Nearly eight months after U.S. special forces illegally seized Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, the Trump administration announced on August 28 that an oil deal had been reached with the country’s interim leadership. The agreement gives the U.S. majority control of more than 65 million barrels of proven Venezuelan oil reserves.

The Trump administration justified its kidnapping of the country’s head of state — a clear violation of Venezuelan sovereignty — by asserting that Maduro was a narcotrafficker who was contributing to the flow of drugs and migrants into the United States. While President Trump and others in his administration have suggested they want to usher in a new democratic era for Venezuela, Washington has effectively installed key members of the old regime to lead the country for the foreseeable future.

This edition of “Why It Matters” discusses the Trump administration’s Venezuela policy, how it fits into its broader regional approach, and what the U.S. should do instead.

What is the current U.S. position and policy on Venezuela?

Immediately following the January 3rd kidnapping, Trump announced that longtime regime loyalist Delcy Rodríguez, who was Venezuela’s vice president at the time, would take over as interim president. Rodríguez had been in discussions with Secretary of State Marco Rubio about the future of Venezuela before Maduro was seized. Her installation signaled early on that regime change was off the table — that is, as long as she led a government that complied with U.S. dictates, even if it meant betraying the Venezuelan people’s interests and desires. The August 28 oil deal is a case in point of that dynamic.

According to insider accounts, Rubio is the ultimate authority in Venezuela, operating as an imperial “viceroy.” He has overseen the disbursement of the country’s export revenue, oil contracts, and U.S. sanctions; weighed in on cabinet appointments; and even signed off on Rodriguez’s social media posts and press interviews. Speaking before Congress in January, Rubio said that “the glue that held the regime together was corruption and graft.” Yet, eight months later, the same ruling elites are in power, apparently ultimately answering to Viceroy Rubio.

Further belying its justifications related to drugs and democracy, the Trump administration has prioritized exerting control over Venezuela’s oil industry. The United States has overseen the sale of billions of dollars of Venezuelan oil with remarkably little transparency about how much revenue Washington has collected or how those funds are being used.

The oil deal reached in August — which gives the United States equity in and enormous power over the country’s oil industry — underscores what had increasingly become clear since January: The Trump administration’s Venezuela policy can best be described as neo-colonialism. It may also be a test case for the United States’ regional strategy.

How does this fit into the administration’s broader approach to the Western Hemisphere?

The Maduro kidnapping demonstrated clearly how the Trump administration planned to implement the so-called “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine — or what the president has eponymously called the “Donroe Doctrine — as detailed in its November 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS). The recent oil agreement lays bare the neo-colonialist nature of this approach to the Western Hemisphere, in which Washington asserts its political, economic, and military will to, among other things, “ensure continued access to key strategic locations.”

Trump’s Venezuela policy is the most conspicuous application of this muscular revival of the Monroe Doctrine, but it appears elsewhere in the Hemisphere. The administration is imposing a devastating, and illegal,<a> blockade on Cuba in a bid to force Havana to implement sweeping political and economic reforms. The U.S. military has killed at least 230 people in airstrikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific Ocean, which many experts argue constitute extrajudicial killings.
</a>

Trump has threatened Colombia’s previous president, Gustavo Petro, asserting that he may face the same fate as Maduro. He has also frequently suggested that the United States may intervene in Mexico if its government does not “do something” about the cartels “running Mexico.” The administration’s hemispheric diplomatic initiatives have largely focused on anti-cartel actions that have done little to slow the drug trade but raised numerous concerns over human rights violations. Meanwhile, the United States has threatened to annex Greenland and make Canada the 51st state.

The Trump administration is essentially claiming that it is entitled to dictate the policies of any government in the Western Hemisphere. Those that defy Washington will face threats, economic coercion, or even military action.

In a not-so-veiled reference to China, the administration’s NSS asserts, “We will deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets.”

Beijing does have a deep economic foothold in Latin America. Indeed, China is Latin America’s top trading partner. But Trump’s policy assumes that it can simply demand that Latin American countries sever this relationship, which is not only unlikely to happen but violates Latin American nations’ sovereignty.

Strip away the great-power competition framing and what's underneath is old-fashioned neo-colonialism: asserting dominance over a foreign government to secure its resources, not to protect its people.

What should the United States do instead?

U.S. policy on Venezuela has been ineffectual and counterproductive under the last several American presidents. Sanctions have impoverished the country, leading to the largest peacetime contraction of GDP in modern history between 2012 and 2020 and driving mass migration. Over seven million Venezuelans have left the country since 2014. The U.S. approach to Venezuela for over two decades has neither advanced U.S. interests nor benefited everyday Venezuelans, who have been harmed by their government and U.S. policy.

The oil deal forces Venezuela, arguably the most impoverished country in the Western Hemisphere, to sell its most valuable natural resource for half its market value to the country that illegally toppled its leader while maintaining the authoritarian pillars of the state.

Washington has justified its draconian sanctions against Venezuela under the pretext of democracy promotion, ignoring how its policies have actually contributed to the Venezuelan government tightening political and civic space. The Trump administration feigned interest in elections in the weeks following the Maduro raid, but Trump has since laid his cards on the table. “As far as the elections in Venezuela, they're not really ready for them yet,” the president said in late July.

A democratic election in Venezuela would likely result in a direct challenge to what the Trump administration perceives as the United States’ top interest in Venezuela: access to its oil. Venezuelan opposition figures have said they fear the oil deal will cement the authoritarian government’s position of power and undermine any democratic progress.

The United States should immediately stop controlling the Venezuelan government and encourage it to hold democratic elections. Venezuela’s oil belongs to the Venezuelan people, and any oil revenue that Washington has taken should also be returned. Regardless of the authoritarian nature of the government in Caracas, the United States has no right to dictate who runs the country or what it does with its resources.

A better policy would be informed by what the Venezuelan people want. It would include incentivizing democratization through economic inducements and partnerships and using diplomatic pressure to get the Venezuelan government to address its human rights abuses. This approach would better serve the Venezuelan people and U.S. and regional interests by helping to make Venezuela a safer place where people can fully participate in their government and economy and find opportunities to thrive and support their families, thereby reducing the mass migration that has destabilized Venezuela and the region.