Military operations in Venezuela signal possible future campaigns by the US government against Colombia, Cuba, and Mexico.
Most Americans surveyed oppose US intervention in the region.
Early in Trump’s second term in office, many political observers of the White House concluded that the U.S. president’s proclamations about annexing Canada, acquiring Greenland, taking over the Panama Canal, and opposing leftwing regimes in the region were, to quote Shakespeare, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Unfortunately, that has not proven to be the case.
The rendition of President Nicolas Maduro to the United States to face criminal charges for alleged “narco-terrorism” and for collaboration with drug smuggling operations portends an aggressive and bellicose intervention in the region by the aspiring recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Trump’s actions, of course, did not go without criticism.
Among those important nations and international bodies that have criticized Trump for having broken international rules with the invasion of Venezuela are France, Spain, Russia, China, and Brazil, as well as the European Commission.
In the United States, while the current administration gloats about the military success of the operation, opinion polls show significant skepticism about Washington’s attacks on Venezuela.
In late December 2025, when the Trump administration’s justification for a possible invasion of Venezuela was based on the Maduro’s government alleged involvement in international drug trafficking, a YouGov poll indicated that only 22% of those questioned supported using U.S. military force to overthrow the government while 52% opposed it.
In a January 4 YouGov poll conducted the day after the invasion of Venezuela, 41% somewhat or strongly opposed the U.S. government “running” the country after the capture of Maduro, while 34% somewhat or strongly supported Trump’s announced intentions, with a quarter of those polled unsure about the matter.
Protests throughout the United States on Sunday, January 4 against Trump’s incursion into Venezuela are relatively small in numbers in comparison to the millions mobilized in recent months in the “No Kings” demonstrations. Nevertheless, they express widespread concern inside and outside the Democratic Party about the president’s policies for Latin America and the Caribbean.
While many Democrat politicians consider Maduro’s most recent presidential electoral victory to have been questionable, Democratic Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer of New York pointed out that his capture “without congressional authorization and without a credible plan for what comes next is reckless.”
Democratic representative Dan Goldman, from New York, who was the lead counselor in Trump’s first impeachment process, has stated that he considers the invasion a violation of the U.S. Constitution and an “impeachable offense.”
Other Democrats are also calling for impeachment, an option until recently considered unlikely given the fact that they would need to obtain a two-thirds vote in the Senate to get a conviction.
But even those politicians who have been cautious about raise the possibility of impeachment proceedings are changing their minds. Congressional representative Maxine Waters from California has commented: “Today, many Democrats have understandably questioned whether impeachment is possible again under the current political reality… I am reconsidering that view.”
A few Republicans are also indicating uncertainties about Trump’s actions in Latin America, in large part because Trump built the MAGA movement based on a criticism of U.S. foreign military operations and past attempts by both Republicans and Democratics to support regime changes. According to the YouGov poll conducted in December, 43% of Republicans polled opposed an invasion of Venezuela.
Among the most outspoken Republican critics of Trump’s policy is Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who wrote on social media on January 3: “This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end. Boy, were we wrong.” Once one of Trump’s most ardent supporters, Greene recently broke with him on a series of issues. Still nearly all Republicans in Congress continue to loyally support Trump.
History of Interventions in the Americas
Of course, U.S. clandestine and overt actions in Latin America and the Caribbean against leftwing or independent leaders are nothing new.
Since the issuing of the Monroe doctrine in 1823, Washington policymakers have declared a naturalized right to seek hegemony over the region.
American expansionism within the continental United States against the indigenous peoples and their territories beginning in the seventeenth century and against Mexico in the 1840s only increased in 1898. That year, the U.S. government waged war against Spain for control of Cuba and Puerto Rico in the Caribbean and the Philippines in East Asia.
One glaring example of U.S. interference in domestic Latin American affairs, among many that is known all too well in Brazil, was the direct involvement of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations between 1961 and 1964 in the overthrow of the legally constituted government of João Goulart.
That approach to international politics was echoed again last year when Donald Trump attempted to intrude into Brazilian internal affairs by conditioning the reduction of high tariffs imposed on Brazilian goods with pardoning Jair Bolsonaro for his attempts to carry out a coup d’état to overturn the results of the 2022 presidential elections.
In the January 3, 2026 Mar-a-Lago press conference held to celebrate the successful U.S. military operation, Trump promised to increase his imperial presence in the hemisphere. He overtly embraced the notion that Latin America and the Caribbean comprise “America’s backyard,” an idea reinforced during the Cold War when Washington insisted the region should be solely under the U.S. sphere of influence.
“We will run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” Trump announced. “We can’t take a chance that someone else takes over Venezuela who doesn’t have the interests of Venezuelans in mind.”
Nonetheless, it seems that there is no precise “day after” plan on how Venezuela will be governed. Nor does Trump have any qualms in announcing the possibility of a continued military presence in the country, threatening “boots on the ground” should an on-going invasion becomes necessary.
In the meantime, according to the U.S. president, administration officials such as Secretary of State Marcos Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth will “run” the Venezuelan government.
