Trump’s Venezuela Gambit: A Fork in the Road for U.S. Intervention

When President Donald Trump publicly celebrated the capture of Venezuela’s leader and spoke of exerting U.S. influence over the country, it revived a bitter debate in Washington about the risks and responsibilities of removing authoritarian rulers. I kept thinking of a man I met in Havana a decade ago — a 29-year-old who told me he would not wait decades for slow political change. “You only have one life,” he said.

A Test Case for Intervention

That urgency explains why many living under repressive governments would welcome swift, decisive action. But memories of costly U.S.-backed interventions in Iraq and Libya make policymakers cautious: removing a dictator can exact heavy human and political costs and provoke long-term instability.

“Just because some tyrant clothes themselves in the symbolism of a state doesn’t make them any less a tyrant or valid target,” a U.S. official involved in internal discussions told me on background.

The administration appears to view Venezuela as a test case. If the operation succeeds without provoking major domestic or international blowback, similar approaches might be considered elsewhere.

Law Enforcement Or Regime Change?

Officials insist the action was a law-enforcement operation because Washington has refused to recognize Nicolás Maduro as Venezuela’s legitimate president and has described him as a criminal figure. Senator Marco Rubio framed the move in those terms, accusing Maduro of leading a narco-criminal enterprise.

But semantics aside, the practical outcome looks like regime change: Maduro removed and the U.S. in a position to influence who governs next. If the American public accepts that outcome without protest, the administration could repeat the model under a different label.

Choices After Removal

The immediate question for the White House is how far to press its influence. Will Washington try to stabilize Venezuela by striking pragmatic deals with remaining elites — on oil, migration, or drug interdiction — or will it press for a genuine democratic transition and internationally supervised elections?

Mr. Trump has publicly downplayed handing power to opposition leader María Corina Machado, arguing she lacks the necessary support within the armed forces. Some in the administration appear focused on short-term stability; others stress the long-term legitimacy that free elections would confer.

Practical Challenges

Reconstruction will be difficult. The administration has reduced spending on democracy-promotion and humanitarian programs even as Venezuela’s infrastructure — especially its oil sector — lies in disrepair and millions face hunger. That mismatch raises the familiar problem: removing a dictator is often easier than rebuilding a country.

Philip Gordon, a foreign-policy scholar who has written about U.S. regime-change efforts, warned that the hardest work typically begins after a leader is removed.

What Comes Next?

Inside the administration, divisions could emerge between officials prioritizing migration control and counternarcotics and those pushing for democratic legitimacy. The central uncertainty remains: how much patience will President Trump have to oversee a difficult post-removal transition — and how willing will the U.S. be to commit resources to make it work?

For now, the clearest takeaway is that Washington sees Venezuela as a potential proving ground. If the tactic succeeds without significant cost, similar approaches could be contemplated elsewhere — and citizens in other authoritarian countries may watch closely to see whether they can count on outside intervention as a path to change.