Maduro’s capture marks the return of US interventionism. Yet again, it’s all about the oil

This Doctrine, which Trump has now rebranded as the “Don-roe Doctrine,” has been relegated to foreign policy sidelines for years now, with most administrations in Washington DC having sought to distance themselves from it. Trump’s move, which he first signalled in the new US security strategy last month, marks a worrying reassertion of the doctrine.

But this tallies with his actions over the past year, when the US demonstrated increasing willingness to use military force around the globe. Just in the last week, Trump ordered airstrikes on Syria and Nigeria. He threatened an intervention in Iran, after widespread demonstrations in Tehran. Earlier in 2025, Trump had targeted nuclear facilities in Iran, attacked drug-trafficking boats in the Caribbean, the Houthi rebel forces in Yemen, militants in Somalia and Islamic groups in Iraq.

But why Venezuela?

Not a tough question to answer. Venezuela is home to the largest proven crude reserve on Earth, but the actual oil output from the South American nation is minuscule. The South American country is estimated to be sitting on over 300 billion barrels worth of crude — about a fifth of the world’s global reserves, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). However, it produces only about 1 million barrels of oil per day — about 0.8% of global crude production. Chevron is an American company, and the only foreign oil major with exposure to Venezuelan crude.

Trump clearly has oil on his agenda. He said on Saturday that the US would take control of Venezuela’s reserves and field American companies to invest “billions of dollars” to “refurbish” the country’s oil industry. “We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies — the biggest anywhere in the world — go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure,” Trump said at a news conference at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida on Saturday.

“Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world. Any politician, journalist or commentator who leaves this crucial fact out of the equation of why Trump illegally invaded Venezuela is willingly distorting the truth. Just call it what it is. Straight up theft,” Youssef Kobo, founder of Antwerp-based training and advocacy body ASATT-EU, said in a post. Analysts also pointed to Trump’s action as a means of diverting attention from the Epstein Files.

The Monroe Doctrine

Named after former President James Monroe, this Doctrine is one of the most consequential American foreign policy agendas of the last century. Initially a largely symbolic document, it stated American opposition to new or expanding European involvement in the Americas after centuries of colonial rule.

Progressively, the US extended this tenet to consider South and Central America a strategic backyard that should be under the sphere of American influence. This went on to become a significant element of American foreign policy intervention in the region for decades, which was increasingly criticised by academics and policy wonks for being used as an alibi to justify meddling in Latin America.

Most recent administrations in DC had moved away from this policy. Trump has now conclusively reversed that stance, building on his earlier attempts to support the current right-leaning Argentinian administration and oppose the left-wing government in Brazil.

Between 1898 and 1994, the US government intervened successfully to change governments in Latin America a total of at least 41 times, ostensibly to protect its interests and counter Communism.

MAGA pushback

There could be a twist on Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan, which was predicated on America ending its “never-ending wars” and not putting fresh boots on the ground anywhere.

With Trump now claiming that a team that includes US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth will work with Venezuelans to take control of the beleaguered nation, there is a possibility of that country seeing a protracted American involvement. “We are going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” Trump said at the conference, even though he did not clarify what exactly “running the country” meant.

This could be a bitter pill for some of Trump’s supporters, just like his reluctance to release the Epstein files. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a former Trump loyalist who recently parted ways with the president after accusing him of abandoning his political base, was among the first to condemn Trump’s actions on X.

“Americans’ disgust with our own government’s never ending military aggression and support of foreign wars is justified because we are forced to pay for it and both parties, Republicans and Democrats, always keep the Washington military machine funded and going,” she said. “This is what many in Maga thought they voted to end. Boy were we wrong.”

Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a noted Trump critic, drew a contrast between the legal justification being offered for Maduro’s arrest (on charges related to weapons and cocaine trafficking) with Trump’s explanation at the presser that the operation was to reclaim confiscated US oil and stop fentanyl production.

How will this end?

It’s not yet clear if the US will become an occupying force or install a leader approved by it in Caracas.

At one point during Saturday’s conference, Trump seemed to suggest Venezuela’s Vice President and current interim President, Delcy Rodriguez, had agreed to help the US run the country. But Rodriguez gave a live address to the nation shortly after Trump’s press conference to denounce what she called the US attack on her nation.

The big question going forward is whether the government that’s left in Venezuela — which is everybody except Maduro — will be able to maintain its grip on power. Or will there be divisions and lead to some form of regime change? While the US doesn’t have troops on the ground currently, it will be tough to organise a political transition or a hostile takeover of a foreign country, unless that is the case. Especially if it’s Venezuelan oil and other resources that Trump is after.

Then there are question marks over the role of the opposition at this pivotal moment.

This also brings back the relevance of the Presidential elections held in Venezuela in July last year to choose a president for a six-year term beginning on January 10, 2025, where Maduro ran for a third consecutive term while Edmundo Gonzalez led the main opposition political alliance.

After the 2024 elections, most news outlets and the opposition provided strong evidence showing that Gonzalez won the election by a wide margin, but Maduro claimed victory and hung on to power.

Earlier, in June 2023, the Venezuelan government had barred the then leading candidate María Corina Machado from participating. Machado, who went on to win the Nobel Prize subsequently, is currently in exile, and had backed Gonzalez in the 2024 elections. It is unclear what role Machado could have going forward, especially after Trump dismissed her chances of leading the country during the press conference.

The next few weeks will set the stage for how events unfold in Venezuela.