The question of whether former President Donald Trump’s efforts to orchestrate regime change in Venezuela have failed remains a topic of intense debate in international politics. With a focus on U.S. foreign policy toward the South American nation. The potential intensification of anti-American sentiment in Venezuela following recent military actions, the spillover of such sentiments into neighboring countries like Colombia and Brazil, and the economic barriers facing American companies seeking to operate in Venezuela.
U.S.-Venezuela Relations and Trump’s Initial Approach
Venezuela’s political crisis has roots stretching back over a decade, marked by economic collapse, hyperinflation, and allegations of authoritarian governance under President Nicolás Maduro. Maduro assumed power in 2013 following the death of Hugo Chávez and has faced widespread criticism for consolidating control through disputed elections and suppressing opposition.
During his first term from 2017 to 2021, Trump adopted a hardline stance against Maduro’s regime. This included imposing stringent economic sanctions aimed at crippling Venezuela’s oil-dependent economy, which accounts for the majority of its export revenue. The U.S. recognized opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the interim president in 2019, a move supported by dozens of countries but ultimately ineffective in dislodging Maduro. These measures were part of a broader strategy to pressure the regime into collapse or transition, often described as an attempt at regime change without direct military intervention. Sanctions targeted key figures, state-owned enterprises like PDVSA (Venezuela’s national oil company), and financial transactions, leading to a sharp decline in oil production from around 3.5 million barrels per day in the late 1990s to under 1 million by the mid-2020s.
Despite these efforts, Maduro maintained power through alliances with military leaders, support from countries like Russia, China, and Iran, and internal repression. The 2024 Venezuelan presidential election, widely disputed internationally, saw Maduro claim victory amid allegations of fraud, further entrenching his position until recent events.
Assessing the Failure of Trump’s Original Regime Change Efforts
Trump’s initial attempt at regime change, relying on sanctions and diplomatic isolation, can be viewed as a failure in achieving its primary goal: removing Maduro from power. By the end of Trump’s first term in 2021, Maduro remained firmly in control, and Guaidó’s influence waned significantly. Subsequent administrations, including under President Joe Biden, eased some sanctions temporarily in exchange for promises of fair elections, but these concessions did not lead to meaningful political change. For instance, limited licenses were granted to companies like Chevron to resume operations, but broader regime transition stalled.
Critics argue that this approach exemplified the limitations of “regime change on the cheap,” where economic pressure alone failed to overcome Maduro’s resilience. It led to humanitarian suffering, with millions of Venezuelans fleeing the country, but did not produce the desired political outcome. Proponents of restraint in U.S. foreign policy point to this as a case where non-military interventions prolonged instability without resolution, echoing failures in other regions. By 2025, Maduro’s regime was still intact, highlighting the strategy’s shortcomings.
However, the landscape shifted dramatically in early 2026 following Trump’s return to office. U.S. military strikes on January 3, 2026, targeted Venezuelan infrastructure, leading to Maduro’s capture and removal from power. This action, justified by the U.S. as combating drug trafficking and terrorism, marked a escalation from sanctions to direct intervention. While it achieved the immediate objective of ousting Maduro, questions linger about long-term success. Maduro’s top allies reportedly still hold influence, and the country faces uncertainty, potentially becoming a “powder keg” of instability. Thus, while the original non-military attempt failed, the recent forceful approach has partially succeeded but risks broader geopolitical fallout.
Has the Attack Further Intensified Anti-American Sentiment in Venezuela?
Recent U.S. military actions have undeniably heightened anti-American sentiment within Venezuela. The strikes and Maduro’s capture have been portrayed by regime supporters as an imperialistic violation of sovereignty, fueling rallies and protests against U.S. interference. Historically, anti-U.S. rhetoric has been a cornerstone of Chavismo, the political ideology underpinning Maduro’s rule, which frames Washington as an aggressor seeking control over Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.
The January 2026 events have amplified this narrative. Reports indicate widespread alarm and resentment among Venezuelans, with many viewing the intervention as a unilateral overreach that disregards international norms. This sentiment is compounded by the humanitarian crisis exacerbated by years of sanctions, which many blame on U.S. policies. Polls and public discourse suggest that while some opposition groups welcomed Maduro’s removal, a significant portion of the population sees the U.S. as an occupier rather than a liberator, potentially leading to increased support for anti-U.S. factions. The operation has also reshaped perceptions, with fears of prolonged U.S. involvement intensifying nationalist backlash. In essence, the attack has not only removed Maduro but has also deepened divisions, making reconciliation and stable governance more challenging.
