Why did Trump remove Maduro from power?
The airstrikes on Caracas on January 3 highlighted the U.S. effort to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro through military force. An interview published in Vanity Fair in late December indicated that this issue had become a top priority for U.S. President Donald Trump. The interview garnered significant attention, especially when Trump’s chief of staff, Susie Wiles, stated that her boss wanted to destroy enough boats to compel Maduro to surrender—an American phrase meaning to beg for mercy. This comment referred to the months-long U.S. campaign to eliminate boats believed to be involved in Venezuelan drug trafficking.
Initially, Trump appeared focused on combating drug trafficking. He has been attempting to block drug routes into the United States for years and recently described fentanyl—one of his major targets over two terms—as a weapon of mass destruction. Maduro, who has been in power since 2013, has increasingly become a focal point of Trump’s campaign.
“The goal was to negotiate with Maduro on deportations, potentially secure oil concessions for the U.S., and establish a trade deal that would allow him to remain in power,” explained Paul Hare, a retired British diplomat and interim director of Boston University’s Center for Latin American Studies.
While overthrowing Maduro may seem daunting, it appears more achievable for the Trump administration compared to the complex situations in Ukraine and Gaza. Removing Maduro aligns with the Trump administration’s second national security strategy, which again focuses on what Washington views as its sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere, including the Americas and, on its periphery, Western Europe.
Jesus Renzolo, a Latin American policy analyst at the German Institute for World and Regional Studies, noted that Marco Rubio, Trump’s Secretary of State and a hard-liner against the Maduro government, views this situation as an opportunity to increase pressure on Cuba.
A recent account from Deutsche Welle underscores not only the shift in U.S. policy toward Venezuela but also the transformation in decision-making within Trump’s second administration. In this context, Venezuela is not seen as a complex geopolitical issue but rather as a chance for a swift resolution and potential political advantage.
In contrast to the multifaceted actors, complicated security dynamics, and global consequences present in Gaza and Ukraine, Venezuela is perceived by the White House as an isolated, sanctioned country lacking serious international support. This view makes it an appealing target for demonstrating U.S. power.
Moreover, the confrontation has taken on a personal aspect for Trump. American analysts now depict Maduro not merely as an illegitimate dictator, but as a symbol of the “unresolved failures” of Trump’s first term—an issue that could now be resolved in his favor.
In this context, democracy and human rights serve more as tools for legitimization rather than as ends in themselves. Support for the opposition, Machado’s Nobel Prize, and anti-dictatorship literature all contribute to a broader project: the reconstruction of Trump’s image as a president who addresses “unresolved issues” one by one.