Is the US on a War Footing with Venezuela?

Last updated 2 weeks ago ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

In October 2025, the long-simmering tensions between the United States and Venezuela escalated dramatically, pushing the two nations to the brink of open conflict.

The crisis reached a fever pitch with President Donald Trump’s rare public confirmation that he had authorized the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to conduct covert operations inside Venezuela. Trump’s rare public confirmation marked a sharp departure from the typical secrecy surrounding such activities, followed a series of lethal U.S. military strikes on alleged drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean Sea that, since early September, have killed at least 27 people.

The situation represents a deliberate and public “escalation ladder,” a calculated campaign of increasing psychological and military pressure. The sequence began with a naval buildup and strikes at sea, framed as a counternarcotics mission, which established a military presence and tested international reaction.

The administration then took a significant step up by publicly confirming covert CIA operations, signaling a direct focus on the Venezuelan state itself.

Most ominously, President Trump explicitly stated that his administration is now “looking at land” for potential future operations, directly raising the specter of a ground invasion. This phased approach is a classic coercive diplomacy tactic, designed to incrementally increase pressure to force a capitulation—such as Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro fleeing or being overthrown—while maintaining the option to escalate further.

The public nature of these announcements is a key part of the strategy, meant to be heard as much in Caracas as in Washington.

This has set the stage for a profound confrontation. On one side, the U.S. administration claims the right to act unilaterally against what it calls a “narco-terrorist” state threatening American security. On the other, the Venezuelan government decries an impending imperialist attack and rallies its forces for a potential war.

Caught between these two positions are a divided U.S. Congress, skeptical Americans, and an international community alarmed by the prospect of another conflict in the Western Hemisphere.

The White House Case for Action

The Trump administration has not merely threatened military action. It has developed a legal and national security framework intended to justify it. This case for action is built on three pillars: the designation of Venezuelan entities as a “narco-terrorist” threat, claims of a domestic security crisis driven by Venezuelan immigration, and a novel legal interpretation that seeks to authorize the use of military force while bypassing traditional congressional oversight.

This strategy is a case study in “lawfare,” where legal designations and interpretations are weaponized to achieve foreign policy objectives that would otherwise be constrained by domestic and international law.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, a constraint the administration appears determined to circumvent. Drawing on precedents from the “War on Terror,” which expanded executive power against non-state actors, the administration has re-labeled criminal groups as “terrorist organizations” and unilaterally declared an “armed conflict” with them.

By then asserting that the head of a sovereign state leads these groups, the administration extends this declared arm conflict to another country. This creates a legal feedback loop: the executive designates an enemy, declares a war against it, and then uses that declared armed conflicct to justify military actions, all without a congressional vote, posing a profound challenge to the separation of powers.

The “Narco-Terrorist” Threat

The administration’s argument rests on the re-framing of Venezuela from a problematic state to an active national security threat. This was achieved through a series of official designations and public accusations.

In early 2025, the administration designated Tren de Aragua, a powerful Venezuelan criminal gang, as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. It later applied the same label to the Cartel de los Soles, an alleged drug cartel that U.S. officials claim has deep ties to the Venezuelan leadership.

The designation did more than signal intent—it shifted the U.S. approach from a law enforcement issue to a counter-terrorism one. The administration has persistently and publicly alleged that President Nicolás Maduro is not just complicit in this activity but is the leader of a “vicious narco-terrorist” organization.

To underscore this point, the Justice Department in August 2025 doubled the reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest to $50 million.

This narrative culminated in the U.S. argument before the UN Security Council that the actions of these cartels constitute an “armed attack against the United States.” By invoking the language of self-defense under international law, the administration is laying the groundwork to justify military force as a necessary and legal response to protect American lives from the flow of illicit drugs.

The Immigration and Domestic Security Argument

The second pillar of the White House’s case connects the situation in Venezuela directly to the security of American communities.

In his public confirmation of the CIA operations, President Trump offered two primary reasons. The first was his unsubstantiated claim that the Maduro government has deliberately “emptied their prisons into the United States” and sent “people from mental institutions, insane asylums” across the border. The second reason was the flow of drugs from Venezuela.

Trump’s claims serve multiple political purposes. It is used to justify a hardline immigration stance, including the administration’s decision to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans who had fled the crisis in their home country. It also allows the administration to boast—against available evidence—that its aggressive posture has cut violent crime in American cities.

