Venezuela and The United States foreign policy
Photo from the coast of Santa Cruz, California (Miguel Ramirez / The Puma Prensa)
By Miguel Ramirez, Staff Writer
On Jan. 3 2026, The United States military violated international law and invaded Venezuela, overthrowing the corrupt dictator Nicolás Maduro Moros. The Trump administration followed up with an announcement that the United States would enact an executive Order to “safeguard Venezuelan oil revenue” in the “U.S. Treasury accounts from attachment or judicial process” to “advance U.S. foreign policy objectives” (The White House Fact Sheet).
The United States historically has had a “Big Sister policy” towards Latin America, wanting to rally the nations behind the United States. The policy was an addition to the Monroe Doctrine called the “The Roosevelt Corollary of December 1904.” It was introduced in the 1880s when there was concern about European influence on Latin America, especially with Venezuela and its competitors.
In the policy, it stated that the United States of America would “intervene as a last resort” so that “other nations in the Western Hemisphere [can fulfill] their obligations to international creditors” (History.State.gov). Essentially, the United States would intervene in Latin American countries and absorb their debt from foreign countries. This came with the price of the United States using “military force to restore internal stability to nations,” essentially making them an "international police” (History.State.gov).
Before the Trump administration illegally entered Venezuela, the country's relationship was very strained. Politically, the United States was not fond of Venezuela because it had shifted more towards socialism during the early 21st century, with their president in 1998, Hugo Chávez, being a Marxist socialist. Later, in 1999, a new constitution was written that “affirmed state control over natural resources, especially oil, and prohibited the privatization of PDVSA” (Communism USA). This action stopped the United States from entering Venezuela for private enterprises, further straining the relationship between the two. Chávez continued to consolidate his power until his death in March 2013.
During the rule of Hugo Chávez, the countries of Venezuela, China, and Russia grew closer, selling goods to each other. First, in 2023, China and Venezuela entered into an “all-weather strategic partnership” that allowed "cooperation across politics, trade, energy, and other areas” (USCC). Later, in May 2025, Russia and Venezuela signed off on a “strategic partnership agreement” allowing the cooperation “in the exploration and development of new oil and gas fields” and the ability to “expand oil trading operations” (Reuters).
Both of these actions acted as a wedge between the United States and Venezuela. For one, Venezuela had made partnerships with two of the United States' competitors in both ideology and economy. Secondly, with no partnership with the United States, the oil dependent economy was missing a crucial source of oil because Venezuela has more oil reserves than any other country in the world.
This predicament has happened many times before. One of the most recent examples is the United States involvement in the Middle East. For one, when the United States entered the Middle East, they used the excuse that they were entering the Middle East to find the terrorists who participated in the September 11 attacks. This led to them invading and destabilizing many countries in the Middle East such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Just like Venezuela, the United States violated international law and got no permission to enter the area; most glaring, there were high oil reserves just like Venezuela. Additionally, Iraq had heavy ties to Russia, and after the United States intervention, they grew closer with China. They now have a “2019 "oil-for-reconstruction" deal.” Now, unlike Venezuela, the general public can see the effects of the United States' invasion and holding of their oil reserves. They can see that it is a dismantled economy and a society ravaged by the predatory capitalism of the United States.
This brings us to where the United States is now in an uneasy polarizing state. Many citizens argue that the imperialism being demonstrated by the United States will only bring economic collapse to Venezuela, and that the removal of Maduro was not a total liberation, but rather switching power from one dictatorship to another. On the other hand, a more conservative and right leaning group argues that the liberation by the United States was just and that since nothing has happened yet, we should not worry. Nonetheless, the situation at hand is pressing and full of uncertainty. Many citizens are worried if history will repeat itself, or if the working class will use democracy to put an end to the United States' imperialism.