Are Anti-American Sentiments Also Rising in Other Countries, Including Colombia and Brazil?
The ripple effects of U.S. actions in Venezuela extend beyond its borders, contributing to rising anti-American sentiments in neighboring countries such as Colombia and Brazil. Latin America has a long history of wariness toward U.S. interventions, often evoking memories of past involvements in regime changes across the region.
In Colombia, which shares a porous border with Venezuela and has hosted millions of Venezuelan refugees, the response has been one of condemnation. Colombian leaders have rejected the U.S. strikes as an aggression against Latin American sovereignty, deploying armed forces to the border amid concerns over refugee influxes and regional instability. This has sparked public debates and protests, with anti-U.S. rhetoric gaining traction due to fears of spillover violence and economic disruptions.
Similarly, in Brazil, the government has joined joint statements with other nations denouncing the unilateral U.S. operations. Brazilian officials have expressed alarm over the precedent set by the intervention, viewing it as a threat to regional autonomy. Public opinion in Brazil, influenced by left-leaning politics in recent years, has shifted toward greater skepticism of U.S. motives, with analysts noting that the actions have “reshaped the psychological bottom line” for dealings with Washington. Across Latin America, including Chile, Mexico, and Uruguay, there is a chorus of rejection, amplifying anti-American narratives and potentially straining diplomatic ties. These developments indicate that U.S. policies toward Venezuela are fostering broader regional distrust, which could impact trade, migration, and security cooperation.
Has the US Move Made It Impossible for American Companies to Enter Venezuela?
The U.S. moves, particularly sanctions and the recent military intervention, have created a complex landscape for American companies eyeing entry into Venezuela. Historically, sanctions imposed since 2017 severely restricted U.S. business operations, prohibiting dealings with PDVSA and limiting access to Venezuela’s oil sector—the world’s largest proven reserves. By 2025, over 200 individuals and entities linked to Venezuela faced U.S. sanctions, effectively barring most American firms from investing or trading without special licenses. This led to a exodus of companies, with production plummeting and infrastructure deteriorating due to lack of foreign expertise and capital.
However, the January 2026 military action and Maduro’s ousting have introduced new dynamics. President Trump has signaled that U.S. oil companies will be invited to invest billions to revitalize Venezuela’s crude output, positioning the intervention as an opportunity for economic reconstruction under U.S. oversight. Shares of major U.S. energy firms surged following these announcements, reflecting market optimism about potential access to Venezuelan resources. The U.S. has stated intentions to “run” the country temporarily, which could involve easing or lifting sanctions for American entities to facilitate recovery.
Despite this, significant hurdles remain. Political instability post-intervention, including the influence of Maduro’s allies and potential insurgencies, poses risks to operations. Corruption and mismanagement have left the oil industry in disrepair, requiring massive investments amid uncertain legal frameworks. International condemnation could lead to secondary sanctions or boycotts affecting U.S. firms. While not impossible, entry remains fraught with challenges; the U.S. move has paradoxically opened doors through control but complicated them via global backlash and internal chaos. Companies must navigate compliance with evolving U.S. policies, potential lawsuits under international law, and reputational risks tied to operating in a contested environment.
A Mixed Legacy with Uncertain Outcomes
Trump’s attempts at regime change in Venezuela present a tale of initial failure through sanctions, followed by a bold military success in removing Maduro—but at the cost of heightened regional tensions. Anti-American sentiments have intensified not only in Venezuela but also in countries like Colombia and Brazil, potentially reshaping Latin American geopolitics. For American companies, the path to entry is now theoretically clearer under U.S. influence, yet practical barriers persist amid instability.
As events unfold in 2026, the true measure of success will depend on whether stable governance emerges or if the intervention leads to prolonged conflict. This situation underscores the complexities of U.S. foreign policy in pursuing regime change, balancing strategic interests with humanitarian and diplomatic consequences.