Foreign policy experts and even U.S. government agencies have successfully disputed these claims. There is insufficient evidence to support the claim that the Venezuelan government has systematically released prisoners to send them to the United States.

Furthermore, data from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration shows that Venezuela is not a significant source of the narcotics, particularly fentanyl, that are causing the most harm in the U.S. The vast majority of US-bound cocaine and fentanyl is trafficked through Mexico and other routes, not the Caribbean.

Constructing a Legal Pretext

The most significant component of the administration’s strategy is its construction of a legal framework to authorize war without congressional approval.

In early October 2025, the White House formally notified Congress that the United States is engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” with designated drug cartels. This declaration is a crucial legal step. It seeks to move U.S. actions out of the realm of law enforcement—which requires due process, arrests, and trials—and into the realm of armed conflict, where the laws of war apply.

Under this new framework, the administration has labeled suspected drug traffickers as “unlawful combatants.” This classification, used extensively during the “War on Terror,” is what the White House uses to justify its policy of conducting lethal military strikes on civilian vessels without attempting to intercept them or arrest the crew.

Defending this strategy, President Trump dismissed traditional interdiction efforts as ineffective, stating, “They have faster boats… but they’re not faster than missiles.”

This entire legal edifice is reportedly supported by a classified legal opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). This classified legal opinion is said to authorize these extrajudicial killings against an expansive and secret list of alleged cartels and traffickers, creating a legal justification for military action that has not been subjected to public debate or congressional oversight.

The Case Against Intervention

While the White House projects confidence in its hardline approach, a broad consensus of foreign policy experts, legal scholars, and human rights advocates warns that a U.S. military intervention in Venezuela would be a high-risk approach with potentially catastrophic consequences.

The arguments against war are rooted in significant strategic risks, the certainty of diplomatic and economic blowback, and the high probability of exacerbating an already dire humanitarian crisis.

Strategic and Military Risks

Foreign policy analysts warn that an invasion of Venezuela would be far from the “cakewalk” some proponents might imagine. The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates an invasion could require nearly 50,000 U.S. troops.

Such a force would face not only the Venezuelan military but also potentially up to 1.6 million members of the civilian Bolivarian Militia, raising the specter of a protracted and bloody guerrilla conflict.

Venezuela, while economically crippled, is not defenseless. Its military possesses capable, if degraded, defense systems, including U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets and advanced Russian S-300VM air defense systems. Overcoming these defenses would require a massive and costly air campaign that would constitute an undeniable act of war and risk significant U.S. casualties.

Beyond the initial conflict, the U.S. would face the “you break it, you own it” dilemma. An invasion would leave Washington responsible for occupying and rebuilding a failed state, a massive task that could intensify the suffering of the Venezuelan people, undermine the legitimacy of any new U.S.-backed government, and prove exceptionally expensive for American taxpayers for years to come.

Diplomatic Fallout

A unilateral U.S. invasion would be a significant diplomatic challenge, isolating the United States in its own hemisphere. Threats of war have already intensified regional skepticism of U.S. motives, reviving painful memories of “Yankee imperialism” and a long history of U.S. military interventions in Latin America.

Even regional governments that oppose the Maduro regime are deeply wary of U.S. military action, fearing the instability it would unleash.

Such an action would also be considered a flagrant violation of international law. The charters of both the United Nations and the Organization of American States (OAS)—treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory—explicitly prohibit the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in cases of self-defense or when authorized by the UN Security Council.

Geopolitically, an invasion would likely backfire. Washington’s aggressive posture has already encouraged U.S. adversaries Russia and China to rally to Maduro’s side, providing him with critical diplomatic and potentially material support. By acting as an aggressor, the U.S. risks pushing the entire region away from its influence and creating a strategic opening for its global competitors.

Economic Costs

The economic consequences of a conflict would hit American consumers and destabilize vulnerable economies. Venezuela sits on the world’s largest proven oil reserves. While its production has plummeted, a war would cause significant disruption to global energy markets.

Foreign policy experts at the Stimson Center estimate that a conflict could cause oil prices to spike by 10-20%, a shock that would directly harm American consumers at the gas pump and destabilize vulnerable economies around the world that depend on energy imports.

The direct costs of funding a major military campaign and a subsequent, long-term reconstruction effort would also be astronomical, adding a significant burden to the U.S. national debt.

The Human Toll

Perhaps the most compelling argument against intervention is that it would inflict immense suffering on the Venezuelan people. The country is already gripped by a severe humanitarian crisis, with the United Nations reporting in 2025 that 7.6 million people are in need of assistance.