During the press conference, there was no mention of the defense of democracy. Instead, Trump dismissed the possibility that opposition leader and recent Nobel Peace Prize awardee Maria Corrina Machado, might assume the country’s governance. “She doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country,” Trump quipped in a gesture that seems more about discrediting the recipient of his coveted prize and inferring that she really hadn’t deserved to receive the honor.
Trump also made the baffling announcement that Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez had more legitimacy to assume control of the government even though the White House has insisted that Maduro and Rodriquez’s election had been achieved through massive electoral fraud. Ironically, hours before Trump’s press conference, when Rodriguez was sworn in by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court as president, she denounced the “kidnapping of Maduro” and insisted on his return to Venezuela.
It is still too early to know whether Rodriguez has struck a deal with the Trump administration to collaborate with the U.S. government to remain in power or if the impulsive American president was once again speaking without thinking about the implications of his remarks. Regardless, knowing Trump, he thinks that he can easily cast her aside at a moment’s notice should she not bend to his will.
More than 15,000 American soldiers remain positioned off the Venezuelan coast, ready to intervene should Trump decide to pressure those who currently control the state.
The Real Motive for the Invasion
If the defense of Venezuelan democracy was not the primary justification for regime change, neither was drug trafficking the principal reason for sequestering Madero and taking him to the United States to stand trial.
The illegal sinking of 35 small boats operating in the Pacific Ocean near Colombia and off the coast of Venezuela in the Caribbean and the killing of 115 crew members were merely the pretexts for Trump’s plans for regime change.
Even through little fentanyl passes through Venezuela to foreign markets, the supposed suppression of the drug trade justified a massive deployment of naval vessels to the coast of Venezuela designed to intimidate Madero and line up the military firepower to kidnap him.
In the January 3 press conference, Trump left little doubt about his real intentions, unabashedly announced his plan to bring in major U.S. oil companies to take over Venezuelan petroleum production, alleging that the nationalizations of U.S. oil companies in the 1976 had been illegal.
In part he stated: “We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country, and we are ready to stage a second and much larger attack if we need to do so.”
In broad strokes, one can say that Trump has used the presidency to fulfill two of his main priorities: obtaining revenge on his enemies and enriching himself and his family. With the promise to offer oil executives access to Venezuelan oil, Trump is offering payback to those who contributed heavily to his presidential campaign.
Trump’s Next Moves in the Region
Trump and Rubio also threatened interventions in other countries of Latin America, mentioning Colombia, Cuba and Mexico. “American dominance in the Western hemisphere will never be questioned again,” Trump said.
In that vein, he proudly announced his alignment with U.S. imperial projects in the region. “The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal. But we’ve superseded it by a lot,” Trump insisted. “They now call it ‘the Donroe Document,’” he bragged, when attaching his first name to the policy and misnaming it as “document” rather than a doctrine.
Trump overarching plan, it seems, is to revert to a world order organized around spheres of influence: the United States in Latin America and the Caribbean; Russia in the Eastern European countries that had been under the Soviet Union’s control; and China in the Far East.
The invasion of Venezuela is the first step in reasserting U.S. hegemony in the Western Hemisphere.
The White House’s most likely first target is Colombia under the presidency of former guerrilla supporter Gustavo Petro. In October 2025, the Trump administration accused Petro of being involved in Colombian drug cartels. During the January 3 press conference, the U.S. president crudely warned: “He’s making cocaine and they’re sending it into the United States, so he does have to watch his ass.”
After Colombia, Mexico may be next on Trump’s hit list. In a phone interview with Fox news, the U.S president commented “Something will have to be done about Mexico.” Trump reported that he has asked President Claudia Sheinbaum if she wants the U.S. military to “help” in rooting out drug cartels, and she allegedly declined Trump’s offer. While a military intervention in Mexico seems unlikely, it is possible that the White House will seek other means to put pressure on its neighbor to the South.
As is to be expected, Cuban-American Secretary of State Marcos Rubio threatened future actions against Cuba indicating that regime change on the island nation is a high priority for the current government. “If I lived in Havana, and I was in the government, I’d be concerned — at least a little bit,” Rubio said. Trump added to Rubio’s threats a day later commenting: “Cuba looks like it’s ready to fall,” he said. I don’t know if they’re going to hold out.”
Trump has also taken the time to threaten to seize Greenland to protect alleged U.S. national security interests.
The Dangers that Lie Ahead
The invasion of Venezuela is not a good precedent for those concerned about the state of democracy and national sovereignty in Latin America. Trump’s $20 billion promise to Argentina if the electorate voted in favor of supporters of far-right Trump ally President Millei in the October 2025 congressional elections is another recent example of crass U.S. interference in the internal affairs of another country.
Trump’s actions should be a warning for those unconcerned about possible U.S. meddling in Brazilian elections in October 2026. Although Brazil is currently not on Trump’s vengeance list, there are no guarantees that the country will be spared the U.S. president’s interference in the election outcome.
It is possible that in collusion with the Trump administration, the Brazilian far right will insist that President Lula has been linked to drug cartels, fake news of the first order that currently circulates in far-right circles on the internet. At the moment, the Brazilian government is not in the crosshairs of the Trump administration. However, that could change in a split second.
PayPal 
