The “Donroe” Doctrine

The recent attack carried out by the United States of America (USA) on Venezuela on January 3, 2026, which resulted in Maduro's removal from the presidency, had already been signaled by Washington's recurring pressure and clear dissatisfaction with his government.

The unilateral and hostile stance of the United States toward Venezuela was evident in its constant discourse of delegitimization. The US government publicly contested the results of the Venezuelan presidential elections, refused to recognize Nicolás Maduro as the legitimate president—even stating that he is “an illegitimate ruler who brutalizes his people”—and demanded that new elections be called.

In the same vein, Trump launched a criminalizing narrative, accusing Maduro of alliances with drug cartels and blaming him for sending tons of cocaine, fentanyl, and other narcotics to the United States. The US president intensified his position by defining fentanyl as a “weapon of mass destruction,” thus framing the fight against trafficking not only as a public health emergency but as a matter of national security.

In addition, there were direct military actions against Venezuelan vessels and their crews, justified as combating drug trafficking. The attack that took place on September 2 in the Caribbean Sea became emblematic because, after the first explosion of the vessel, the US ordered a second attack after learning that there were two survivors. The White House defended itself against the accusations by stating that “Admiral Bradley acted correctly within his authority and the law,” but these actions raised questions as to whether such a decision was really consistent with international norms.

Presented as an act of national defense and anti-trafficking, in the early hours of January 3, 2026, the US military operation, named Operation Absolute Resolve, resulted in the capture of Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores. Both were taken to New York and are in the custody of the US government until the end of legal proceedings on charges of leading an illegitimate government that supported drug cartels and promoted the trafficking of tons of illicit substances.

However, the operation was not peaceful and culminated in the bombing of the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, and the use of around 150 aircraft to suppress any attempt at defense. The objective was achieved without any US casualties, but it left a trail of fatalities in the Latin American country. Colombian President Gustavo Petro expressed his dissatisfaction with Donald Trump's behavior: “By bombing [Venezuela], they murdered a Colombian mother [...] Under your internationally illegal orders, they murdered an innocent Colombian mother, a Caribbean woman, full of dreams.”

The trial of Maduro and his wife began on January 5 and was based on a 25-page indictment formalizing allegations of drug trafficking, arms trafficking, and narco-terrorism, which had been released the day after the operation, on January 4, by the U.S. criminal justice system. During the first hearing in New York Court, both claimed to be innocent and to be detained as prisoners of war, but the argument was rejected by the court and they face the possibility of life imprisonment.

While the legal process continues in New York, the world is divided in its opinion regarding the drastic measures taken by the US government. The legality of the operation has been questioned by most Latin American countries, as well as by the UN Security Council itself, where several countries, including US allies, have stated that the action violates international law and the sovereignty of the Venezuelan state. “No state should threaten or use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state,” condemned the spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

International law experts, such as Matthew C. Waxman of the CFR, argue that the action violates the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against another state without the authorization of the Council or in self-defense—an argument that Washington has failed to satisfy. On the other hand, there are statements from supporters such as Argentine President Javier Milei, who said that the fall of Maduro's government was “excellent news for the free world.”

The popular reaction, meanwhile, despite being divided, converges on fear and uncertainty about what the future holds. The humanitarian crisis that ravaged the country forced thousands of citizens to resort to migration, but Donald Trump's declaration that the country is now under US tutelage until it is ready for democratic transition casts doubt on whether the humanitarian situation will improve. Uncertainty exists because there is an explicit economic objective behind the action: US oil reserves. Trump has made his intentions clear and has already announced that the US will take Venezuelan oil.

Beyond its immediate economic objectives, Operation Absolute Resolve should be understood as part of a broader movement toward a strategic reorientation of US foreign policy. The military action in Venezuela is a concrete example of the new US National Security Strategy under the Donald Trump administration, released by the White House on December 5, 2025.

The document consolidates “America First” as the guiding principle of U.S. foreign and security policy, redefining geographic priorities and shifting the focus of U.S. geopolitical interests to the Western Hemisphere, particularly Latin America and the Caribbean. In this context, the region is no longer treated as a secondary space and is now conceived as an indispensable strategic area for security, economic prosperity, and the projection of American influence.

This is not the first time that a US policy has aimed to rebuild ties with Latin America and the Caribbean. In a still predominantly colonial context, in 1823, US President James Monroe established the Monroe Doctrine so that European powers would respect the United States' sphere of influence in the region, a foreign policy often referred to as “America for Americans.”

In the current context, however, its target has shifted: containment is no longer directed at Europe, but at the alleged growing involvement of countries such as China and Russia in strategic sectors in Latin America, including energy, infrastructure, technology, and military cooperation.

According to the National Security Strategy, “after years of neglect, the United States will reaffirm and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American prominence in the Western Hemisphere and protect our homeland and our access to key regions throughout the region.” According to the document, hegemony is the very condition for keeping the United States safe and prosperous. This would be done by applying the Trump Effect to the Monroe Doctrine, based on two central strategies: enlist and expand.

Nicolás Maduro's government has been marked by an ideological alignment with rival powers of the United States, such as China and Russia. In addition, the accusations that the US government has formally brought before the New York Court are consistent with the warnings outlined in the document, such as the containment of migratory flows, drug trafficking, and transnational criminal networks. One of the means identified for this purpose was security partnerships, implemented with an increased naval presence in the Caribbean, creating an environment of continuous pressure on Venezuela even before the January 3 attack.

One of the policies for expansion that the United States seeks in Latin America is the development of strategic resources. As the largest holder of oil reserves in the world, Venezuela occupies a central position in US strategy, since Venezuelan oil is seen by the Trump administration as an underutilized strategic asset vulnerable to the influence of extra-regional powers. The capture of the Venezuelan state paves the way for the reorganization of the energy sector under US supervision, aligning exploration, commercialization, and infrastructure with US interests.

Shortly after the operation, on January 7, Energy Secretary Chris Wright stated that Washington will oversee the sale of Venezuelan oil “indefinitely,” indicating that strategic interests go beyond democratic rhetoric. Still, there is concern among investors in companies such as ExxonMobil, which has stated that Venezuela is a country “that cannot be invested in” under current conditions. However, the US president is willing to offer support in the sector, although he has not detailed how, and has stated that around 30 million barrels have already been sent to the US, thus making clear his interest in the oil reserves present on the Venezuelan border.

The Trump effect on the Monroe Doctrine, despite having the same rhetoric of excluding extra-regional powers and preserving the US sphere of influence in Latin America and the Caribbean, is closer to a logic of active hegemony, marked by a willingness to intervene, exert pressure, and condition the sovereignty of Latin American states. In this scenario, the question arises: is US intervention in Venezuela, in fact, in accordance with the Monroe Doctrine? The capture of state authorities, the threat of force and the explicit use of force, extraterritorial sanctions, and regime change strategies go beyond international law as conceived in the 20th century, in light of international institutions and multilateralism.

It is no coincidence that many international policy analysts refer to the Trump administration's new National Security Strategy as the “Donroe Doctrine,” promoting an aggressive and personalist update to what James Monroe proposed. This contributes to repositioning Latin America as a space vulnerable to external interference, where global geopolitical disputes override regional sovereignty.

Written by: Anna Wiendl and Evelin Mwanyika

Revision and translation by: Felipe Ribeiro Silva