An invasion would turn this crisis into a catastrophe, endangering the lives of countless civilians, destroying what remains of the country’s infrastructure, and increasing the profound insecurity they already face.

A conflict would also trigger a massive new wave of refugees. An estimated 7.7 million Venezuelans have already fled the country since 2014, creating the largest migration crisis in the Western Hemisphere. A war would undoubtedly send millions more fleeing for their lives, placing an overwhelming strain on neighboring countries like Colombia and Brazil and creating regional instability that would last for a generation.

Maduro’s Defiance

Faced with escalating U.S. pressure, the government of Nicolás Maduro has mounted a defiant response, combining nationalist rhetoric, military posturing, and a diplomatic counter-offensive.

While the U.S. campaign of “maximum pressure” is intended to weaken and isolate the regime, it may be having the opposite effect. The highly visible U.S. military buildup and bellicose rhetoric provide the perfect foil for an unpopular authoritarian regime, allowing Maduro to foster a “rally ’round the flag” effect.

He can now frame domestic opposition not as legitimate dissent but as collaboration with a foreign aggressor, justifying crackdowns on civil liberties. By mobilizing the military and militias against an external threat, he reinforces their loyalty and his control over the instruments of power, potentially strengthening his domestic position in the short term.

Rhetoric of Resistance

Maduro has deployed a powerful narrative of anti-imperialist resistance. In public addresses, he has consistently denounced what he calls “CIA-led coups” and “Yankee imperialism,” explicitly invoking the memory of historical U.S. interventions that resonate deeply across Latin America, such as the 1973 coup against Salvador Allende in Chile and the “disappeared” of Argentina’s military dictatorship.

“How long will the CIA continue to carry on with its coups? Latin America doesn’t want them, doesn’t need them and repudiates them,” Maduro declared in response to Trump’s statements.

Simultaneously, Maduro has made public appeals for peace and dialogue, often switching to English to deliver the message “Not war, yes peace.” By combining defiance with peace appeals, Maduro portrays himself to both domestic and international audiences as a nationalist leader defending his country’s sovereignty while also appearing as a reasonable actor seeking to avoid a conflict forced upon him by U.S. aggression.

Military and Domestic Posturing

To back up this rhetoric, the Maduro regime has engaged in highly visible military and domestic preparations. In response to the U.S. naval deployment, Venezuela launched its own defense exercises, mobilizing its armed forces and, according to government claims, millions of members of the civilian Bolivarian Militia.

These maneuvers are designed to project an image of a nation ready and willing to defend itself, serving as a deterrent against a potential attack.

In late September 2025, President Maduro signed a State of Emergency decree, granting the presidency expanded security powers in the event of external aggression. While the details remain undisclosed, such measures typically allow the government to suspend certain civil liberties, conduct arrests without warrants, and crack down on internal dissent under the guise of protecting national security.

This move effectively uses the external threat from the U.S. to justify tightening the regime’s grip on power at home.

Diplomatic Counter-Offensive

On the international stage, Venezuela has launched a diplomatic counter-offensive aimed at painting the U.S. as the aggressor. In October, the Venezuelan government requested an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, warning of an “impending aggression” and accusing the U.S. of using its counternarcotics mission as a pretext for “regime change.”

This diplomatic push has been accompanied by efforts to rally support from international allies. The crisis has allowed Venezuela to strengthen its ties with Russia and China, both of which have used the UN platform to provide crucial diplomatic support and condemn U.S. actions.

Regionally, Venezuela has leaned on the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA-TCP), a bloc of leftist governments including Cuba and Nicaragua, which issued a forceful declaration denouncing U.S. “imperialist policy.”

Battle in Washington

The Trump administration’s aggressive posture toward Venezuela has triggered a significant battle within Washington, revealing a profound disconnect between the executive branch’s actions and the will of both a substantial portion of Congress and the American public.

This domestic opposition has raised fundamental constitutional questions about the president’s authority to wage war and has created a high-risk political gamble for an administration contemplating a conflict that its own citizens do not support.

Any move to invade would not only be a foreign policy decision but an act in direct defiance of public opinion and congressional will, risking a major domestic political and constitutional crisis.

The War Powers Debate

The escalating military actions have sparked a constitutional showdown in the U.S. Senate over war powers. A bipartisan group of senators, led by Tim Kaine (D-VA), Rand Paul (R-KY), and Adam Schiff (D-CA), has introduced a War Powers Resolution aimed at explicitly blocking the president from engaging in unauthorized hostilities against Venezuela.

