The Department of War shocked the world early in the year with its January 3rd report “Trump Announces U.S. Military’s Capture of Maduro” (Olay 2026). This operation sparked a wide range of opinions within the United States’ and Venezuela’s political factions. Trump justified the capture with promises of restoring democracy in Venezuela and importing its abundant quantities of oil to the U.S. He pledges to make Venezuela and America great again, instilling a false sense of hope in the people of both countries.
After Maduro’s capture, the two political faction leaders (María Corina Machado and Delcy Rodríguez) are willing to work with president Trump. Machado presented her Nobel Peace Prize to him while Rodríguez met with the chief of CIA. Still, cooperation from either is unlikely to result in the restoration of democracy. History indicates U.S involvement in Venezuela will likely fuel the unstable forms of government. Political science professor and author of Dragon in the Tropics: Venezuela and the Legacy of Hugo Chavez Javier Corrales argues that Chavismo—Maduro’s political ideology—is a response to American interventions. Encroachment onto Latin American countries can create vicious cycles of occupation, revolt, and despotism. Intervening now may create new tensions and worsen the authoritarian behavior that oppresses Venezuela.
Similarly, an invasion of Venezuela will likely harm average people in the States. Trump assures that if the U.S were to invest in revamping the democracy, in turn, restoring the once-prominent oil industry in Venezuela, gas prices will decrease, as promised in his MAGA campaign. However, this is unlikely to occur due to the complex history of Venezuela’s oil. A series of political events during Hugo Chavez’s rule has virtually left the industry destroyed. Economy and political journalist Eyanir Chinea from El País English reasons that reviving the Venezuelan oil industry requires reestablishing the democracy (which the U.S has a historically poor record of doing) as well as investing tens of billions of dollars. Even with Venezuelan officials’ cooperation, the U.S cannot spare to invest money in reviving it. The resources withdrawn from the public would further exacerbate the financial struggle of average people after the series of mass lay-offs and program cuts in the past months. Congress will likely put a halt to U.S intervention to avoid amplifying common people’s financial strife. That is if the legislative branch quits appeasing Trump.
As a populist, Trump has structured his arguments to console both distressed nations to receive support. But, history suggests his promises are a mirage. He may gain support without disclosing the major caveat: average people of the U.S and Venezuela are unlikely to benefit. I urge readers to review informational texts on the past relationships of Venezuela and the U.S and cultivate their own educated opinion.
