On January 3, 2026, President Donald Trump made a controversial announcement claiming that the United States had bombed Venezuela, “captured” President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, and taken control of the country’s oil reserves. This declaration has raised significant legal and ethical questions regarding U.S. military intervention and its potential consequences.
Trump’s remarks included no clear justification under international law for the bombing. The operation did not meet the criteria for “self-defense,” as Venezuela had not attacked the United States. Referring to Maduro as a “narco-terrorist” does not establish an imminent national security threat, particularly since Venezuela plays a relatively minor role in the international cocaine market and has no involvement in the fentanyl crisis, which is a leading cause of overdose deaths.
The president emphasized oil during his speech, using the term more than 20 times. Venezuela is known for having the world’s largest proven oil reserves, a fact that has historical significance. In 1976, the country nationalized U.S. oil companies through a legal process that yielded over $1 billion for those firms. The idea of reversing that nationalization to justify military action raises serious moral and strategic concerns.
Historical Context and the Monroe Doctrine
Trump invoked the Monroe Doctrine, suggesting he had significantly expanded its scope. Originally articulated in 1823 by President James Monroe, the doctrine was intended to protect the Western Hemisphere from European colonization. In contrast, Trump’s interpretation appears to transform it into a rationale for offensive military actions against sovereign nations.
Rather than serving as a defensive policy, the so-called “Donroe Doctrine” reflects a worldview where the United States, China, and Russia operate within their own spheres of influence. This strategy risks exacerbating tensions with countries like China, which has ambitions regarding Taiwan, and Russia, which is currently engaged in a conflict with Ukraine.
The implications of this military intervention are substantial. Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, General Colin Powell famously warned that if the U.S. were to “break” a country, it would then “own” the consequences. With Venezuela’s population estimated at 28 million, the burden of governance and reconstruction could be immense if the situation deteriorates.
Political Ramifications and Potential Outcomes
Trump has indicated that he, along with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other officials, will oversee Venezuela’s governance. This raises questions about who will lead Venezuela moving forward. Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, currently under U.S. and EU sanctions, has limited options and may serve only as long as she complies with U.S. interests.
An alternative leader, María Corina Machado, a former lawmaker and Nobel Peace Prize winner, has been disqualified from running against Maduro. Trump’s comments suggest that Machado lacks support within Venezuela, despite her significant popularity in opposition circles. The political landscape could become volatile if the Venezuelan populace strongly favors her leadership.
The historical lessons of U.S. military interventions are fraught with caution. From the failures in Vietnam to the ongoing struggles in Libya and Afghanistan, past actions have often led to long-term instability. Trump’s approach, which stands in stark contrast to his prior opposition to foreign entanglements, may provoke further unrest and geopolitical tension.
In conclusion, the ramifications of Trump’s actions in Venezuela are likely to be profound, not only for the country itself but also for U.S. foreign policy and international relations. As Trump’s term progresses, navigating the complexities of this situation will prove to be a significant challenge for both the administration and the affected nations.
