President Donald Trump’s announcement that the United States will temporarily “rule” Venezuela following the conquest of Nicolás Maduro could prove to be a defining moment for the Western Hemisphere — either a disciplined effort to restore regional stability or the first chapter of an avoidable, open-ended entanglement.
At his press conference at Mar-a-Lago on Saturday, the president stated clearly: “We will govern the country until we can achieve a safe, decent and judicious transition.” He added that members of his national security team standing behind him would oversee the effort and would not rule out “boots on the ground.” Hours later, speaking aboard Air Force One, he sharpened the message even further: “We’re going to implement it and fix it.”
The strategic logic is easy to understand. Venezuela sits atop the world’s largest proven oil reserves and has become a hub for narcotics trafficking, corruption and malign outside influence. The December 2025 National Security Strategy explicitly embraces what it calls a “Trump corollary” of the Monroe Doctrine – promising to deny non-hemispheric competitors such as China, Russia and Iran control of strategically vital assets in America. In that context, Venezuela is not just a humanitarian tragedy; it is a test case.
RUBIO DEFENDS VENEZUELA OPERATION AFTER NBC QUESTIONS LACK OF CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL FOR CAPTURE OF MADURO
But this is exactly where experience should sober ambition.
The first problem: who is actually in charge?
Washington now faces a central contradiction. How does the United States ‘manage’ Venezuela when its constitutionally appointed vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, has already been sworn in as interim president at home after Maduro’s ouster?
JONATHAN TURLEY: MADURO OPERATION WAS LEGAL, BUT TRUMP MADE IT COMPLEX
Rodríguez’s claim to authority – backed by Venezuela’s Supreme Court and institutions loyal to the regime – is rejected by Washington as illegitimate. But in practice, ministries, security forces and regional authorities in Venezuela remain staffed by officials loyal to the old system. This means that the United States does not govern Venezuela in name, law or day-to-day administration – even though presidential rhetoric suggests otherwise.
This gap between declared authority and actual control is where post-conflict operations often fail.
Lessons written in blood: Iraq and the costs of improvisation
I learned that lesson firsthand. In 2002 and 2003, I was a member of then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s Military Analyst Group. We were given extensive access: briefings, trips, and candid conversations with officials planning both the invasion of Iraq and what would follow.
KAMALA HARRIS DECLARES THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S GOING OF THE MADURO OF VENEZUELA AS ‘UNLAWFUL AND ILLEGAL’
In early 2003, a number of us met with retired officers who outlined post-war governance plans. We asked basic but essential questions: Who would secure the ministries? How would local government function? How would electricity, water and fuel distribution be restored? The answers were often vague, more ambitious than operational.
After the invasion, I visited Baghdad and met with Coalition Provisional Authority officials led by Ambassador Paul Bremer. Once again the holes were clear. We had overthrown a regime, but not built the machines necessary to prevent the vacuum that followed.
One decision still resonates: the CPA’s order to disband Iraq’s security institutions, including the Ministry of Defense. RAND’s official history shows that the order was issued with little objection at higher levels, even though misunderstandings were masked by apparent consensus. The result was predictable: security collapsed, insurgency increased, and the American presence expanded far beyond its original scope.
FOX NEWS POLITICS NEWSLETTER: 3 KEY TAKES OF TRUMP’S PUSH TO PUT US OIL COMPANIES BACK IN VENEZUELA
Venezuela now risks a similar mistake. Capturing Maduro could prove to be the easy part. Governing what comes next is the hardest part – and the part that America has too often improvised.
Panama is the wrong analogy
Some have compared Venezuela today to Panama in 1989, when US forces captured Manuel Noriega and quickly installed Guillermo Endara as president. The comparison is tempting – and deeply misleading.
UN Ambassador Waltz defends US capture of Maduro before Security Council meeting
Panama was small, American troops were already present, and a recognized successor government was ready to take power. Venezuela, by contrast, has a population of 30 million, no widely accepted transitional authority, and deep-rooted military-criminal networks embedded throughout the state. What worked in Panama cannot simply be scaled up to Caracas.
‘Not the executive board’ – what that really means
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has since made it clear that the United States has no intention of ruling Venezuela on a “day-to-day basis.” That clarification is important, but it also raises its own questions. If Washington doesn’t lead ministries, courts, budgets, or police departments, what does that leadership look like?
MARCO RUBIO CASHES WITH GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS OVER VENEZUELA LEADERSHIP IN HEATED EXCHANGE
In real terms, it appears that the government is signaling a model of indirect control rather than occupation. The main lever is economic, especially oil.
Venezuela’s political and military elites survive thanks to access to oil revenues. Those who control export licenses, sanctions relief, access to insurance, and dollar-denominated transactions control the real center of gravity. Conditioning access to that revenue — while freezing assets abroad and coordinating sanctions enforcement with allies — gives Washington leverage over the top of the system without ruling the country outright.
That approach amounts to influence without occupation: pressure without American administrators governing Caracas.
VENEZUELA STILL OBS US ENERGY COMPANIES BILLIONS IN DEBT AS TRUMP CALLS FOR NEW INVESTMENTS
A narco-state is not a one-man show
There is also a dangerous illusion at work: that removing Maduro will dismantle the regime.
Maduro found himself at the top of a narco-state and was indicted in US courts on charges of drug trafficking and narco-terrorism. But he did not act alone. His power rested on a network of generals, intelligence chiefs, judges, energy officials and cartel brokers who enriched themselves under the existing system. Many of those figures remain relevant today.
TRUMP’S MADURO TAKEDOWN RESETS THE WORLD CHESSBOARD AND CONFIRMS US POWER
It is unlikely that they will surrender quietly. Some will seek shelter; others will resist through bureaucratic sabotage, violence, or the manipulation of public fear. Without a credible transitional framework, anchored in Venezuelan civil society and backed by international legitimacy, the system Maduro has built may outlive him.
The questions that need to be answered – now
If the administration wants to prevent a repeat of Iraq, it must answer some questions quickly and publicly.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS ADVICE
What is the legal basis – and limit – of American authority? Who ensures immediate safety, and according to what rules? Which Venezuelan partners will be empowered to lead? Which economic plan serves Venezuelans first and foremost, and not just foreign interests? And how does this mission end?
Once the United States assumes responsibility for “steering” another country, it inherits responsibility not only for success, but also for failure.
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro addresses his supporters during a rally marking the anniversary of the 19th century Battle of Santa Ines in Caracas, Venezuela, on December 10, 2025. (Pedro Rances Mattey/Anadolu via Getty Images)
A narrow path ahead
The Trump administration can still make Venezuela a model instead of a warning. But this requires discipline: clearly defined objectives, credible Venezuelan partners, continuity in the security forces, transparent reconstruction linked to humanitarian aid and an exit strategy that is real – and not rhetorical.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Venezuela is not Iraq. But history has a tendency to repeat itself when preparation gives way to improvisation.
CLICK HERE TO ROBERT MAGINNIS
