In a dramatic escalation of U.S. foreign policy that has caught both domestic and international observers off guard, President Donald Trump has initiated what appears to be a regime change operation in Venezuela. The first signs of this shift emerged last week when U.S. naval vessels were spotted off the Venezuelan coast, accompanied by unusual diplomatic silence from Washington.
Sources at the Pentagon confirm that Operation New Horizon, as it’s being called internally, was authorized through a classified presidential directive signed on December 28th. “This represents a significant departure from established channels of foreign policy development,” said Amanda Terrell, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, in an exclusive interview.
The operation marks a stark return to interventionist policies many thought had been abandoned after the Iraq War. White House Communications Director Jason Miller defended the move yesterday, stating that “President Trump promised to be unpredictable on the world stage, and this decisive action against Maduro’s criminal regime fulfills that promise.”
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro responded with defiance during a televised address from Caracas. “The Yankee imperialists think they can simply decide who governs our sacred homeland,” Maduro declared while surrounded by military commanders. “Venezuela is not a colony, and we will resist as we have always done.”
Defense Secretary Tom Cotton has been unusually visible throughout the operation’s rollout. During yesterday’s press briefing, Cotton emphasized that “all options remain on the table” – language that has historically preceded American military action. Congressional leaders from both parties expressed shock at being informed of the operation only hours before naval deployments began.
“I was briefed at 11 PM the night before assets were in position,” said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Marco Rubio. “While I’ve consistently advocated for stronger action against the Maduro regime, the lack of consultation with Congress raises serious constitutional questions.”
Data from the Wilson Center shows U.S. interventions in Latin America have historically produced mixed results at best. Their analysis of 19 major U.S. actions in the region since 1945 indicates only 27% achieved stated objectives without significant unintended consequences. This track record has many regional experts concerned.
“Venezuela’s oil reserves – the largest proven reserves globally at approximately 303 billion barrels – create complex incentives that go beyond stated humanitarian concerns,” explains Dr. Elena Cardenas, director of the Latin American Studies Program at Georgetown University. “The timing, just as global oil prices have reached $115 per barrel, raises legitimate questions about motivations.”
The human cost in Venezuela cannot be overlooked amid geopolitical calculations. UN statistics show 7.1 million Venezuelans have fled the country since 2014, with 94% of those remaining living in poverty. The average Venezuelan has lost 24 pounds due to food shortages in recent years, according to public health surveys.
I’ve covered Latin American politics for nearly two decades, and this situation feels eerily reminiscent of patterns I witnessed in the early 2000s. During a reporting assignment in Caracas in 2019, I interviewed families surviving on one meal per day while government officials dined at exclusive restaurants. The humanitarian crisis is undeniable, yet historical patterns suggest military solutions rarely address underlying problems.
The operation has sparked international backlash. Russia’s Foreign Ministry issued a stern warning against “American adventurism,” while China called for an emergency UN Security Council meeting. European allies have been notably silent, with only UK Foreign Secretary James Cleverly offering cautious support for “democratic transitions.”
Oil markets reacted immediately, with crude prices jumping 8% on news of potential disruption to Venezuelan production. Goldman Sachs energy analysts project possible $130-per-barrel scenarios if conflict disrupts the country’s approximately 900,000 barrels of daily production.
Domestic political calculations appear central to the timing. The move comes as President Trump faces declining approval ratings (currently at 41%) and mounting criticism over his administration’s economic policies. “Foreign policy victories have historically provided presidents with polling bumps of 5-7 points,” notes political strategist Jennifer Lawson. “This operation appears designed to shift news cycles away from domestic challenges.”
Congressional opposition is forming rapidly. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez described the action as “imperialism masked as humanitarianism” during a press conference yesterday. Senator Bernie Sanders has announced plans to introduce legislation challenging the president’s war powers authorization.
I reached out to several current NSC officials who requested anonymity. “The decision-making process bypassed normal interagency review,” one official confided. “Many of us first learned about Operation New Horizon through news reports, not internal channels.”
The humanitarian stakes remain enormous. World Food Programme data indicates 9.3 million Venezuelans require food assistance. Any destabilization could worsen conditions for a population already suffering from medicine shortages and collapsed infrastructure.
As tensions escalate, regional stability hangs in the balance. Colombia and Brazil have strengthened border security while publicly calling for diplomatic solutions. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has offered to mediate talks between Washington and Caracas – an offer thus far ignored by both sides.
History suggests regime change operations rarely follow predicted trajectories. As someone who has witnessed the aftermath of such interventions firsthand, I worry about the Venezuelan people caught between an authoritarian government and unpredictable foreign intervention. The coming weeks will reveal whether this represents a new doctrine in American foreign policy or another painful lesson in the limits of military solutions to complex humanitarian crises.
