Jeremy BowenInternational editor
EPAIn the wake of the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, Donald Trump has emphatically underscored his conviction in the strength of his will, supported by sheer U.S. military might. By his directive, Maduro is now incarcerated, and the U.S. will “manage” the situation in Venezuela.
The U.S. president declared this in a striking news conference with significant ramifications for global U.S. foreign policy, held at his club and residence in Florida, Mar-a-Lago. Trump stated the U.S. would oversee Venezuela “until we can facilitate a safe, proper, and prudent transition”.
He noted that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had communicated with Venezuelan Vice-President Delcy Rodríguez, who conveyed “we’ll do whatever you require… She seemed gracious, but she genuinely has no alternative”.
Trump was vague on specifics, saying that “we’re not hesitant about boots on the ground should it be necessary.”
But does he genuinely think he can govern Venezuela from afar? Will this assertion to support rhetoric with military action, which was positively received at Mar-a-Lago by both Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, suffice to transform Venezuela and compel Latin American leaders to comply?
It would seem he harbors some belief in that possibility.
Evidence indicates the endeavor will face significant challenges.
The reputable think tank, the International Crisis Group, cautioned in October that Maduro’s ouster could instigate violence and instability in Venezuela.
In the same month, The New York Times revealed that defense and diplomatic officials from Trump’s initial administration had conducted scenarios regarding the aftermath of Maduro’s fall. Their conclusion pointed to a likelihood of violent disorder as armed groups vied for control.
The elimination and imprisonment of Nicolás Maduro represents a notable demonstration of American military strength.
The U.S. mobilized a substantial naval force and achieved its objective without incurring any American casualties.
Maduro disregarded the wishes of the Venezuelan populace by dismissing his own electoral loss, and undoubtedly, many citizens will welcome his exit.
However, the ramifications of U.S. actions will resonate far beyond Venezuela’s borders.
The atmosphere at the Mar-a-Lago news conference was celebratory, as they acknowledged the success of what was clearly a well-executed operation by highly trained U.S. military forces.
This military initiative is only the initial phase.
America’s track record of achieving regime change through military force over the past 30 years has been dismal.
The subsequent political maneuvers determine the outcome of such interventions.
Iraq plunged into a horrific disaster following the U.S. invasion in 2003. In Afghanistan, two decades of investments in nation-building evaporated in days after the U.S. withdrawal in 2021.
Neither nation was close to America’s borders.
The haunting memories of past interventions in Latin America, coupled with the looming threat of future ones, offer little optimism.
Trump introduced a new term, the Donroe Doctrine, in reference to President James Monroe’s declaration in 1823 warning other nations not to interfere in the U.S.’s sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere.
“The Monroe Doctrine has substantial importance, but we’ve far surpassed it,” Trump remarked at Mar-a-Lago. “With our new national security approach, American supremacy in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again.”
He indicated that Colombia’s President, Gustavo Petro, ought to “be cautious”.
Later, he informed Fox News that “something must be addressed regarding Mexico”.
Cuba is certainly also on the U.S. agenda, influenced by Rubio, whose family background is Cuban-American.
The U.S. has a longstanding history of military intervention in Latin America.
I was present in Haiti in 1994 when President Bill Clinton deployed 25,000 troops and two aircraft carriers to enforce regime change. At that time, the Haitian government fell without a shot fired. However, the subsequent 30 years have been characterized by almost uninterrupted suffering for the Haitian populace. Haiti is currently a failed state dominated by armed factions.
Donald Trump spoke of restoring Venezuela to greatness, but did not mention democracy. He dismissed the notion that María Corina Machado, the Venezuelan opposition leader who received the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, should take the reins of the country.
“I believe it would be extremely difficult for her to lead, as she lacks support… She doesn’t have the respect,” he asserted.
He overlooked Edmundo González, whom many Venezuelans consider the rightful victor of the 2024 elections.
For now, the U.S. is backing Maduro’s Vice-President Delcy Rodríguez.
While there must have been some level of internal cooperation that provided U.S. military with the necessary intelligence to oust Maduro, the system established by his predecessor, Hugo Chávez, appears to remain intact.
It is doubtful that the Venezuelan military, regardless of any disgrace its leaders may feel for their failure to oppose the U.S. incursion, will comply with American intentions.
The military and the regime’s civilian backers have prospered through corrupt networks that they will be reluctant to relinquish.
Civilians armed by the regime, along with various other militant factions, further complicate the situation.
These groups include criminal organizations and Colombian guerrillas who supported the Maduro administration in exchange for asylum.
The U.S. intervention in Venezuela sharply highlights some essential aspects of Trump’s worldview.
He is unabashed in his desire for the mineral riches of other nations.
He has previously sought to gain benefits from Ukraine’s resources in exchange for military support.
Trump is transparent about his intentions to seize Venezuela’s vast mineral assets, as well as his belief that U.S. oil firms were deprived when the oil sector was nationalized.
“We are going to extract vast wealth from the ground, and this wealth will benefit the people of Venezuela, along with those from abroad who once were in Venezuela, and it will also go to the United States of America as reimbursement.”
This will likely amplify anxieties in Greenland and Denmark regarding his potential interest in the north as well as the south.
The U.S. continues to harbor ambitions of claiming Greenland for its strategic location in the Arctic and the accessible natural resources becoming available due to melting ice from global warming.
The Maduro operation signifies yet another substantial setback for the notion that global governance should adhere to an agreed framework of rules, as established by international law.
The principle was already in tatters before Trump’s presidency, but he has shown time and again, both domestically and internationally, that he believes he can disregard laws that do not align with his preferences.
European allies, eager to avoid his ire, including Prime Minister Keir Starmer, are grappling with how to express support for international law while simultaneously condemning the Maduro operation as a flagrant breach of the United Nations Charter.
The U.S.’s rationale that its military was simply assisting in the execution of an arrest warrant for a drug lord posing as Venezuela’s president is flimsy, particularly in light of Trump’s assertions that the U.S. will now oversee the nation and its oil sector.
Just hours prior to the detention of Maduro and his spouse, he met with Chinese diplomats at his palace in Caracas.
China condemned the U.S. action, stating that “the hegemonic behaviors of the U.S. severely violate international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty, posing threats to peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean”.
The U.S. ought to “cease compromising other nations’ sovereignty and security”.
Conversely, China might recognize a precedent established by this U.S. move.
It views Taiwan as a breakaway province and has declared that its reunification with Beijing is a national priority.
In Washington, this fear is notably shared by the Democratic vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Mark Warner. He issued a statement observing that China’s leaders and others will be watching closely.
“If the United States claims the right to employ military force to invade and seize foreign leaders it accuses of criminal behavior, what prevents China from asserting the same authority over Taiwan’s leadership? What stops [Russian President] Vladimir Putin from claiming similar rationale to capture Ukraine’s president? Once this threshold is crossed, the constraints that maintain global order begin to disintegrate, and authoritarian regimes will be the first to capitalize on this.”
Donald Trump appears to believe he establishes the rules, and what applies to the U.S. under his leadership does not mean others should expect the same privileges.
However, this is not how power dynamics function globally.
His actions at the onset of 2026 hint at another year of international upheaval.
