President Donald Trump declared the United States intends to govern Venezuela for an indefinite period following the capture of President Nicolas Maduro. The unprecedented statement, made from his Mar-a-Lago estate on January 3rd, outlines a plan for direct political control over the South American nation and the exploitation of its vast oil reserves. This move marks a dramatic escalation in U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America, invoking a modern reinterpretation of historical hemispheric doctrine.
The announcement came roughly eight hours after U.S. forces detained Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, creating a power vacuum in a country of nearly 30 million people. Trump framed the intervention as reclamation, alleging past Venezuelan governments had stolen American oil assets. He stated the U.S. would oversee a transitional period, directing the country’s governance and ensuring compensation for American interests before Venezuelan prosperity is addressed.
A Framework of Indirect Control
Trump and his senior advisors carefully avoided labeling the operation a formal military occupation. Instead, they described a model of political trusteeship. The plan, as presented, involves working through existing structures in Caracas for now. Trump indicated that current Vice President Delcy Rodriguez could remain in a leadership role provided she complies with Washington’s directives.
“We are going to govern it. We are going to run it. We are going to take the oil,” Trump stated. He added, “Delcy Rodriguez can stay as long as she does what we want.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed this conditional approach the following day. He suggested the U.S. would collaborate with Venezuela’s current leadership if they make what he termed the right decisions. This stance attempts to project a veneer of continuity despite the radical shift in power dynamics. Rodriguez publicly rejected the U.S. narrative in a national address, denouncing an invasion under false pretenses and affirming Maduro as the legitimate head of state.
“What is being done to Venezuela is barbarism,” Rodriguez declared. [Translated from Spanish]
Despite her defiance, the apparent willingness of the U.S. to work with her government indicates a strategy prioritizing control over immediate regime change. The ultimate authority, however, rests clearly with Washington. Trump confirmed that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Rubio, and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dan Caine would manage the process.
Military Threat as Enforcement Mechanism
The threat of further force underpins the entire political framework. President Trump explicitly stated that while no U.S. troops are currently deployed inside Venezuela, a second wave of intervention remains a ready option. He warned that any resistance to American plans would trigger a direct military response, a stark message to any domestic opposition or external allies of the Maduro government.
“We are not afraid to put boots on the ground,” Trump asserted. He framed the potential for further deployment as a simple matter of enforcing compliance with U.S. objectives for the country.
This military posture extends beyond Venezuela’s borders. Trump issued a direct warning to Colombian President Gustavo Petro, a leftist leader frequently criticized by Washington for his approach to drug trafficking and ties to Caracas. The broad warning signals the administration’s intent to pressure neighboring governments that might oppose or complicate its Venezuelan strategy. Regional analysts view this as part of a wider pattern of assertive U.S. action under the current administration, which previously involved pointed questions about the management of the Panama Canal.
The “Donroe Doctrine” and Strategic Resources
Administration officials have situated the Venezuela operation within a broader foreign policy vision. Trump has termed this updated approach the “Donroe Doctrine,” a play on his name and the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine. That original policy declared the Western Hemisphere off-limits to further European colonization. The modern version, as articulated by the President, asserts an even more direct and unilateral American dominance.
“The Monroe Doctrine is a big thing, but we have far surpassed it,” Trump claimed. He added that U.S. primacy in the hemisphere would never be questioned again. This vision was formally incorporated into national security strategy weeks before the Venezuelan intervention. The so-called “Trump Proposition” outlines a policy of intervening in Latin America to seize strategic assets, combat organized crime, and stem migration under the overarching “America First” agenda.
Venezuela, with the world’s largest proven oil reserves, serves as the emblematic case. The country’s resources and its close commercial alliance with China made it a longstanding target of Trump’s grievances. He repeatedly accused the socialist government of confiscating American oil assets, a claim used to justify the current action. The administration’s focus on securing these resources suggests economic motives are deeply intertwined with its stated geopolitical goals.
The administration also explicitly sidelined Venezuela’s most prominent opposition figure. Trump dismissed Nobel laureate and former presidential candidate Maria Corina Machado, stating she lacks the necessary support and respect to govern. This move surprised many observers who expected the U.S. to install a friendly opposition leader. It instead reveals a preference for a controllable transitional administration, potentially led by figures like Rodriguez, over an independent democratic leader who might not align perfectly with U.S. economic demands.
Regional Precedents and Future Implications
The current crisis follows a pattern of Trump administration confrontations in the region. In late 2024, then President-elect Trump publicly questioned Panama’s management of the Canal and hinted at reclaiming control, citing strategic concerns about Chinese influence. That tension was later reduced after negotiations led to the sale of key port concessions to a consortium led by the American multinational BlackRock in mid 2025.
The Venezuela operation, however, represents a quantum leap in scale and boldness. It transitions from diplomatic and economic pressure to overt regime change and the declaration of a political protectorate. The long term consequences are unpredictable. The situation creates immediate challenges for regional stability and international law, testing the responses of other global powers and neighboring Latin American nations. The U.S. has positioned itself not just as an intervening power, but as the declared governing authority for a sovereign country, a move without parallel in recent hemispheric history.
Secretary Rubio told The New York Times that Washington would evaluate its next steps based on facts on the ground. He described “unique and historic opportunities” for Venezuela while emphasizing that American decisions would be guided by the actions of Venezuelan officials in the coming days. This wait and see approach, backed by the explicit threat of force, places the burden of compliance squarely on Caracas. The world now watches to see if a model of indirect American rule can be imposed, and what resistance it may provoke both within Venezuela and across a nervous hemisphere.