What Trump's Claim to 'Oversee' Venezuela Entails

Navigating a new era of leadership transition.

For several months, the United States has been strategically positioning military assets in the vicinity of Venezuela, conducting operations against suspected narcotic trafficking vessels and capturing embargoed oil tankers. The pivotal query was whether this might escalate into a more overt endeavor to remove Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro from office.

Recent dramatic developments seem to have provided partial answers.

Maduro is now out of the picture. After a bold nighttime operation by Delta Force on his Venezuelan hideout, he and his wife have been moved onboard the USS Iwo Jima, destined for New York, where they will confront accusations related to drugs and terrorism.

As far as the internal situation in Venezuela, it remains volatile. A Saturday afternoon press conference directed by President Donald Trump along with his senior national security team both introduced and responded to multiple inquiries, reinforcing this administration’s diplomatic core principles.

Unpacking the US Role

Trump has asserted multiple times that the U.S. will be overseeing Venezuela's affairs in the near term. He indicated that this oversight would be managed by personnel present with him at Mar-a-Lago, including key figures like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

However, the President was not specific about what taking charge of Venezuela entails and it did not appear that U.S. officials were slated to assume direct control in Caracas. He pointed out that Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s vice president, had been given an oath of office, and suggested Rubio had conversed with her, adding that she is reportedly willing to align with the U.S. in revitalizing her country.

This suggests an intention to leave Rodríguez and other high-ranking members in authority temporarily, which contradicts traditional interpretations of directly managing a country.

Trump mentioned that American military personnel would remain stationed in the area until U.S. prerequisites are entirely met, potentially reserving the option for larger military interventions, though the exact demands were unspecified.

The Focus on Oil

Oil was another topic Trump lingered on. Despite possessing the planet’s most extensive oil reserves, Venezuela's production has seen a decline due to infrastructure issues.

Oil was not initially spotlighted as a primary motive for military actions, which rather centered on drug trafficking. However, Trump and Miller's later public statements accused the Venezuelan administration of appropriating America’s oil resources.

When questioned about an enduring U.S. role in Venezuela, Trump indicated plans to leverage U.S. expertise for extracting significant wealth from Venezuela's oil fields, potentially for sale even to nations like China and Russia, Venezuela's current allies.

Notably absent from Trump’s conversation was any endorsement of democracy or a call for new elections.

Reactions and Underlying Motives

The Venezuelan opposition, led by Nobel Laureate María Corina Machado, has been a long-time advocate of U.S. involvement. Yet, Trump was dismissive, labeling her a pleasant figure lacking internal support.

Machado had earlier praised U.S. efforts to adhere to legal principles and demanded Edmundo Gonzalez, whom many consider the legitimate victor of Venezuela’s 2024 election, be instated immediately. Trump made no comment on Gonzalez's mandate.

According to Michael Shifter from Georgetown University, this scenario underscores a focus on dethroning Maduro, with limited genuine interest in democratic restructuring for Venezuela.

Implications for Trump’s Foreign Policy

Trump referenced a modernized version of the Monroe Doctrine, here termed “Don-roe,” asserting U.S. authority in the Americas and highlighted in the administration’s national security blueprint. He suggested potential actions against Colombia and Cuba remain on the cards.

During the same week, Trump sanctioned military actions in distant regions like Nigeria and Iran, emphasizing the U.S. as a power extending beyond regional boundaries.

Conservative critics hoping for a less militaristic stance were quickly disappointed. Trump appears comfortable with military interventions but prefers them to be swift, aiming at quick victories against opponents unlikely to reciprocate force. The precise execution of Maduro’s capture was highlighted as a model strategy.

A comprehensive operation to alter Venezuela’s regime could destabilize the region further and pull U.S. forces into protracted involvement. Additionally, concerns over potential waves of migration from Venezuela’s already substantial refugee crisis were raised.

Trump downplayed analogies to historical U.S. involvements in Latin America, although some regional governments remain cautious of American military assertiveness.

Despite legal justifications for the recent operation through charges against Maduro, questions about its alignment with international law linger.

The capture reflects ongoing intersections between military and law enforcement tactics, with FBI participation in the operation, and Trump blending domestic military deployments with international strategies.

Public reception has been varied, with polls indicating mixed support for such military actions. Critics have noted disparities in Trump’s claims about drug interdiction efforts, pointing out that key concerns involve drugs not sourced from Venezuela.

In summary, defending the operation's motivations remains complex, with administration transparency about objectives at times absent. In the past, wars for oil were speculated; now, the president overtly claims it.