the days that followed. Trump teased meetings with U.S. oil executives and spoke openly about ramping up drilling tied to Venezuela’s vast energy reserves, confirming what critics had long argued was the operation’s true objective.
For opponents of the operation, what happened in Venezuela is the culmination of escalating pressure. In the months leading up to the raid, the U.S. expanded its military presence in the Caribbean and intensified economic measures against Venezuela’s oil industry. Most recently, the administration bombed and seized three Venezuelan oil tankers in quick succession. Repeatedly, President Trump and his cabinet have framed the country as a security threat.
Venezuela has been a focal point of U.S. foreign policy since the election of Hugo Chavez in 1998 and the launch of the Bolivarian Revolution. Chavez vowed to use the country’s hefty oil wealth to reduce poverty through state-funded social programs and public investment.
Supporters highlight gains during Chávez’s presidency, including increased literacy rates and reductions in poverty — particularly extreme poverty — and infant mortality and child malnutrition. From 1999 to 2012, roughly 700,000 new homes were built. The minimum wage increased, public debt fell and the GDP per capita rose.
Critics argue that financial mismanagement, corruption and reliance on oil revenue left the country unprotected from potential crisis. But regardless of where one falls in that debate, Venezuela’s political path has long put it at odds with U.S. power in the hemisphere, because Chavismo represents a direct ideological challenge to the U.S.-led capitalist order in Latin America.
That challenge is inseparable from Venezuela’s resources. The country holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves and significant gold deposits, assets Trump has openly talked about as both an economic and strategic priority.
What distinguishes this moment from previous U.S. interventions in Latin America is the abandonment of even the pretexts of “democracy” and “freedom.”
The administration’s Walmart Monroe Doctrine makes it abundantly clear that any alternative to U.S. power in Latin America will not be tolerated. That reality was underscored when, just hours after the raid, Trump popped up on Fox and Friends and casually suggested that “something must be done” about Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum.
U.S. power in the hemisphere has ebbed and flowed since President James Monroe first articulated his doctrine two centuries ago, but one constant has remained: left-leaning governments that challenge U.S. economic dominance are treated as threats to be neutralized.
From Guatemala to Chile, interventions justified in the name of stability or freedom have repeatedly left countries poorer, more violent and less sovereign than before.
The raid on Venezuela represents the culmination of a new style of American power that abandons even the appearance that such actions are meant to help the people affected. This is a foreign policy unconcerned with appearances, legality or democracy. It names its objective plainly and brutally: control of resources and money.