Is Venezuela becoming Trump’s most dangerous foreign policy test?

The United States’ sudden move to remove Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has opened a new and dangerous chapter in US foreign policy, one that carries significant political, legal and strategic risks for President Donald Trump. While Trump’s defenders argue this is not a repeat of the disastrous Iraq invasion, the operation nonetheless marks a sharp escalation in Washington’s willingness to forcibly reshape governments in its hemisphere.

Rather than full-scale occupation or nation-building, the White House appears to be pursuing a strategy of regime decapitation followed by coercion. The goal is not to dismantle Venezuela’s state apparatus, but to bend what remains of it into compliance with Trump’s vision of a compliant, US-aligned Western Hemisphere.

Who is Washington really trying to control now?

At the centre of this strategy is Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, who has emerged as the interim leader following a dramatic US special forces raid that captured Maduro and transferred him to New York to face court proceedings. Trump has openly claimed that Washington is now “running” Venezuela by exerting pressure on Rodríguez.

The picture of a US president waging a bully Boys’ challenge to a sovereign state a thousand miles across an ocean vividly reflects how aggressively Trump has recrafted America’s foreign policy approach. This goes to show how strongly Trump believes that demonstrations of strength might be substituted for diplomacy.

Does coercion cost less than occupation?

From Washington’s perspective, co-opting remnants of the Maduro regime may seem cheaper and politically safer than large-scale military intervention. Avoiding extended deployments may prevent the US from having to endure the human and financial tolls of the post-9/11 conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, there are some dangers in this scenario. Venezuela’s political landscape is highly fragmented, unstable, and influenced by various armed groups. Forcing through without legitimacy may rouse internal instability, while coercion through strength might isolate pro-democratic groups in Venezuela for following Maduro.

Why is Congress pushing back now?

Trump’s declaration has triggered an outright reaction from Democrats, who consider the mission an act of aggression carried out without congressional approval. Amid the scrambling efforts of legislators to make sense of the government’s ultimate strategy, Republicans principally fell in line behind the president.

Whether or not this incident has caused a rift within the ranks of the MAGA movement that Trump represents is unclear, but the events certainly come at a tender time with elections on the horizon.

What does the administration say its policy is meant to achieve?

Washington, however, denies that the US plans to occupy Venezuelan territory. Rather, the Trump administration claims that its policy in Venezuela seeks to stop the flow of drugs, demolish the drug cartels, strip Iranian and Cuban influence from the nation, and use Venezuelan oil resources to benefit “the people” instead of US enemies.

However, comparing it to Iraq is the height of alarmism, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said of Venezuela, citing the power of economic pressure combined with the threat of force to compel leaders to comply without necessarily building the regime. Yet the country’s oil will remain under sanctions, with the Venezuelan regime reminded of US power.

Is Washington seeking partnership or submission?

Despite talk of cooperation, Trump’s rhetoric suggests a far more coercive relationship. Republican Senator Tom Cotton and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have openly framed the strategy as one in which the US sets the terms and Venezuela’s leaders must comply.

In practice, this means Rodríguez is expected to serve as a conduit for American power inside her own country, executing policies aligned with Washington’s interests under threat of further military action.

Can deals replace diplomacy in Caracas?

The administration believes it can succeed where past efforts failed by securing deals Maduro refused to honour. If successful, Trump could reshape Latin America’s geopolitical balance, revive Venezuela’s oil sector under US-friendly terms, and weaken Russian and Chinese influence in the region.

But this vision rests on a major assumption: that Rodríguez or other regime survivors are willing and able to cooperate. While US officials reportedly view her as more pragmatic than Maduro, publicly she has condemned his removal and faces intense pressure from hardliners within the regime.

How much leverage does Washington really have?

Trump has not hesitated to threaten Rodríguez directly, warning she could face consequences “bigger than Maduro” if she fails to comply. However, whether the threat alone is enough to secure cooperation has been a question.

Former NATO ambassador Ivo Daalder cautioned that the Obama administration does not have the resources to run Venezuela. Without embracing the requirements that come with governing, the aims of the US might clash with the realities in Venezuela.

Is Delcy Rodríguez a stabiliser or a liability?

Rodríguez’s diplomatic experience and international contacts may make her appealing to US planners. However, she remains deeply associated with the Chávez-Maduro system and has shown no sign of abandoning its ideological foundations.

Analysts warn she lacks independent authority over Venezuela’s fragmented security forces, making her a precarious foundation for Trump’s entire strategy. If she falters, Washington may find itself forced into deeper involvement or abrupt escalation.

Why is Venezuela’s democratic opposition being sidelined?

Perhaps the most striking aspect of Trump’s approach is the apparent marginalisation of Venezuela’s democratic opposition. María Corina Machado and opposition leader Edmundo González were widely expected to play central roles after Maduro’s removal.

Instead, Trump has publicly dismissed Machado, raising concerns that Washington may prioritise control and stability over democratic legitimacy. Such a shift risks alienating Venezuelans who long looked to the US as a supporter of democratic change.

As pressure mounts on Rodríguez and threats escalate, the question remains whether this experiment in coercive regime change will deliver stability — or entangle the US in yet another open-ended foreign crisis.