Trump’s vague claims of the US running Venezuela raise questions about planning for what comes next

Conflicting Signals Emerge as Trump Claims U.S. Will “Run” Venezuela After Maduro’s Ouster

President Donald Trump’s bold assertion that the United States will “run” Venezuela following Nicolás Maduro’s arrest has raised significant concerns among lawmakers and former diplomats about the administration’s post-Maduro planning. The contradictory messaging from top officials suggests potential strategic uncertainty at a critical moment for U.S. policy in Latin America.

In recent statements, Trump indicated direct American control over Venezuela’s governance, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio has attempted to walk back those comments, suggesting the U.S. has no intention of assuming day-to-day leadership. Rubio emphasized that existing sanctions on Venezuela’s oil sector and criminal organizations would serve as leverage with Maduro’s successors.

This apparent disconnect in messaging stands in stark contrast to previous U.S. military interventions that removed foreign leaders. Operations in Panama (1989) and Iraq (2003) followed extensive interagency planning between the State Department, National Security Council, Pentagon, and intelligence community – even when those interventions ultimately failed to achieve their stated objectives.

“It strikes me that we have no idea whatsoever as to what’s next,” said Dan Fried, a retired career diplomat who served under multiple administrations. “For good operational reasons, there were very few people who knew about the raid, but Trump’s remarks about running the country and Rubio’s uncomfortable walk back suggests that even within that small group of people, there is disagreement about how to proceed.”

Current U.S. officials, speaking anonymously, indicated that if planning existed for America to “run” Venezuela, it was confined to a small circle of Trump political allies. These sources were not aware of preparations for either military occupation or establishment of an interim civilian authority – typically key considerations when removing foreign governments.

The situation is further complicated by Venezuela’s size and historical relationship with the United States. Unlike Panama, which had long experience as a de facto American territory, Venezuela is substantially larger in population and territory, with decades of anti-American sentiment.

Rich Goldberg, a former White House advisor now at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, offers a different interpretation of the administration’s approach. “The president speaks in big headlines and euphemisms,” he said, adding that while Rubio won’t become “the superintendent of schools,” he believes “effectively, the U.S. will be calling the shots.”

Trump’s intervention strategy has raised eyebrows among his traditional “America First” supporters, many of whom backed his platform of reducing foreign entanglements. Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky voiced concerns on social media: “Wake up MAGA. VENEZUELA is not about drugs; it’s about OIL and REGIME CHANGE. This is not what we voted for.”

Senator Rand Paul, another Kentucky Republican known for skepticism of military interventions, cautioned that “time will tell if regime change in Venezuela is successful without significant monetary or human cost.”

Further complicating matters, Trump has seemingly dismissed opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, whose party is widely believed to have won Venezuela’s 2024 elections – results Maduro refused to accept. Instead, the president suggested he would accept Maduro’s deputy Delcy Rodríguez remaining in power if she cooperates with American interests.

Venezuela’s vast oil reserves – the largest proven reserves in the world – add significant economic stakes to the intervention. The country’s petroleum industry has collapsed under Maduro’s leadership and U.S. sanctions, but represents enormous potential wealth should production recover under a new government.

As Trump simultaneously prepares to lead an unformed “Board of Peace” to oversee postwar Gaza, questions intensify about American capacity to manage multiple international interventions. The costly experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan serve as sobering reminders that even extensive planning cannot guarantee successful outcomes in complex foreign policy endeavors.

The Venezuela situation continues to develop as international observers watch closely for clearer signals of America’s ultimate intentions and strategy for the oil-rich South American nation.