The Bolivarian Dream is Dead

Early on Saturday, January 3, U.S. military forces entered Caracas and captured Venezuelan President Maduro and his wife. The U.S. had targeted Maduro for some time. They were quickly flown out of Venezuela to New York, where they will be held. Maduro faces drug and weapons charges. That morning, President Trump told reporters that Washington would now oversee Venezuela.

Trump’s press conference also revealed that the operation was the result of meticulous planning involving multiple branches of the U.S. military—soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Space Force guardians—each playing a critical role in its execution. Key intelligence agencies, including the CIA, NSA, and NGA, worked closely together to track and ultimately capture Maduro and his wife. The mood across Trump’s administration was openly celebratory, while details about the cost and scale of the resources used were notably absent.

Some history here, in the 1800s Simón Bolívar envisioned a united Latin America capable of resisting foreign interference, grounded in regional cooperation and anti-colonial ideals. Hugo Chávez later reworked that legacy around socialism and anti-imperialism, launching the Bolivarian Revolution and promoting “21st-century socialism” as a counterweight to U.S. influence. Maduro carried the movement forward but failed to sustain its momentum. Deep regional divisions stalled the project, and after 13 years in power, Maduro’s presidency was widely rejected by the U.S. and European nations, with his 2024 re-election broadly dismissed as illegitimate.

Despite Maduro’s removal, Venezuela’s government remains intact. The power structure built under Hugo Chávez is largely unchanged, and the path to a political transition remains unclear. Maduro’s inner circle is still in control, with Vice President Delcy Rodríguez installed as his successor, while the same military leadership continues to prop up the regime. Resistance has already begun: the new president has openly pushed back against U.S. directives, prompting Trump to issue sharp warnings that any defiance will be met with consequences more severe than those faced by Maduro..

People in the United States reacted quickly and with strong opinions. Critics on the political left said the operation was really about oil, since Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves. They saw this as a return to traditional American intervention in Latin America, driven by economic interests rather than democracy.

President Trump gave a different explanation. Speaking from Mar-a-Lago with top military and cabinet officials, he described the mission, called Operation Absolute Resolve, as quick and precise, and said only the United States could have carried it out. He said the reasons for removing Maduro were national security, law enforcement, and economic interests.

The Trump administration has refused to recognize Maduro as a legitimate leader. Instead, it has treated him as a criminal. U.S. officials have accused him of running the so-called “Cartel de los Soles,” an organization allegedly responsible for moving large amounts of drugs through South America and into the United States. The Justice Department indicted Maduro, claiming his actions contributed to the drug crisis and violent crime in American communities. The administration has also argued that Venezuelan gangs, including Tren de Aragua, were deliberately allowed—or even encouraged—to spread into the United States.

There was also a strong economic reason for the operation. Trump said Venezuela had taken billions of dollars’ worth of American-built oil infrastructure, and that the U.S. was just reclaiming what was stolen. He said major American oil companies would soon return to Venezuela to rebuild and invest in its struggling energy sector. Trump said that once money starts coming in again, the U.S. would recover its costs and then help return wealth to the Venezuelan people.

Some analysts describe Trump’s foreign policy as a modern spin on the Monroe Doctrine, often jokingly calling it the “Donro Doctrine.” The original doctrine, declared more than 200 years ago, asserted U.S. leadership in the Western Hemisphere. Trump’s version reflects his belief that the United States must aggressively push back against foreign influence in the region—particularly from Iran, China, and Russia, all of which he claimed were being actively courted by Maduro. He was deeply irritated to see Maduro cozying up with these countries. Trump is reasserting American presence and dominance in the Western Hemisphere, to protect America’s interests.  

The Monroe Doctrine has served as a guiding principle for U.S. presidents for over a century, shaping countless interventions across Latin America. Here are some notable interventions:  in 1954, the CIA orchestrated a coup in Guatemala that removed democratically elected President Jacobo Árbenz. Árbenz had proposed sweeping land reforms that threatened U.S. business interests, particularly the United Fruit Company, and were painted as having communist undertones. This operation set the tone for decades of U.S. involvement in the region. In 1961, the Bay of Pigs invasion targeted Cuba, with the CIA backing Cuban exiles in a failed attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro. Castro outmaneuvered the U.S., delivering a major blow to American credibility and power, and this episode played a significant role in escalating tensions that culminated in the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

Fast forward to 1973, at the height of the Cold War, the U.S. played a key role in orchestrating a military coup in Chile. Marxist President Salvador Allende was overthrown, and General Augusto Pinochet assumed power, ushering in a brutal dictatorship. The pattern continued with interventions in Grenada in 1983, the Nicaraguan and Salvadoran conflicts throughout the 1980s, and Panama in 1989, when U.S. forces invaded and captured Manuel Noriega on drug trafficking charges.

Noriega’s arrest has often been compared to the recent capture of Nicolás Maduro, highlighting a clear throughline: when leaders in the region clash with U.S. strategic or economic interests, intervention is often the chosen course. These episodes reveal a consistent U.S. approach to exerting influence, blending law enforcement, economic pressure, and military action—all under the long shadow of the Monroe Doctrine.

Maduro’s swift removal, amplified by public statements and wall-to-wall media coverage, ensured the intervention resonated far beyond Venezuela. The message was unmistakable: leaders who defy U.S. expectations—or threaten regional stability and American interests—may face serious consequences. It was, in effect, a signal to South American governments to fall in line, following the path of close U.S. allies like El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele and Argentina’s President Javier Milei. That alignment has paid off—most notably for Milei, whose government secured a $20 billion currency swap from the U.S. Treasury.

Another important point to make here is that overthrowing Madure was a strategic move.  Trump’s people also believe that they were also brutally disrupting the Cuban government.  Since Maduro subsidized a lot of oil to Cuba.  With Maduro being gone, it is the end of Cuba, at least that is what Cuban American and Secretary of State Marco Rubio hopes. Trump also mentioned the Colombian President, stressing the need for cooperation on security and anti-drug efforts. He also criticized the Mexican President for not doing enough to stop cartel violence in Mexico.

Saturday, January 3 marked an unprecedented and consequential moment for Venezuela and the region—one likely to echo through hemispheric politics for months, if not years, as leaders reconsider the risks of defying U.S. priorities.

Thank you for reading.
Chamba Sanchez teaches politics at various colleges across Los Angeles County
________________________________________________________________________________________
Photo Credit: Picture used purchased from stock photo.