Trump's Venezuela Headache

With President Trump’s recent ultimatum pressing Nicolás Maduro to resign as Venezuela’s leader, it appears that the two states are on a collision course. While the Administration’s official reasoning behind the recent escalation has been an effort to end the flow of cocaine and fentanyl into the United States, we argue that this only partially explains the situation. On one hand, the prospect of invading a sovereign state reflects superpowers’ increasing propensity towards pursuing imperialistic ambitions, as is the case with China’s attitude towards Taiwan and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. On the other, it may be a deliberate strategy to distract the American electorate from Trump’s domestic woes, particularly his entanglement in the Epstein files, also in view of next year’s midterm elections.

To give some background, the first step towards this standoff was made in 1998 when Hugo Chavez, president from 1999 to 2013, won a landslide election. His Bolivarian Revolution promised to transfer wealth from a small group of elites to a much larger part of the population. This policy reached a tipping point in 2002, when Chavez nationalized oil and gas company PDVSA – resulting in a coup attempt that briefly ousted him from power. Chavez accused the United States of participating in the coup and, over the next few years, forged alliances with Iran, Russia and China.

Chavez’s rule led Venezuela through a period of democratic backsliding and systemic human rights violations, starting the flight of what would eventually become 8 million refugees. Although the country became a de facto one-party system by the late 2000s, opposition was gaining traction. When elections were held following Chavez’s death in 2013, his handpicked successor Nicolás Maduro only won by 1.5 percent. Subsequent elections in 2018 and 2024 were not considered free or fair by international observers and further strengthened the resolve of opposition groups, of which Maria Corina Machado is the prominent leader.

Fast-forward to the present day, where President Trump has discussed military intervention in Venezuela to prevent the perceived flow of narcotics between the two countries. Over the past three months, the United States has attacked over 20 vessels allegedly transporting narcotics, resulting in over 80 casualties and leading to calls that the United States military has committed war crimes.

Military intervention to affect regime change in Latin America is certainly not a novelty, with the United States having done so many times since the Monroe doctrine. Furthermore, the current actions of the Trump Administration match those taken by its fiercest geopolitical rivals: China and Russia. Under Xi Jinping, Beijing’s stance towards One China policy has become more aggressive with the escalation of military activities surrounding Taiwan reflecting a new paradigm in the way superpowers define foreign policy priorities. Conversely, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine exemplifies Putin’s ambition to regain Moscow’s sphere of influence of yesteryear. The United States’ positioning towards Venezuela aligns with the imperialistic ambitions shown by China and Russia whereby attempts to expand territorial control over bordering territories is seen as a necessary move to keep up with rival powers in an increasingly militarised international order. This has been especially apparent in Trump’s rhetoric vis-à-vis Greenland, framing control over the island as a matter of national security.

The other explanation that could be behind these actions is the current domestic crisis Trump is facing concerning his involvement with the Epstein files. As scrutiny intensifies, with the story dominating media attention, the manufacture of an external security emergency offers a convenient way to reframe the national conversation around patriotic unity and the projection of strength abroad. This would also explain Trump’s apparent obsession over Maduro being the leader of a cartel whose drug trafficking operations are directly responsible for the death of tens of thousands of Americans. In this way, the Administration is framing its offensive as a matter of national security. Trump has every incentive to divert attention from the media furore surrounding his alleged ties to Epstein, especially after the recent release of extensive documents that appear to implicate him further. Whether the Venezuela narrative succeeds in restructuring the political agenda in his favour, rather than reinforcing the perception that foreign policy is being instrumentalised to manage domestic vulnerability, will only become clear in the months ahead.

Co-authored by Pablo Mustienes and Alessandro Ractliffe