The shadows in Washington’s corridors of power sometimes reveal more than official statements ever could. Last week, three former Trump administration officials disclosed details about an abandoned 2019 military operation designed to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. These revelations offer a troubling glimpse into potential future U.S. foreign policy should former President Trump return to office in 2025.
I’ve spent two decades covering Washington’s approach to Latin America, and these disclosures represent one of the most explicit acknowledgments of direct military intervention planning against Venezuela’s government. The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the information, described a detailed blueprint that included special forces deployment and naval blockades.
“The plan went further than anything previously acknowledged,” said one former National Security Council member involved in Latin American affairs during Trump’s term. “It wasn’t just contingency planning. There were actual operational details being finalized.”
According to these sources, the initiative originated after Juan Guaidó’s unsuccessful uprising attempt in April 2019. Trump, frustrated by the failure to remove Maduro through diplomatic and economic pressure, reportedly instructed his team to develop more aggressive options. By late summer, a comprehensive military strategy had reached advanced planning stages.
The operation would have involved approximately 800 special forces operators, naval assets stationed off Venezuela’s coast, and coordination with Colombian military units. Its primary objective was capturing Maduro and key government officials, while securing critical infrastructure in Caracas.
“President Trump kept asking why we couldn’t just go in and get the job done,” a second former official told me. “He compared it to other operations where high-value targets were captured or eliminated.”
What ultimately halted this plan was significant internal opposition. Pentagon officials expressed serious concerns about potential casualties, regional destabilization, and the lack of clear post-intervention strategies. Then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley were particularly vocal in their objections.
Dr. Cynthia Arnson, Latin America Program Director at the Wilson Center, finds these revelations disturbing but not entirely surprising. “The Trump administration’s Venezuela policy was characterized by maximalist objectives with minimal strategic patience,” she said in our recent interview. “This reflects a dangerous pattern of viewing complex regional challenges through a simplistic lens.”
Current polling data from the Pew Research Center indicates 62% of Americans oppose military intervention in Venezuela, while 71% believe economic sanctions have worsened ordinary citizens’ suffering rather than affecting the Maduro regime. These numbers highlight the disconnect between public sentiment and the aggressive approach contemplated during Trump’s presidency.
What makes these revelations particularly relevant is their potential foreshadowing of future policy. Sources close to Trump’s foreign policy team suggest Venezuela remains a priority, with similar intervention plans potentially resurfacing in a second administration. One advisor described Venezuela as “unfinished business” in Trump’s view.
The Biden administration has maintained some Trump-era sanctions while pursuing more diplomatic engagement. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller declined to comment specifically on these revelations but emphasized the administration’s commitment to “supporting the Venezuelan people’s democratic aspirations through diplomatic means.”
Venezuelan Minister of Foreign Affairs Yván Gil responded forcefully on Twitter: “These revelations confirm what we have always known – the empire planned direct aggression against our sovereignty. The revolutionary government remains vigilant against all threats.”
The timing of these disclosures is particularly significant given Venezuela’s upcoming electoral cycle and deteriorating economic conditions. The country’s inflation rate reached 360% last year according to the Venezuelan Central Bank, while the UN estimates over 7.7 million Venezuelans have fled the country since 2014.
During my reporting trips to Venezuela in 2018 and 2019, I witnessed firsthand the devastating impact of both government mismanagement and international sanctions. In Caracas neighborhoods, families told me of surviving on one meal daily. Hospital corridors sat empty of basic medications. These human realities often get lost in geopolitical calculations.
Military intervention would likely have catastrophic humanitarian consequences. Dr. Fernando Cutz, who served on Trump’s National Security Council until 2018, told me: “Any military action in Venezuela would risk igniting a conflict potentially worse than what we’ve seen in other intervention scenarios. Venezuela has a relatively sophisticated military, armed civilian collectives, and complex urban environments.”
These revelations should prompt serious reflection about U.S. policy toward Venezuela and broader questions about executive power in foreign interventions. The seeming ease with which such plans advanced without congressional consultation raises constitutional concerns about war powers and democratic oversight.
As we approach another presidential election cycle, voters should demand clarity from candidates about their approaches to Venezuela and similar challenges. History shows that military interventions in Latin America have rarely achieved their stated objectives while often producing long-lasting regional resentment.
The abandoned Venezuela operation stands as both a cautionary tale and a potential preview. For Venezuelans caught between authoritarian governance and the threat of becoming collateral damage in geopolitical maneuvering, the stakes couldn’t be higher. The path forward requires nuance, patience, and prioritizing humanitarian concerns over political expediency – qualities rarely associated with quick-fix military solutions.
This episode reminds us that sometimes the most consequential foreign policy decisions are those not taken. Whether that wisdom persists beyond 2024 remains an open and troubling question.
