The Neo-Monroe Doctrine: Post-Maduro Venezuela and a New Age of American Interventionism

PHOTO: Adapted from Gage Skidmore on Wikimedia Commons and Jeso Carneiro on Flickr

Reports of low-flying aircraft and explosions over Caracas, Venezuela, hit Australian media in the early evening, and quickly, it was all over.

Caracas had lost electricity, specialised American forces “swooped into Caracas” by helicopter, culminating in the sudden news that Nicolás Maduro, the authoritarian President of Venezuela, was in American custody and on his way to New York. The United States had just unilaterally deposed a world leader and kidnapped him back to its own territory to be tried in a US Federal Court, leaving a stunned and shocked global community.

For many international commentators, leaders, and political figures, this intervention in Venezuela was not just shocking, but unprecedented. However, such American interventionism in Latin America has a history that precedes Trump, and is representative of a renewed age of superpower intervention in geopolitics. The real question is, what comes next?

The Monroe Doctrine

During the tumultuous period when independence movements spread across the American continent, following Napoleon’s capture of the Spanish King Charles IV, President James Monroe issued the Monroe Doctrine in a speech to Congress. The doctrine, built off the principle of manifest destiny, asserted the US’s right to hegemony in the Western Hemisphere.

Contained in the speech was a declaration that nations in the Western Hemisphere were “not to be considered as subjects for future colonisation by any European powers”, and that European intervention would be met with resistance from the US.

Although the core principle of maintaining US hegemony over Latin America remained, the ways in which the doctrine was interpreted changed. 

During the Essequibo dispute of 1895, the new Olney corollary to the doctrine asserted that the US had the right to settle disputes between any states in the Americas; in this case, a land dispute between Venezuela and British Guiana. 

Perhaps the most significant evolution of the doctrine occurred in 1904. The Roosevelt corollary proclaimed that the US maintained the right to recover debts from unstable Latin American countries through intervention and to restore order. Due to the US announcing that the present intervention occurred due to drug trafficking originating in Venezuela, it is clear that this corollary was invoked for the purpose of restoring order. 

Cold War Interventionism

No Latin American country has avoided US intervention, be it militarily, economically or electorally. The first instance of intervention in the region as a part of the Cold War occurred during the Colombian Violencia, a civil war from 1948—58, in which the US assisted the Colombian state in organising paramilitaries. This pattern was repeated across South America, where US government officials such as Dan Mitrione provided training to Uruguayan and Brazilian counter-insurgency officers, who established repression programs targeting broad sections of society: trade unionists, teachers and political organisers. 

Operation Condor

Emerging from the far-right military dictatorships of Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil in the early 1970s which were assisted by the US, Operation Condor was a transnational program between Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay, constructed under the influence of the US to increase intelligence sharing and streamline repression campaigns against left-wing militant groups such as the Tupamaros and the Monteneros, as well as large sections of civil society. 

Although Condor was officially established in 1975, transnational repression began earlier. The earliest cited example occurred in September 1974, when former Chilean general Carlos Prats was assassinated in Buenos Aires by car bomb. Even before the 1970s, Brazilian military officials provided training in torture to the to-be Condor partners. 

Ultimately, Condor served the purpose of countering leftist influence in the region often described as “America’s backyard”. Due to the majority of documents remaining classified, it is not known to what extent the US was involved in Condor, beyond providing rhetorical encouragement, training, and funding. 

The institutionalisation of transnational repression with the assistance of the US reinforced a hemispheric order in which Washington not only tolerated but enabled the violation of human rights and sovereignty. The core logic underlying the Monroe Doctrine — that the US is the supreme authority in the region, and it may act how it must to preserve its hegemony — explains why the US participated in Condor. 

The legacy of Operation Condor’s transnational repression helped build a regional memory of terror, supported by the US, which helped fuel the appeal of Chavismo, the ideology in which Maduro’s government operated; established by his predecessor, Hugo Chávez. 

The Venezuelan intervention does not find any direct analogue in this period; however, Operation Condor marks a significant moment in which US hegemony over South America was institutionalized outside of the US. An atmosphere of fear was created in the region, which helped lead to Maduro’s rise. He rhetorically invoked Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet as an example of a US-backed authoritarian who stood contrary to the vision of Chavismo.

PHOTO: Countries involved in Operation Condor, Sannita on Wikimedia Commons

Pineapple Face: A precedent for the modern day? 

Academics such as Adriana Marin have suggested that the US invasion of Panama is analogous to the present intervention in Venezuela, as both operations primarily aimed to depose a de facto ruler and were completed swiftly. 

