The briefing provides a detailed analysis of the United States’ latest military intervention in Venezuela under President Donald Trump in 2026, comparing it with his previous administration’s policies and the immediate predecessor Biden administration’s approach. It explores the implications of this escalation for U.S. foreign policy, especially in Latin America, while contextualizing the longstanding U.S.-Venezuela relations leading up to this event.
1. The Latest U.S. Move on Venezuela
On January 3, 2026, the Trump administration conducted a large-scale military strike in Venezuela, capturing President Nicolás Maduro and removing him from power. This operation followed months of escalating pressure including a naval blockade, interdiction of oil tankers, and strikes on drug-smuggling vessels. The strike was framed as a culmination of a “peace through strength” doctrine aimed at neutralizing threats such as narcotics trafficking, mass migration, and foreign adversaries’ influence in the region. While praised by some political allies, the intervention faced domestic legal and ethical questions and international criticism, especially from Russia and many Latin American governments. The administration indicated the strike was a swift, targeted action without intent for prolonged occupation, signaling a decisive shift in policy toward open military intervention in Venezuela.
2. Trump’s Approach: 2025–2026 vs. 2017–2021
During his first term (2017–2021), Trump pursued a “maximum pressure” strategy against Maduro, employing sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and covert support for opposition uprisings without direct military intervention. Key actions included recognizing opposition leader Juan Guaidó, imposing severe economic sanctions such as an oil embargo on PdVSA, and indicting Maduro on narcotrafficking charges. Despite hints at military options, Trump avoided open conflict, emphasizing non-intervention and contrasting himself with previous presidents on war avoidance.
In contrast, Trump’s current term has seen a marked escalation. After re-election, he reversed Biden-era concessions, tightened sanctions, deployed military assets to the Caribbean, and authorized lethal interdiction missions. By late 2025, Trump openly acknowledged the possibility of war, culminating in the January 2026 strike removing Maduro. This shift reflects a move from restraint to assertive military action, though the core objective of regime change remains consistent. The new approach also reflects a prioritization of immediate force over prolonged diplomatic or covert pressure.
3. Comparison with Biden Administration’s Venezuela Policy (2021–2025)
The Biden administration adopted a diplomacy-first, multilateral strategy focused on negotiation, humanitarian relief, and avoiding military action. It supported internationally mediated talks between Maduro and the opposition, eased some sanctions conditionally in response to electoral agreements, and coordinated with allies to pressure Maduro toward democratic transition. Biden’s policy included significant humanitarian aid efforts, granting Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to Venezuelan migrants, and depoliticizing aid delivery through NGOs and UN channels.
Diplomatically, Biden ceased recognizing Guaidó after the Venezuelan opposition dissolved his interim government, pragmatically engaging with Maduro’s envoys without legitimizing his regime. This contrasted with Trump’s unequivocal backing of opposition figures and outright rejection of Maduro’s legitimacy. The Biden approach emphasized coalition-building and peaceful resolution, whereas Trump’s recent military action was unilateral and confrontational.
| Policy Dimension | Trump Era (2017–2021) | Biden Era (2021–2025) | Trump Current Approach (2025–2026) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sanctions & Economic Pressure | Sweeping sanctions, oil embargo on PdVSA | Maintained sanctions with conditional relief for elections | Re-tightened sanctions, revoked Chevron license, tactical relaxations |
| Diplomatic Recognition | Recognized Guaidó, no talks with Maduro | Ended Guaidó recognition, pragmatic engagement with Maduro | Re-embraced opposition, physically removed Maduro |
| Humanitarian Aid & Migration | Politicized aid, tough on asylum seekers | Depoliticized aid, TPS for migrants, UN-led relief efforts | Continued aid but prioritized security, ended TPS leniency |
| Regime-Change Strategy | Maximum pressure, no direct force | Negotiated transition via elections | Military intervention for forced regime change |
4. Broader Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy
The intervention signals a return to a more interventionist U.S. posture in Latin America, reminiscent of Cold War-era policies, potentially straining relations with regional governments sensitive to sovereignty and foreign military presence. It may invigorate nationalist and anti-U.S. sentiments but also embolden U.S.-aligned neighbors to adopt tougher stances against authoritarian regimes.
Trump’s doctrine of “peace through strength” suggests a strategic refocus of U.S. military efforts toward the Western Hemisphere, possibly lowering the threshold for intervention against perceived security threats such as narcotics trafficking or foreign adversaries’ influence. The operation also sets a precedent for limited, targeted military actions rather than prolonged occupations, reflecting impatience with drawn-out diplomatic efforts.
Globally, the strike may affect U.S. credibility and relations with allies and adversaries alike, signaling a willingness to act unilaterally and decisively, which could both deter adversaries and raise tensions. The outcome in Venezuela will heavily influence whether this assertive policy is deemed successful or destabilizing.
5. Historical Context of U.S.–Venezuela Relations
The antagonistic relationship dates back to Hugo Chávez’s presidency (1999–2013), marked by socialist policies and alliances with U.S. rivals. Maduro’s succession saw economic collapse and democratic erosion, triggering U.S. sanctions and recognition of opposition leader Guaidó in 2019. Attempts to oust Maduro via protests, aid convoys, and uprisings failed, leading to intensified sanctions and indictments.
During Biden’s term, a stalemate persisted with cautious diplomatic engagement and conditional sanctions relief tied to electoral promises. The 2024 U.S. election brought Trump back, who swiftly reversed Biden’s conciliatory policies, culminating in the 2026 military intervention. This trajectory highlights a progression from economic and diplomatic pressure to direct military action as prior strategies failed to dislodge Maduro.
Conclusion
The forcible removal of Nicolás Maduro by the Trump administration in early 2026 marks a defining moment in U.S. foreign policy, showcasing a shift from economic sanctions and diplomacy to open military intervention in Latin America. This move contrasts sharply with the previous Biden administration’s negotiation-based approach and represents an evolution in Trump’s doctrine toward assertive use of force to achieve U.S. interests.
The intervention’s success or failure will shape future U.S. policy in the hemisphere, influencing whether this “peace through strength” approach becomes a standard or remains an exceptional response to a unique crisis. It also reframes U.S.-Latin America relations and signals a potential realignment of American foreign policy priorities in the mid-2020s.