Senators argue the Constitution grants Congress, and only Congress, the sole power to declare war. They contend that the president cannot unilaterally initiate a conflict with another sovereign nation without first obtaining an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) from the legislative branch.

“Americans don’t want to send their sons and daughters into more wars—especially wars that carry a serious risk of significant destabilization and massive new waves of migration in our hemisphere,” said Senator Kaine.

This legislative push follows an earlier, narrowly defeated resolution that sought to limit the president’s authority to conduct the strikes in the Caribbean. That measure failed on a 48-51 vote, largely along party lines, but it demonstrated growing unease with the administration’s policy, as two Republican senators broke ranks to vote with the Democrats.

Compounding the constitutional debate is a deep frustration among lawmakers over the administration’s lack of transparency. Members of Congress from both parties have complained that the White House has failed to provide concrete evidence to justify the lethal boat strikes or to share the classified legal opinion it is using to authorize them.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, criticized the administration for sliding the U.S. “closer to outright conflict with no transparency, oversight or apparent guardrails.” Senator Kaine has described the lack of information as a “black hole.”

American Public Opinion

The push for war is deeply unpopular with the American public. A comprehensive YouGov poll conducted in September 2025 revealed clear and widespread opposition to military intervention.

The report indicates that 62% of Americans oppose a U.S. invasion of Venezuela, with only 16% in support. This opposition transcends partisan lines: 74% of Democrats, 63% of Independents, and a plurality of Republicans (48%) are against an invasion.

Similarly, a majority of Americans (53%) oppose the more limited goal of using military force specifically to overthrow President Maduro, while only 18% would support such an action. Even when asked about providing military support to a hypothetical Venezuelan uprising, more Americans oppose the idea (39%) than support it (32%).

This lack of public appetite for intervention is even evident in the community most directly affected by the crisis. A separate poll of voters in Miami-Dade County, Florida—home to the largest Venezuelan-American community in the United States—found that a plurality of residents (42% to 35%) oppose using the U.S. military to oust Maduro.

This finding undermines any potential political argument that an intervention would be welcomed by the Venezuelan diaspora.

International Reactions

The escalating U.S. military posture in the Caribbean has drawn sharp reactions from the international community, isolating Washington and creating a nearly unified front of opposition among key global and regional powers.

Instead of building a coalition to pressure the Maduro regime, the U.S. has found itself largely alone, defending its actions against accusations of illegal aggression.

The unilateral approach undermines America’s long-term strategic goals in Latin America. By pursuing a unilateral military path that evokes a history of interventionism, the U.S. is alienating regional partners, destroying trust, and creating a geopolitical opening for its global rivals, China and Russia, to expand their influence as defenders of national sovereignty.

The UN Security Council Showdown

The conflict came to a head in an emergency session of the UN Security Council in October 2025, requested by Venezuela to address what it called a threat to international peace. The meeting devolved into a tense showdown.

The U.S. representative defended the military strikes as a legitimate act of self-defense against “narco-terrorists” who are “flooding American streets with their product and killing Americans.”

This justification was met with fierce opposition from Russia and China. The Russian ambassador accused the United States of waging a “brazen campaign of political, military, and psychological pressure” with the “sole purpose of changing a regime objectionable to the United States” under “trumped-up pretexts.”

China’s representative similarly stated their opposition to “the use or threat of force in international relations and the interference of external forces in Venezuela’s internal affairs under any pretext.”

Crucially, the U.S. position found little support from other council members. UN officials and other nations on the council did not endorse the U.S. military actions, instead issuing broad calls for restraint, de-escalation, and adherence to the principles of international law and the UN Charter.

Latin America’s Unease

The reaction across Latin America has been one of widespread alarm. Key regional powers have forcefully condemned the U.S. military threats.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro, whose country has been a key U.S. partner, warned, “Honestly, I’m not much of a fan of the policies pursued by the current government of Venezuela… but I do know what can happen in Colombia… if missiles start falling over there.”

A top foreign policy adviser to Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva similarly warned of “the risk of an escalation” and reiterated that “the principle of nonintervention is fundamental.”

These statements reflect a deep-seated regional opposition to U.S. military intervention, regardless of political views on the Maduro regime.

Regional blocs have also weighed in. The ALBA-TCP alliance, which includes Cuba, Bolivia, and Nicaragua, issued a strong declaration condemning the U.S. “imperialist policy of harassment and destabilization.”

