President Donald Trump has intensified U.S. military activity around Venezuela in recent months, from counter-narcotics operations to a broader campaign of coercive pressure against dictator Nicolás Maduro’s government. Since early September, U.S. forces have conducted strikes on roughly 20 alleged drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. The USS Gerald R. Ford, the Navy’s most advanced aircraft carrier, is now stationed off Venezuela’s coast. U.S. officials have also confirmed the existence of a CIA covert-action program in Venezuela.
What’s going on?
American officials describe Maduro’s regime as a hub of corruption and narcotrafficking that relies on brutal repression at home and support from enemies of Washington abroad to survive. In Latin America, Maduro has cultivated a network of alliances with governments and movements that frequently position themselves against U.S. interests. The regime’s closest partner remains Cuba, which provides intelligence, security advisers, and political backing in exchange for subsidized fuel. At the same time, Maduro has deepened ties with Russia, Iran, and China, allowing those governments to expand their presence in the region.
Publicly, U.S. officials describe the operation as targeting drug shipments, even as the scale of activity points to a wider pressure campaign. But experience suggests that pressure alone is unlikely to achieve major political change. Maduro has weathered sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and internal challenges for years, betting that Washington’s appetite for escalation will remain limited.
This is shaped by the legacy of Trump’s first-term Venezuela strategy. The United States invested heavily in backing opposition figure Juan Guaidó, recognizing him as interim president and encouraging allies to do the same. But the plan faltered, leaving Maduro firmly in power, weakening the opposition, and exposing the limits of U.S. intentions.
A U.S. move in Venezuela could change that perception. It would mark a return to power projection in the Western Hemisphere, an echo of the Monroe Doctrine, showing that Washington is willing to enforce its interests close to home. Success in Venezuela could have a domino effect on other authoritarian or anti-U.S. governments in the region, altering their calculations and reinforcing the notion that challenging American power has consequences.
But if Trump acts without a clear goal for what any campaign is meant to achieve, the risks run in the opposite direction. Scaling back after such a buildup would look like a retreat and reinforce the perception that Washington’s threats are vacuous. That will echo beyond Venezuela. If Trump intends to maintain sustained pressure on the regime, the effort will require clearly defined objectives, rather than sporadic action. Unless Trump’s threats carry a believable prospect of actual force, the Venezuelan dictator will wait him out, absorb the punishment, and present himself as the leader who outlasted the American president.
Even more uncertain is what would follow any U.S. action targeting Maduro or his inner circle. Something worse than Maduro is hard to imagine, and unlike the U.S. experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya, Venezuela is a different society altogether. But the question of the future is still a legitimate one, and just as in those other cases, planning for what comes next is key here too.
SEPTEMBER JOBS REPORT EASES ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL PRESSURE ON WHITE HOUSE
For now, U.S. actions appear to test the Maduro regime’s resilience and signal Washington’s willingness to escalate.
Whether this approach can produce meaningful political change remains uncertain. What is clear is that any campaign cannot succeed without a clear understanding of what it’s meant to achieve. As the Trump administration raises the stakes in Venezuela, the central question is whether it knows where it wants this to lead.