On January 3, 2026, the United States conducted a “large-scale strike” against Venezuela, capturing President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. U.S. President Donald Trump stated the following day that “the U.S. would run Venezuela” and seize some of the country’s oil wealth “in the form of reimbursement for the damages caused by that country,” according to a press interview (NPR).
This is the second time in 23 years that the U.S. has deposed the authoritarian leader of an oil-rich nation. While some argue the removal of such a corrupt leader was a necessary step to improve a growing Latin-American humanitarian crisis, others blame President Trump for pursuing oil wealth and unjust business opportunities. This is not the first time such allegations have been made.
America has previously been an “international interventionist” to maintain economic stability and power dynamics throughout the world’s various countries. As a nation with an extremely strong military, a successful economy, and the intention to maintain democracy, intervention has generally been justified. In a study of Latin America between 1898 and 1994, for example, historian John Coatsworth counts 41 cases of “successful” US-led regime change, for an average rate of one government overthrow by the United States every 28 months for a century. Yet, the recent regime overthrow in Venezuela begs the question: since when has America cared so much about oil? Critics argue that the country is no longer defeating authoritarian leaders to uphold democracy, especially since President Trump plainly promised to “drill, baby, drill,” until the U.S achieves world “energy dominance.”
Oil wasn’t always a priority in global trade. Coal was previously the market source of fuel and dominated local industries. However, following World War II, the United States leveraged cheap Middle Eastern oil to rebuild Europe. The transition from coal (run by the British Empire) to American oil coincided with Europe’s global power and stature weakening as the U.S. became a leading capitalist strength. Thus, America focused on global oil control and intervention. In 1953, for example, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran nationalized the oil industry — one previously controlled by British-owned BP Energy. The U.S. then took initiative and removed Mossadegh to protect Western fuel interests.
Further, in 1973, Arab members of an Iranian oil monopoly imposed a large embargo on oil for the United States. These executives were angered by the U.S.’s aid to Israel and enacted consequences through production cuts. Gas prices skyrocketed within the United States, almost quadrupling towards the end of 1973. America responded simply by implementing a prominent military presence in the Middle East. This shift of global dominance coincides with the same military ease of the recent strike on Venezuela: a country that has expressed it will bow to no one if its energy source is exploited.
This brings the present-day Venezuela conflict into focus. The United States has historically negotiated with a policy of “gunboat diplomacy” in Venezuela: executing objectives using the threat of military force. Along with 10-year strong U.S.- imposed economic sanctions against the country, the conflict is neither new nor naive. Critics argue that poor control of this oil-based economy had led Venezuela into a long-term monetary crisis. In recent years, however, under President Nicolas Maduro, the country’s conflicts further escalated into a humanitarian and political crisis. Famine was extremely widespread, with over 40% of Venezuelans facing food insecurity, and 73.2% of the population was reported to be living in poverty (UNHCR). Junior Alexandra Lizarralde, whose family is from Venezuela, voiced her feelings on the removal of Maduro. “I think intervention was long overdue, although there are better ways to take action. This is the closest we’ve come to real change in a while.”
Although Trump’s main priorities seemed to be focused on economic benefit from oil reserves, U.S. intervention has brought a potential for positive social change. “It’s not shocking at all that Trump would use this as a way to get what he wants, although I think a lot of Venezuelans are able to find hope in the possibility of this opportunity of freedom,” Lizarralde adds. The removal of Maduro brings faith that Venezuelans can live without a corrupt regime, allowing for chances of economic recovery and democracy.
Overall, U.S. foreign affairs have been a confusing entanglement of national security and international interests. Mrs. Lansell, an AP and IB history teacher here at B-CC, voiced her perspective on the government’s historical agenda. “I think US foreign policy often combines the promotion of democracy with US economic interests,” she stated. Whether or not oil is a main priority, the U.S. has a history of getting involved abroad, often yielding monetary gain as a result. Many are left pondering a single question: can a nation ever truly separate its pursuit of global democratic ideals from its own economic necessity?
