US Intervention in Venezuela: Maduro Ousted, But What Comes Next?

Palm Beach, FL – January 3, 2026 – In a stunning turn of events, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has been removed from power following a clandestine Delta Force operation. Maduro and his wife are currently en route to New York aboard the USS Iwo Jima to face charges of drug trafficking and narco-terrorism. The dramatic developments, unfolding over the weekend, raise critical questions about the future of Venezuela and the evolving foreign policy of the Trump administration.

For months, the United States had been steadily increasing its military presence around Venezuela, intercepting alleged drug shipments and seizing sanctioned oil tankers. The question wasn’t if the US would intervene, but how. Now, with Maduro in custody, the focus shifts to the complex task of stabilizing the nation and securing American interests.

A New Era for Venezuela? The Uncertain Path Forward

President Trump, during a press conference at Mar-a-Lago alongside key national security advisors – including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Daniel Caine, and homeland security advisor Stephen Miller – repeatedly stated the US would be “running” Venezuela, at least for the foreseeable future. However, the specifics of this control remain deliberately vague.

While Trump indicated that Vice President Delcy Rodríguez had been sworn in, and claimed Rubio had engaged in discussions with her, the nature of any agreements reached remains unclear. Rodríguez herself publicly called for Maduro’s return and vehemently rejected the notion of Venezuela becoming a US “colony,” casting doubt on the extent of any concessions made. This ambiguity suggests the administration may be willing to work with existing regime figures, at least temporarily, a strategy that diverges from traditional regime change models.

US military forces will remain stationed in the region, with Trump asserting the retention of “all military options” until unspecified “United States demands” are met. A significant focus of the administration’s rationale, particularly in recent weeks, has centered on Venezuela’s vast oil reserves. Trump openly discussed the potential for the US to “take out a tremendous amount of wealth” from the ground and even suggested selling Venezuelan oil to countries like China and Russia, currently key partners of the Maduro regime.

Notably absent from Trump’s remarks was any mention of promoting democracy or holding free and fair elections. This omission has fueled criticism that the intervention was primarily motivated by economic interests, specifically access to oil, rather than a commitment to democratic principles.

The Venezuelan opposition, led by Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado, had previously welcomed US intervention. However, Trump dismissed Machado’s role, stating they had not been in contact and questioning her level of support within Venezuela. He also failed to acknowledge Edmundo Gonzalez, widely considered by the US and other governments to be the legitimate winner of the 2024 Venezuelan election.

“It’s clear this wasn’t motivated by deep concern for bringing democracy to Venezuela, or assisting the Venezuelan people or creating an alternative governance structure,” explained Michael Shifter, an adjunct professor of Latin American studies at Georgetown University. “It was really just aimed at Maduro.”

The situation remains fluid, but based on Trump’s statements, the current scenario appears to involve maintaining the existing Venezuelan government – minus Maduro – in exchange for access to the nation’s oil resources. This raises a critical question: can the US achieve its economic objectives without addressing the underlying political and humanitarian crises in Venezuela?

The Monroe Doctrine Reimagined

Trump repeatedly invoked the Monroe Doctrine – which he playfully referred to as the “Don-roe” Doctrine – emphasizing American dominance in the Western Hemisphere. This rhetoric aligns with themes outlined in his recently released national security strategy, suggesting potential future action against left-leaning governments in Colombia and Cuba.

However, the intervention in Venezuela is just one facet of a broader pattern of assertive foreign policy. In the past week alone, Trump authorized airstrikes in Nigeria in response to the persecution of Christians and issued threats to Iran following protests. This demonstrates a willingness to project US power globally, not just regionally.

While some conservative foreign policy analysts had hoped for a more restrained approach under Trump, his actions demonstrate a continued willingness to use military force decisively, particularly against adversaries perceived as having limited capacity for retaliation. The capture of Maduro exemplifies this strategy: a swift and targeted operation designed to achieve a specific objective. Will this approach become the defining characteristic of Trump’s foreign policy, or is Venezuela an isolated incident?

Concerns remain that a full-scale regime change could destabilize Venezuela, potentially triggering a humanitarian crisis and a mass migration event. Immigration restrictionists, ironically, expressed worry that the intervention could exacerbate the existing refugee flow from the country.

The long-term consequences of the intervention are uncertain. While Trump downplayed comparisons to past US interventions in Latin America, the historical echoes are undeniable. As Shifter noted, “The history of US military intervention in Latin America has not been a happy one… If Trump could do this, why can’t he do it to us?”

US officials have justified the operation by citing Maduro’s indictments and the illegitimacy of his rule, but these arguments do not supersede the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of military force against another country’s sovereignty. The operation also blurs the lines between law enforcement and military action, with FBI agents participating in the raid and Trump frequently linking the Venezuela intervention to domestic troop deployments.

Public support for military action in Venezuela remains low, with a December poll indicating that only 25% of voters and half of Republicans approved of intervention. Even within Trump’s own party, skepticism exists. Marjorie Taylor Greene correctly pointed out that the vast majority of drug deaths in the US are caused by fentanyl, not cocaine, the likely primary drug transported on the intercepted Venezuelan vessels. Furthermore, Trump’s recent pardon of a Honduran president convicted of drug trafficking undermines his credibility as a “drug warrior.”

Ultimately, the administration appears unconcerned with addressing cynical interpretations of its motives. In the past, critics accused the Bush administration of going to war for oil; now, it’s Trump openly stating the economic rationale for intervention.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Venezuela Intervention

• What is the primary goal of the US intervention in Venezuela?

  While the administration initially focused on drug trafficking, the intervention appears increasingly driven by securing access to Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.

• What role will Marco Rubio play in the future of Venezuela?

  President Trump indicated that Secretary of State Rubio will be heavily involved in shaping the future of Venezuela, having reportedly engaged in discussions with Vice President Delcy Rodríguez.

• Is the US intervention in Venezuela legal under international law?

  The legality of the intervention is highly contested, as it potentially violates the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of military force against another country’s sovereignty.

• What is the status of María Corina Machado, the Venezuelan opposition leader?

  President Trump dismissed Machado’s role, stating they had not been in contact and questioning her level of support within Venezuela.

• Will the US military remain in Venezuela long-term?

  President Trump stated that US military forces will remain in the region to secure American interests, particularly regarding oil production and distribution.

• How does this intervention compare to previous US interventions in Latin America?

  The intervention echoes historical patterns of US involvement in Latin America, raising concerns about potential destabilization and unintended consequences.

Disclaimer: This article provides news and analysis for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal, financial, or medical advice. Consult with qualified professionals for specific guidance.

The situation in Venezuela is rapidly evolving. Share this article with your network to keep the conversation going and join the discussion in the comments below. What do you think the long-term implications of this intervention will be?