# A Return to the Big Stick: The US Intervention in Venezuela and the Dawn of the "Donroe Doctrine"
In the early hours of January 3, 2026, the world watched as the United States executed "Operation Absolute Resolve," a rapid military operation in Venezuela. In just 2 hours and 28 minutes, US special forces, supported by airstrikes that neutralized Venezuelan air defenses, apprehended President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, from their compound in Caracas. The pair were quickly flown to New York to face long-standing narcoterrorism charges. Washington portrayed the raid as a targeted law enforcement action, but for many observers in Latin America and beyond, it signaled a broader strategic shift. The operation marked a decisive and aggressive return to American interventionism in Latin America, signaling a major shift in US foreign policy that prioritizes direct action to secure economic interests and reshape regional power dynamics, with profound and destabilizing consequences.
## An Act of War or Law Enforcement?
The Trump administration was quick to provide its legal rationale, framing the operation not as an act of war, but as a "law enforcement action with military support." Officials cited the president's "inherent constitutional authority" to act in the nation's interest and pointed to the 2020 federal indictment of Maduro and other high-ranking officials on charges of narcoterrorism (Source 2).
This justification was immediately contested on both domestic and international fronts. Critics, including international law experts and officials at the United Nations, argued that the unilateral raid was a direct violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which explicitly prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state (Source 4). Within the United States, opponents contended that the operation usurped the constitutional power of Congress to declare war and violated the War Powers Resolution of 1973, as it was conducted without any congressional authorization (Source 4).
The immediate aftermath saw between 23 and 47 Venezuelan military personnel and 32 Cuban military and security personnel killed, along with 2 civilians. Seven US soldiers were injured (Source 2). For critics, these casualties were consistent with what they viewed as a military operation rather than a policing action.
## The Donroe Doctrine: Oil and Power in the 21st Century
While the official narrative focused on narcoterrorism, the administration’s own statements revealed a different set of priorities. President Donald Trump was unambiguous, stating that the military operation was largely about oil and that the US would "run" Venezuela for a time to ensure its oil revenues would reimburse the United States for the costs of the intervention (Source 1, Source 2). This claim laid bare what many analysts believe was the primary driver: control over Venezuela’s natural resources. The nation sits atop the world's largest proven crude oil reserves, a strategic prize of immense value (Source 2).
This focus on economic interests is a core tenet of a newly assertive foreign policy dubbed the "Donroe Doctrine" by some analysts—a modern, more aggressive twist on the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine (Source 3). The original doctrine warned European powers against interference in the Western Hemisphere; this new iteration suggests Washington is willing to act unilaterally in the Western Hemisphere. Trump’s declaration that "American dominance in the western hemisphere will never be questioned again" captured the essence of this policy: a reassertion of unilateral power aimed at securing strategic assets and containing the influence of global rivals like China (Source 3, Source 5).
Notably absent from the administration's primary justifications were the pillars of past interventions: the promotion of democracy and the defense of human rights (Source 3). The fact that Maduro's government remained largely intact, with Vice President Delcy Rodríguez sworn in as acting president, further undermined any claims that the intervention was about a democratic transition. Instead, the US immediately secured a 50-million-barrel oil supply deal, lifted sanctions, and watched as the new Venezuelan leadership passed a law giving private companies, implicitly including American firms, control over oil production and sales (Source 2). In this interpretation, the mission prioritized strategic resource access over political transformation.
## A Hemisphere Divided
The intervention sent shockwaves across Latin America, disrupting regional consensus and exposing a deep political fracture. The reaction was immediate and polarized, falling largely along ideological lines.
Leftist and progressive governments staunchly condemned the operation. Brazil's President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva declared the US had "crossed an unacceptable line," creating "an extremely dangerous precedent" (Source 1). Colombia's President Gustavo Petro labeled it an "unjustified act of aggression" and, with support from Russia and China, convened an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council (Source 1, Source 3). Leaders in Mexico, Chile, and Cuba echoed these sentiments, framing their opposition in the context of national sovereignty and a long, painful history of US meddling in the region (Source 1, Source 3). Spain joined Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Uruguay in a joint statement rejecting the "unilateral military operations" and warning that any attempt to control Venezuela's natural resources was a violation of international law (Source 5).
Conversely, a coalition of right-leaning leaders celebrated the intervention. Argentina’s President Javier Milei hailed it as a decisive step against "narco-terrorism and oppression," while prominent Venezuelan opposition figure María Corina Machado thanked President Trump and declared Venezuela would now be a key US ally (Source 1, Source 3). The presidents of Ecuador, Peru, and Paraguay expressed similar support, viewing the removal of Maduro as a necessary step toward restoring democracy and rule of law (Source 1, Source 3).
Other nations trod a more cautious path. The leaders of Bolivia and Guatemala, while welcoming Maduro’s departure, openly questioned the legality of the military action (Source 1). Meanwhile, regional bodies proved incapable of a unified response. The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) failed to reach a unanimous position, and the Organization of American States (OAS) could only issue a vague call for calm, highlighting the profound fragmentation the US operation had wrought (Source 1).
## The Unstable Aftermath
While Operation Absolute Resolve may have been a tactical success, it has left Venezuela and the surrounding region in a state of profound uncertainty. Before Maduro's removal, Venezuela's economy had already contracted by roughly 80% over the previous decade (Source 1). The humanitarian crisis was, and remains, severe. Nearly 85% of the population lives in poverty, the healthcare system has collapsed, and over 7.7 million people have fled the country, creating one of the world's largest displacement crises (Source 1, Source 4).
The intervention has not solved these problems. While the US lifted sanctions and 621 political prisoners were granted amnesty, the fundamental challenges remain immense (Source 2). Restoring Venezuela’s dilapidated oil industry to its former capacity will require tens of billions of dollars and years of work—investment unlikely to materialize in such a volatile political environment (Source 1). Furthermore, the Venezuelan military remains fractured and deeply involved in criminal enterprises, posing a significant obstacle to long-term stability in the absence of a large-scale international stabilization force (Source 1).
The Trump administration's own vision for a post-Maduro Venezuela appeared contradictory, sowing further confusion. While President Trump spoke of the US "running" the country, his own Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, insisted the US would have no direct governing role (Source 1). This leaves a significant power vacuum in a country facing armed-group activity and a prolonged humanitarian emergency.
## Conclusion
The 2026 raid on Caracas was more than the capture of a former president; it was a watershed moment for US foreign policy and the Western Hemisphere. It announced, with force, the arrival of the "Donroe Doctrine"—a policy that places American economic and strategic interests above international law, multilateral cooperation, and the principle of national sovereignty. By prioritizing direct action to secure access to oil and reassert its regional dominance, the United States has revived historical anxieties about American imperialism and has deeply divided Latin America. The operation may have removed Nicolás Maduro, but it has created a highly volatile situation in Venezuela and introduced a new phase of instability in hemispheric relations, the consequences of which are only beginning to unfold.
