Trump Attacked Venezuela with Questionable Motives and Unclear Plan
- mosolfforcongress
- Jan 5
- 2 min read
The Trump administration’s attack on Venezuela and removal of Nicolas Maduro had several negative aspects and a few potentially positive ones.
The Trump administration did not seek congressional authorization for the attacks, which are within Congress’s authority according to the U.S. constitution. Further, it promotes the norm that big power countries can attack weaker ones, potentially encouraging countries like Russia and China to make similar attacks in the future.
The administration’s claim of Maduro’s criminality due to his involvement in drug trafficking is difficult to reconcile with Trump’s pardon of the former president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernandez, who was convicted on drug trafficking charges in a federal court in New York in 2024. Hernandez was convicted of accepting millions in dollars on bribes to protect cocaine shipments, yet was pardoned by Trump just weeks ago.
Perhaps more concerning, various statements made by the Trump administration indicate that the actual motive was to obtain access to Venezuela’s oil reserves. Surprisingly, Trump dismissed one of the leaders of the Democratic opposition in Venezuela, Maria Corina Machado, saying “She doesn't have the support within or the respect within the country…she doesn't have the respect.” This is surprising, considering that her colleague Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia seemingly won the election in Venezuela in 2024, suggesting broad support for the opposition.
So far, there is little indication that the Trump administration has a clear plan for how to help Venezuela transition from the rule of Maduro’s party to democratic governance, leading to further questions about whether the Trump administration merely intends to exploit Venezuela’s resources or transition to government that will benefit the Venezuelan people.
The administration’s actions draw immediate parallel to the Bush administration’s ease in overthrowing the Saddam Hussein regime, followed by the difficulties Bush faced in transitioning Iraq to stable civilian rule. The invasion of Iraq led to a long-term, costly intervention in Iraq that is estimated to have cost the US trillions of dollars, not to mention the insecurity and harm to the welfare of Iraqi people.
On the positive side, Maduro’s regime had driven Venezuela into the ground economically, and led to the outflow of millions of Venezuelan refugees. Maduro and his party are widely perceived to have lost the election in 2024 and refused to recognize the results through power of force.
While the removal of Maduro has the potential to transition Venezuela to democratic rule, early indications are that the Trump administration does not have this intention, or a feasible plan to bring this to reality. If the long-term results demonstrate that this was merely a grab for oil, it will likely lead to greater resentment of the United States in Latin America, while also normalizing power grabs by other major powers in the future.
Comments