The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) has been more divided. The Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago has expressed support for U.S. operations, even as local fishers fear being caught in the crossfire. In contrast, other Caribbean nations have invoked the region’s long-standing declaration as a “Zone of Peace” and resisted U.S. pressure to host military assets.

This opposition is grounded in regional treaties. The Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS), which includes the United States as a member, explicitly commits all member states to refrain from the use of armed force against other members, except in cases of self-defense.

The Economic War

The current military standoff did not emerge overnight. It is the culmination of a years-long campaign of economic warfare waged by the United States against Venezuela. This campaign of sanctions, while intended to pressure the Maduro regime, has had a devastating impact on the country’s economy, directly contributed to a severe humanitarian crisis, and created a set of contradictory U.S. policies that both fuel and reject the resulting flow of migrants.

Understanding this economic context is crucial to grasping the full scope of the current crisis. The U.S. is pursuing two conflicting policy objectives simultaneously: applying “maximum pressure” through military threats and economic sanctions that exacerbate the humanitarian crisis and fuel migration, while also implementing harsh immigration policies to block the entry of the very people displaced by the crisis.

This is not a coherent strategy but a tension of two separate policy imperatives: an aggressive foreign policy goal of regime change and a hardline domestic policy goal of border control. The result is a cycle where U.S. actions contribute to a crisis, and then the U.S. punishes the victims of that crisis for seeking refuge.

A Decade of Sanctions

U.S. sanctions on Venezuela began under the Obama administration with targeted measures against individuals accused of human rights abuses and corruption. However, they were dramatically expanded under the first Trump administration into a “maximum pressure” campaign of broad sectoral sanctions targeting the lifelines of the Venezuelan economy: its oil, gold, and financial industries.

These measures effectively cut Venezuela off from U.S. financial markets, blocked the state oil company, PDVSA, from exporting to its primary market, and made it nearly impossible for the country to access international credit.

While Venezuela’s economic crisis—driven by years of corruption, mismanagement, and falling oil prices—predates the harshest U.S. sanctions, it is apparent that the sanctions have profoundly worsened the situation.

A 2020 report by the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) found that sanctions had directly cost the Venezuelan economy between $17 billion and $31 billion in lost revenue. The sanctions crippled the vital oil industry by making it much more difficult for PDVSA to access the credit and partners needed to maintain production, accelerating an already steep decline.

This policy has been inconsistently applied, with the Biden administration offering limited relief to incentivize fair elections, a move largely reversed by the second Trump administration, which has used the sanctions as a policy lever to extract concessions.

The Humanitarian Crisis

The economic collapse has fueled a humanitarian catastrophe. According to 2025 reports from UN humanitarian agencies, an estimated 7.6 million Venezuelans—roughly one in four people—are in need of humanitarian assistance. The population faces critical gaps in essential services, including healthcare, clean water, education, and food security.

This staggering need is being met with a severely underfunded international response. As of September 2025, the UN’s Humanitarian Response Plan for Venezuela had received only $80 million of its required $606.5 million, just 13% of the necessary funds.

This funding shortfall has forced aid agencies like the World Food Program to scale back or halt life-saving programs, leaving millions of vulnerable Venezuelans at risk.

U.S. sanctions have further complicated the delivery of aid. While they do not explicitly target food and medicine, the risk-averse nature of international banks has led to “overcompliance,” where financial institutions refuse to process legitimate transactions for humanitarian NGOs for fear of violating U.S. regulations.

This has resulted in closed bank accounts and frozen funds, creating significant obstacles for organizations trying to address the crisis on the ground.

U.S. Immigration Policy

The crisis has created one of the largest migrations in the world, yet U.S. policy has increasingly sought to close the door to those fleeing. The Trump administration has moved to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS), a program that had shielded hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans in the U.S. from deportation.

At the same time, it has negotiated with the Maduro government to resume deportation flights, sending people back to the very country the administration has labeled a threat to its own national security.

Reflecting the dire security situation, the U.S. State Department maintains a Level 4 “Do Not Travel” advisory for Venezuela—its highest warning level. The advisory warns American citizens of the extreme risks of wrongful detention, torture, kidnapping, and terrorism.

It explicitly states that the U.S. government suspended operations at its embassy in Caracas in 2019 and has “no ability to provide emergency services” to U.S. citizens in the country, urging any who remain to depart immediately.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.