A former US ally, Panamanian military dictator Manuel “Pineapple Face” Noriega was a caudillo, similar to Maduro. He de facto inherited power in Panama following the death of US-backed military dictator Omar Torrijos, despite US intelligence suggesting Noriega had partaken in drug trafficking by making deals with Pablo Escobar’s Medellín Cartel. Despite the evidence, the US continued to maintain Noriega as an ally, as Panama played a pivotal role in training Nicaraguan Contra rebels fighting the Soviet-backed Sandinista government. 

On December 20, 1989, President George Bush announced a US invasion of Panama, citing concerns over authoritarianism, drug trafficking and human rights abuses; themes recurring in the present, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio declaring in the months before the intervention that Venezuela was “flooding” the US with drugs. 

A key difference between the current intervention and the invasion of Panama is the logistics. The Panama operation featured a moderate US army presence on the ground, whereas the Venezuelan operation did not feature a ground invasion. Additionally, the US maintained a physical military presence on the ground in Panama, whereas Venezuela never hosted US military bases. Furthermore, Panama contained the Canal Zone from 1903 to 1979 — land around the Panama Canal and beyond, which was under direct control of the US.  

PHOTO: US officials arrest Panamanian military dictator Manuel Noriega, GetArchive

While there are clear differences between each interference, the underlying logic is the same. The US, in both cases, invoked the Monroe Doctrine to justify the interference. In Panama, the Roosevelt corollary was used to justify “restor[ing] order” to the region, and to maintain control over a key strategic asset —  the Canal. 

In Venezuela, the same doctrine was used explicitly to justify intervention and gain control — or as the recent National Security Strategy (NSS) states, “discourage” partnerships with other states in regard to economic resources. In this case, oil is the economic resource which the US seeks to gain control of, as US corporations have had restricted access to Venezuelan oil since 2005. 

An unclear path forward for Venezuela

The consequences for everyday Venezuelans remain unclear, and reactions have been mixed. On January 4, protests broke out on the streets of Caracas calling for Maduro’s release, while many Venezuelans abroad, especially in Chile and Peru, have been seen celebrating on the streets. 

Maduro’s regime was not one based purely on him as a figure, meaning that many of the structures of the regime do endure. Vice President Delcy Rodríguez has assumed the office of interim president, marking some endurance and continuity following Maduro’s departure. The positionality of Rodriguez is contested; while she has declared in her national address that Venezuela’s only true president was Maduro, and has previously been described by Maduro as a “tiger”, Trump has described her as a figure who is “willing to do what we think is necessary”. Her role, especially in comparison to opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, who has garnered significant support from the American Right, is yet to be seen. Despite a relatively clean operation by the US military, a power vacuum could result in contested authority.

PHOTO: Maria Corina Machado leading a march, Carlos Diaz on Wikimedia Commons

An end or a beginning

This seismic shift has already been felt across much of Latin America, with many being left to wonder if Trump still intends to actively partake, legally or otherwise, in the region’s politics.

Mexico was among the first to directly condemn US actions, with the Ministry of Foreign affairs reminding all that the US has acted in “clear violation of Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations”. Mexican-US relations have often been fraught, especially from recent clashes between Trump and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum over tariffs and illegal immigration. However, on the heels of Maduro’s kidnapping and Trump’s proclamation that “something’s going to have to be done with Mexico”, tensions have risen further, with protestors gathering outside the US Embassy, voicing strong opposition to US military actions. For Mexico, the consequences of the US intervention are manifesting as a general air of uncertainty and fear.

Yet Mexico is not alone in feeling threatened, with Trump directly warning President Gustavo Petro of Colombia to “watch his ass”. Said in a press conference following the Venezuelan intervention, Trump criticized the Colombian “cocaine mills” allegedly pumping drugs into the US, which has been a point of contention between the two states in recent months. The implications of this are clear: if Colombia does not follow Trump’s whims, Colombia will face similar treatment to Venezuela. With Colombia poised to accept a potentially massive influx of Venezuelan refugees in the following days – a direct consequence of the US military operation in Venezuela – Petro must decide if it is worth giving in to thinly-veiled threats or wait and see if Trump will really make good on his words.

To complicate matters, there are already fears of retaliation against Western targets from prominent rebel groups including the National Liberation Army (ELN), a cartel that largely controls the Colombian-Venezuelan border. If Petro chooses to ‘stand down’ in line with US orders, this potential retaliation would likely be felt across the country, destabilising and deteriorating an already tense atmosphere. In December 2025, the ELN ordered civilians to stay indoors while conducting military drills, and there is little doubt that similar actions will be undertaken should Petro make the ‘wrong choice’.

Brazil: the final target?

