Donald Trump still has no clear plan for Venezuela

WHAT IS AMERICA’S plan for Venezuela? Three days after Nicolás Maduro was whisked out of Caracas by American special forces, the Trump administration struggles to give a clear answer.

If the raid was about stopping drug-smuggling, how to explain Mr Trump’s pardon last month of Juan Orlando Hernández, the ex-president of Honduras jailed in America for narco-trafficking? If it was about regime change, why leave the Venezuelan regime in place—madurismo without Maduro? And if it was about restoring Venezuela’s democracy, why did Mr Trump shrug off the opposition leader, Maria Corina Machado, as “a very nice woman, but she doesn’t have the respect within the country”?

The best answer seems to be some combination of thirst for oil, quest for regional domination and a love of carrying a big stick and speaking aggressively, rather than softly, as Teddy Roosevelt once counselled. Talking to reporters on Air Force One a day after the raid on Caracas, Mr Trump threatened military action against, in turn: Colombia, Cuba, Iran, Mexico, Venezuela (again) and Greenland. Stephen Miller, Mr Trump’s deputy chief of staff, during an interview on CNN, summed up the new “Trump Doctrine” thus: “The United States is using its military to secure our interests unapologetically in our hemisphere. We’re a superpower, and under President Trump we’re going to conduct ourselves as a superpower. It is absurd that we would allow a nation in our own backyard to become the supplier of resources to our adversaries, but not to us.”

That sounds like a plan, of sorts. Administration officials briefed leading members of Congress behind closed doors for more than two hours on January 5th. Democrats complained that the administration still had no plan for running Venezuela. Republicans said it had one but did not spell it out.

The confusion is added to by Messrs Trump and Rubio singing different tunes. Begin with the basic question of who is in charge of Venezuela. Is it Delcy Rodríguez, Mr Maduro’s vice-president who has been sworn in as interim president? Or a committee of senior American officials led by Marco Rubio, the secretary of state and national security adviser? Or is it, as Mr Trump put it in an interview to NBC, “Me”?

The president astonished many on January 3rd by claiming that America would run Venezuela, and put “boots on the ground” if necessary. The next day Mr Rubio backpedalled somewhat, explaining that America would not manage the country directly; it would instead set its “direction” from afar by exerting “leverage” by controlling the country’s oil exports. But then Mr Trump shot back: “We’re going to run everything.” The speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, has since told reporters not to expect troops on the ground.

Neither is there clarity over whether and when democracy might be restored in Venezuela. Mr Rubio has long argued that Mr Maduro was “illegitimate” because he had stolen the presidential election of 2024, by preventing Ms Machado from running and then forging the result to deny victory for her designated candidate, Edmundo González. But asked whether he was pushing for new elections and the release of political prisoners, Mr Trump replied: “Right now what we want to do is fix up the oil.”

Mr Trump’s indifference towards the Venezuelan opposition is baffling to many of his devotees. At a press conference by Republican congressional representatives in Florida, home to many exiled Venezuelans and the political engine-room of Mr Trump’s administration, speakers praised Mr Trump for creating a “new dawn” in the region. But asked why they would not support Ms Machado, they became indignant. “Do not put words in my mouth!” shouted one, Mario Díaz-Balart. “I am convinced…that the next democratically elected president of Venezuela is going to be María Corina Machado.”

Mr Trump’s suspicion of Ms Machado may stem from a combination of factors: a fear of chaos as happened in Iraq after America disbanded the army and ruling Ba’ath Party; the failure of the previous opposition leader, Juan Guaidó, to capitalise on Mr Trump’s support in his first administration; and resentment that Ms Machado, not Mr Trump, won the Nobel peace prize last year. A CIA report is said to have concluded that Ms Rodríguez or other regime figures were best placed to run the interim government.

Whatever the reason, “it’s a very big mistake,” says Elliott Abrams, Mr Trump’s former envoy to Venezuela, who argues that stability and investment in the oil sector can only be assured by a transition to democracy. For conventional hawkish Republicans, the hope is now that Mr Rubio, another son of Florida, can change Mr Trump’s mind. After all, last year he wrote a pen portrait hailing Ms Machado as the “Venezuelan Iron Lady”.

For now Republicans are mostly content to unite in admiration of the prowess of those who conducted the raid, killing at least 32 Cubans (presumably bodyguards) with no American losses. They rejoiced that a bad hombre had been seized and arraigned before an American court on January 5th. As for the future, they were prepared to trust Mr Trump.

Yet nervousness in Republican ranks is apparent. Having campaigned on a rejection of neo-conservatives’ wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they must now defend Mr Trump’s neo-imperial militarism in the western hemisphere. Democrats agree with MAGA types on the danger of “forever wars”. Mr Trump nevertheless thinks his base is secure. “MAGA loves what I’m doing. MAGA loves everything I do.”

Yet Mr Trump is more constrained than this suggests. Public opinion is soft. Roughly equal shares—between 30% and 40% of respondents each, depending on the poll—say they support or oppose the raid on Caracas, overwhelmingly along partisan lines. A large majority is worried that America could get drawn in too deeply, according to a survey for Reuters/IPSOS. That suggests that Americans will accept Mr Trump’s once-and-done raid in Venezuela, as they did his bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities in June, but could turn hostile if Venezuela begins to look like a quagmire or requires the deployment of ground troops.

Meanwhile, a separate poll for the Washington Post found that a vast majority of Republicans and Democrats alike thought Venezuelans, not Americans, should decide the country’s fate. That suggests that Mr Trump’s obsession with oil over democracy could become a liability. The new wave of repression in Venezuela, and the sight of ambassadors from China, Russia and Iran congratulating Ms Rodríguez on her elevation, is a warning that America does not “run everything”. ■