.jpg)
The United States has returned to killing for oil, this time closer to home.
In the early hours of January 3rd, 2026, the United States invaded Venezuela’s capital city of Caracas, bombing several key military sites while simultaneously kidnapping Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro. Official reports from the Venezuelan government count 80 people killed during the operation, accounting for civilian and military personnel. Many South American countries, including Brazil, Colombia, and Cuba, condemned the US invasion, describing it as a significant threat to regional stability and international law. A brief history of Venezuela’s oil industry and American imperialism helps to contextualise this evolving moment and helps anticipate future developments.
Venezuela’s Oil Industry
While initial discourse across social media and political spheres has justified the January 3rd invasion in terms of liberation for Venezuela from the authoritarian rule of Maduro, the Trump Administration has made it increasingly clear that the main objective is control over Venezuela’s oil. The South American country has the largest oil reserves in the world, with a 2023 report estimating it sits upon roughly 303 billion barrels of crude oil—roughly one-fifth of the world’s total reserves.
Since the formalisation of Venezuela’s oil industry in the 1920s, oil has played a central role in shaping politics and economic policy. Given the variability of the coveted resource on the global market, shifts in demand have directly shaped Venezuela's development, as money has inconsistently flowed into the country. Recent periods of food shortages in Venezuela illustrate the reality of relying on oil profits to fund food imports, for example. A fundamental gripe that the US has with Venezuela is rooted in the nationalisation of the oil industry and the effects of such on American economic interests. Venezuela nationalised its oil industry in 1976, with more definitive state control coming in 1998 under the leadership of Hugo Chavez. Several American companies—some of which were drilling in Venezuela as early as the 1910s—had their assets seized by the government during the nationalisation process.
During the press conference, President Trump touched on this shared history, opining that, “Venezuela unilaterally seized and sold American oil, American assets, and American platforms costing us billions and billions of dollars.” While Trump’s claims can be chalked up to just political doublespeak in his signature fashion, his mindset of ownership speaks to a larger American tradition.
American Economic Imperialism
The last time the United States formally engaged in a large-scale operation in Latin America was in 1989 during Operation Just Cause, in which US forces invaded Panama to depose General Manuel Noriega, labelled as a serious threat to democracy and peace. Of course, Noriega had served as a longtime CIA informant since the 1960s, helping the Americans obtain intelligence on communist Cuba and fight the leftist Sandinista movement in Nicaragua—while simultaneously working with cartels in Colombia to ship drugs into the United States. Several US presidents tolerated his drug activities. It was only when Noriega stopped aligning with American interests that his drug smuggling became a red flag and, subsequently, a justification for foreign invasion.
If Operation Just Cause offers any lesson, it is that the United States is a terrible neighbour, geopolitically speaking. According to The Harvard Review of Latin America, the United States directly or indirectly intervened in Latin American countries a dizzying 41 times between 1898 and 1994—that averages out to one intervention every 28 months. This spans from more visible actions, like the “Banana Wars” fought to protect American companies, to more covert operations, such as the CIA support of the cocaine-smuggling Contras in the 1980s.
The Spanish empire began to lose control of its American colonies in the early 1820s, following a series of struggles for independence, like the Mexican War of Independence and Simón Bolívar’s campaigns; this resulted in a significant power vacuum throughout North and South America. Seeking to secure economic and territorial dominance, the United States issued the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, a foreign policy position that established any intervention into the Americas from foreign powers is a potentially hostile act directly against the United States. This document has served as the foundation of U.S. foreign policy logic in the Americas for the past two centuries, as the United States evolved from a young country to the world's strongest military force. While the doctrine has been reinterpreted several times since its beginning, its fundamental message has remained the same: Latin America is and always will be the “backyard” of the United States, and will serve as the “testing ground” when needed. It is by this logic that the United States has assumed hemispheric dominance, protecting its economic interests with force.
For many observers, the January 3rd invasion marks a significant shift from previous American imperialist behaviour. The United States’ model of imperialism has long been justified by a well-crafted veil of propaganda; for example, the 1954 US-backed coup of Guatemala, right in the thick of the Cold War, was sold to Americans as a fight for “democracy” when in fact it was the CIA protecting the United Fruit Company’s dizzying annual profits from social-democratic reformative policy. This year, there appears to be little effort—or little need— to appeal to morals when invading a foreign country for economic benefit. Oil as an entitlement has secured a place in the American psyche, despite international laws on sovereignty and ownership.
This new shameless approach to intervention can be reasonably attributed to a matter of ego. In the January 3rd press conference, Trump stated, " The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we've superseded it by a lot, by a real lot. They now call it the 'Donroe Doctrine’.”
Looking forward
At the time of writing, it remains unclear as to how the Trump Administration intends to exert political control over the South American country. Questions directed towards the president and his administration offer very little in terms of clarity; while Trump repeatedly stated that the US will “run” the country on January 3rd, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio instead stated that the US will pressure Venezuelan leaders with a blockade. On January 11th, President Trump posted a mock Wikipedia page which proclaimed him as “President of Venezuela”, much to the concern of both Democrats and Republicans.
And despite large promises of economic gain, Trump’s ability to close the deal has yet to be proven. On January 9th, leading executives of the oil industry convened at the White House to discuss the future of Venezuela’s oil industry. President Trump, seeking a fantastical 100 billion dollars of private investment, petitioned the company leaders to either increase their current Venezuelan oil operations or return their operations to Venezuela. While the leaders acknowledged the country as an incredible opportunity, they voiced concerns about the lack of physical security, legal protection, and overall political stability— Exxon executive Darren Woods deemed it currently “un-investable”. A hesitant market, coupled with already low oil prices, could only prolong the US intrusion into Venezuela.
In the days and weeks following the invasion, several questions remain unanswered regarding the future of Venezuela and its sovereignty. As for the United States, the next move remains unknown.