The U.S. attack on the Venezuelan capital and abduction of their president, Nicolás Maduro, was propagated as a U.S. effort to overthrow the authoritarian government, but power still lies with the regime despite Maduro’s capture. The quick U.S. takeover of Venezuelan oil has only fueled speculation that economic interest motivated the intervention.
While Maduro’s removal is morally warranted, it has not freed the Venezuelan people. By refusing to back opposition leader, María Corina Machado, as the president of Venezuela and allowing Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, to be sworn in as president, Trump has left the Venezuelan people under oppressive rule.
From an ethical standpoint, the removal of Maduro created an opportunity to appoint Machado, as she is the rightful winner of the 2024 presidential election, though this would not have been a straightforward task. The regime runs deep within the Venezuelan government, and the power is now held by politicians and military leaders who are committed to the corrupt practices carried out under Maduro.
Had Trump installed Machado as president, the U.S. would have had to use military force to ensure that she was not overthrown by regime loyalists. Using force to push for regime change has proven to be extremely difficult historically.
Even if Machado had successfully been implemented as the new president her administration would almost immediately face challenges concerning the government’s legitimacy. Other nations could view her presidency as the product of U.S. initiative rather than Venezuelan self-determination. This could cause further instability for the country in terms of their economy, trade relations and foreign affairs.
The debate is further complicated by Trump’s immediate announcement that U.S. oil companies would be protected by the military as they extract Venezuelan oil.
Trump has publicly expressed interest in Venezuelan oil long before the invasion and his reelection in 2024. This reinforces the blatant fact that the intervention was prompted by economic gain.
If this operation was about democracy and liberation, it wouldn’t have bypassed Congress, a deliberate violation of the Constitution and its laws to protect democratic oversight.
Shortly after the invasion, the two countries agreed to a deal in which Venezuela would sell millions of barrels of crude oil to U.S. buyers. The deal is valued at $2 billion in profit.
Trump assured that Venezuela would receive financial benefits from the sales and on Jan. 14 the U.S. completed its first sales of Venezuelan oil which is said to be valued at $500 million.
As of Jan. 20 the interim president, Delcy Rodriguez, said that Venezuela received the first $300 million from oil sales. Although Venezuelan officials claim that the money will help to stabilize the economy, the provisions of the deal contradict those claims.
The revenue made from the deal is being held by U.S. controlled accounts and is being released by U.S. discretion, which limits how the money can be used.
Through this agreement, the Trump administration has significant leverage over the Venezuelan government by dictating its financial stability. Rather than liberating Venezuela from authoritarian rule with this power, the oil revenue is being used to control the regime as it continues to run the country.
Concerns about the aftermath of this invasion should span far beyond Venezuela itself. In the weeks following U.S. military action in Venezuela, the Trump administration has been emboldened by the “success” of the attack. Trump has voiced threats towards many countries, including Mexico, Cuba, Colombia, Iran and ongoing discussions about the annexation of Greenland.
The rhetoric espoused by Trump and his administration is actively corroding relationships with allies and trading partners, quickly harming the U.S. economy and foreign relations.
Ultimately, what had been framed as liberation is really a power grab by the Trump administration. Maduro may be gone, but Venezuela remains oppressed and is now financially dependent on the U.S., without self-determination.
By bypassing Congress, using financial benefits as leverage and prioritizing oil over democracy, the Trump administration’s motives are clear.
These actions do not lead to the fall of a dictatorship. Instead, it is merely a shift in tyrannical power. If we as citizens allow for this to become normalized in U.S. foreign policy, the repercussions from Venezuela will only be the beginning.
