WASHINGTON DC – The Trump administration’s Venezuela policy following a military operation to capture Nicolás Maduro has raised concerns among foreign policy experts about the scope of US power in the Western Hemisphere, and the impact on global norms governing the use of force, including in relation to Russia, Ukraine and China.
At a Brookings Institution event on Thursday, analysts said the operation has removed Maduro personally but left Venezuela’s political, military, and security structures largely intact, while exposing contradictions in US President Donald Trump’s foreign policy strategy.
Thomas Wright, a senior fellow at Brookings who served as special assistant to the president and senior director for strategic planning at the Biden National Security Council, said the administration appears divided over its objectives, with the dominant narrative centered on resource control rather than governance or democratic transition.
“There are competing voices inside the administration,” Wright said, describing a minority view focused on narcotics trafficking and stability, and a more powerful faction around Trump and Vice President JD Vance that has framed the operation as a way to secure Venezuela’s oil wealth.
Wright noted that Vance recently said removing Maduro would help the average American by allowing the United States to control Venezuela’s natural resources.
He said the framing reflected an extractive approach that departs sharply from past US interventions aimed at restoring legitimate governance.
Venezuela’s power structure largely unchanged
Vanda Felbab-Brown of Brookings said Maduro’s removal has not dismantled the regime, arguing that “99.9% of the system remains in place,” including senior officials, security forces, armed groups and criminal networks.
The Trump administration has signaled it intends to exert leverage through oil exports, allowing limited production by US companies while restricting other sales. Washington is working with Delcy Rodríguez, formerly the vice president, as the de facto authority in Caracas.
Marcela Escobari, a former senior US official, who served at the National Security Council during the Biden administration, said Venezuela faces economic collapse, with its GDP having shrunk by roughly 80% over the past decade. She said recovery would require tens of billions of dollars in international financing, debt restructuring, and the restoration of the rule of law.
Escobari emphasized that Venezuela’s opposition has democratic legitimacy following the 2024 election, which she said was won decisively by opposition candidate Edmundo González. However, she warned that without military realignment and a clear transition timetable, political change remains unlikely.
Trump, power projection, and Monroe doctrine
Wright said the Venezuela operation reflects the administration’s broader effort to reassert US dominance in the Western Hemisphere, citing language in Trump’s recent national security strategy invoking a modernized Monroe Doctrine.
However, he said the approach risks strategic failure because it relies heavily on coercion while offering little long-term partnership.
Oil investments require time horizons far longer than Trump’s political calculus, Wright said.
Companies are being asked to make multibillion-dollar commitments amid uncertainty over future US administrations, congressional oversight, and unresolved questions about who legally controls Venezuela’s assets.
Implications for Russia, Ukraine
While Ukraine was not the primary focus of the discussion, Wright said US rhetoric around Venezuela could undermine Washington’s ability to oppose territorial conquest elsewhere.
He said Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has already weakened global norms against the use of force, and US statements emphasizing control of another country’s resources make it harder to argue that such actions are illegitimate.
“If the US frames its actions as taking resources because it can,” Wright said, “it becomes much harder to rally a global coalition against similar behavior by Russia or others.”
China: Competition without strategy
China’s role in Venezuela featured prominently in the discussion. Panelists said the Trump administration has demanded that Caracas curb ties with China, Russia and Iran.
Wright said this stance clashes with Trump’s broader approach to Beijing. He noted that the administration’s national security strategy downplays strategic competition with China and that Trump has pursued engagement with Chinese President Xi Jinping, including plans for a high-profile summit.
Chinese firms have significant investments in Venezuela’s oil and infrastructure sectors, Wright said, adding that coercive US tactics in Latin America could inadvertently create opportunities for Beijing to position itself as a reliable economic partner.
“The irony,” Wright said, “is that by relying almost exclusively on coercion and withdrawing from affirmative engagement, the United States risks accelerating the very Chinese influence it says it wants to reduce.”
Legal questions and congressional pushback
Scott Anderson, a former US State Department lawyer, said the administration appears to justify the operation under a novel legal theory that narcotics trafficking constitutes an “armed attack” under international law, allowing self-defense.
He said the argument is controversial and widely rejected by US allies, many of whom face domestic legal limits on cooperating with operations they view as unlawful.
Anderson noted that a Senate War Powers resolution introduced this week reflects bipartisan concern about Trump’s use of military force, even if the measure is unlikely to overcome a presidential veto.
Panelists warned that Venezuela may not be an isolated case. Wright and others cited Trump’s past threats toward Mexico, Colombia and Greenland as signs that the administration could pursue similar actions elsewhere.
Felbab-Brown said such rhetoric risks eroding US credibility and accelerating the breakdown of the post-World War Two international order.
“This is not just about Venezuela,” she concluded. “It’s about how the US defines power, legitimacy, and restraint in a world already under strain.”