Commentators have been quick to discuss the implications of the intervention on Venezuela’s Hispanic counterparts; however, coverage regarding the implications on Brazil has been limited. 

Brazil boasts the largest economy in Latin America as well as the largest population in the region. Among other things, Brazil possesses a plethora of natural resources —  in particular, mineral resources, water resources and agricultural land. 

In October 2026, Brazil will hold a general election, in which the left-wing incumbent president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva will be running against Flávio Bolsonaro, the son of the former Trump-aligned far-right populist Jair Bolsonaro. Since 2023, Jair Bolsonaro has been imprisoned for his coup attempt following his 2022 electoral loss. 

In retaliation for the prosecution of Jair Bolsonaro, Trump has imposed severe tariffs on the South American nation, targeting major agricultural tariffs. Furthermore, the US has interfered with the nation’s judicial system, imposing harsh sanctions on Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes, for “serious human rights abuse”. It has been argued that the sanctions were imposed in retribution for de Moraes’s leading role in the prosecution of Bolsonaro. 

Even though Lula operates in a liberal-democratic framework, both Maduro and he have emerged from the same political context. The Pink Tide was a regional bloc of left-wing parties interacting with each other through the São Paulo Forum, which, among others, Lula, Chávez and Maduro participated in. Left-wing governments of the era aimed to create a more multipolar environment to subvert the US’s regional hegemony. 

While the movement began to decline in the mid‑2010s — as its most iconic leaders left power, with Chávez’s death, Uruguayan ex-guerilla turned beloved President Mujica’s retirement, and the end of Lula’s first presidency — Venezuela remained a stronghold of the Pink Tide. It is important to note, however, that most Pink Tide governments governed through democratic institutions, whereas Venezuela became increasingly authoritarian. In Brazil, despite Lula’s imprisonment on corruption charges, popular support for his political project persisted, particularly as public confidence in Jair Bolsonaro waned amid concerns over his own authoritarian tendencies and mismanagement of COVID-19.

With Lula’s re-election in 2022, Trump lost a key ally in the region. Agricultural export policy under Lula has not been favourable for the US as it had been under Bolsonaro, suggesting that the US applied tariffs to Brazilian exports to pressure Brazil into adopting a US-friendly policy.

With Maduro now fallen, only three left-wing governments seem set to stay in power in South America — Colombia under Petro, Brazil under Lula and Uruguay under President Yamandú Orsi. Chile, the only other state with a left-wing government on the continent, is set to swear in José Antonio Kast, the brother of a senior government official during the Pinochet regime and son of a Nazi party member as president. 

❗️⚠️🇨🇱 – José Antonio Kast, the right candidate from the Republican Party, has been elected as Chile's new president in the December 14, 2025, runoff election, defeating Jeannette Jara of the governing center-left coalition with approximately 58% of the vote.

After casting his… pic.twitter.com/NxfxGdAKZP

— 🔥🗞The Informant (@theinformant_x) December 14, 2025

As a result, Brazil will be relatively isolated ideologically from the rest of the continent. The pressure that Brazil’s continental neighbours will place on it will determine whether or not the state can withstand the Monroe Doctrine and challenge the US as a regional power. 

No intervention occurs in a vacuum

However impactful the consequences may be in Venezuela and the region, the greater effect is going to be on the new set of international norms. This was joked about by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, noting that if this was the way that the US would deal with dictators, “they know what to do next” (referencing Russian President Vladimir Putin). While meant in jest, it points to something very real: the further degradation of geopolitical norms. 

The United States military was not uniquely capable of this intervention now, but it would have been considered too controversial for a previous administration to undertake, and not worth the international backlash. Instead, the Trump administration proceeded despite significant condemnation from allies, possible consequences in the UN, or lack of a legal basis. The administration’s willingness to even openly discuss considerations such as Venezuela’s oil reserves, the like of which was vehemently denied by previous presidents including President George Bush Jr relating to Iraq, shows a certain lack of restraint that has become a characteristic of this second Trump term. 

International relations does not occur in a vacuum, and the norms that the United States sets today will be the actions others will feel emboldened to take tomorrow.

The Donroe Doctrine and Beyond

The removal of Nicolás Maduro is not an isolated rupture but rather just the latest manoeuvre in a 200-year-long history of US intervention in Latin America. 

From the Monroe Doctrine to the eponymous Donroe Doctrine, all the way from Arequipa to Zacatecas, no Latin American country has been untouched by the US. 

As the world faces an increasingly volatile period in which Washington seeks to assert its global hegemony, the extent to which Trump’s claimed “doctrine of American sovereignty” continues to “guard the American continents against…foreign infringement” shall be tested.