I was in Cali, Colombia — a city less than 500 miles from the border between Venezuela and Colombia — when reports of explosions in Caracas, Venezuela began circulating. By the time I had made it back to the United States, so had Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro — in handcuffs, and on the way to his arraignment in Manhattan on federal drugs, weapons and narco-terrorism conspiracy charges.
While Venezuelans from Spain to Mexico have had their own celebrations around the world, I’ve found that American reactions, both Latino and not, have been subdued.
President Donald Trump stated that the United States will “run the country” until a proper transition of power can be arranged. But what does U.S. involvement at this scale actually mean, and how did Venezuela reach a point where such action was considered necessary?
For those unfamiliar with how we got here, it is important to understand that Venezuela’s political unraveling did not happen overnight. Just as importantly, the country has not always been as poor or unstable as it has been in recent years.
In 1998, former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was democratically elected, riding a wave of public frustration with corruption and inequality. What followed was a gradual consolidation of power that dismantled the country’s democratic institutions. Over the next two and a half decades, Venezuela shifted from an electoral democracy into an entrenched authoritarian system.
I do not deny this: the removal of Maduro from his role as president is beneficial for many Venezuelans. Maduro was an unfit leader by the standards of both international law and American democratic ideals. However, does that make his removal ethically correct or nationally beneficial for the United States?
Trump has backed leaders internationally recognized as dictators before, which raises doubts about whether Maduro’s authoritarianism was the true motivation for his capture. This time, the president has been unusually direct. While his administration has offered a range of justifications for intervention, Trump has been plain about his central interest: oil. In a press conference in Mar-a-Lago, he mentioned oil over 20 times and did not mention democracy once.
The avenues the United States used to remove Maduro are dangerous, not only because they are likely illegal under international law, but because of what they signal about power, precedent and escalation. Forcibly removing a sitting head of state without an internationally recognized legal framework undermines the very norms the United States claims to defend. It invites other nations to justify similar interventions, destabilizing an already fragile regional and global order.
If Americans are concerned about immigration, U.S. policy should prioritize economic stability in Venezuela, not extraction. Migration from Venezuela did not happen in a vacuum. It followed years of economic collapse, sanctions, corruption and institutional breakdown. Exploiting the country’s oil while sidelining long-term recovery efforts will not reduce migration pressures. It will intensify them.
If Americans want oil, history demands skepticism. U.S. involvement in oil-rich nations has repeatedly produced prolonged conflict rather than stability, from Iraq to Syria. Control over resources has not translated into peace or prosperity, either for those countries or for Americans at home.
And if Americans want democracy, history again offers a warning. Propping up a U.S.-backed government or maintaining direct control over Venezuela risks associating democracy with foreign domination. In places like Afghanistan, nation-building efforts by the U.S. failed, resulting in the Taliban assuming control of the government in 2021. The same pattern has played out elsewhere, swinging political momentum toward authoritarianism or radical alternatives in direct response to outside control.
Historically, U.S. interference in foreign governments has not ended well, from Iraq to Afghanistan to Libya. Whether the United States occupies Venezuela for an extended period, as President Trump has suggested, or installs a government dependent on American backing, people tend to resist a “helping hand” that also seeks control over their natural resources.
There is no undoing the capture of Nicolás Maduro, and the end of his presidency is not necessarily a loss. But expanding U.S. military power and relying yet again on coercion abroad does not protect American interests. It strains them.
President Trump ran on the promise of “America First” foreign policy, yet engaging in conflicts that divert public funds toward defense, endangering American soldiers in unnecessary wars and creating conditions that repeatedly lead to extremism and instability does the opposite. In practice, it puts Americans last.
Gabriela Hamburger Medailleu is a Medill junior and author of “Off the Record.” She can be contacted at [email protected]. If you would like to respond publicly to this op-ed, send a Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. The views expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect the views of all staff members of The Daily Northwestern.
