On January 3, 2026, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was detained and removed from office following a military operation conducted by the United States. The operation was justified by the U.S. executive branch under its revised hemispheric security framework, which asserts the authority to act against governments deemed to pose a threat to regional stability, democratic governance, and international security. Maduro’s removal initiated a transitional phase in Venezuela, raising complex questions regarding constitutional legitimacy, governance authority, and the management of political and humanitarian obligations at both the domestic and regional levels.
The decision by the executive branch of the United States to deploy military forces into Venezuela for the purpose of detaining Nicolás Maduro should be analyzed within the framework of the revised U.S. National Security Strategy released by the White House in November 2025. In that document, the administration states that it will “assert and enforce a Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.” While the removal of an authoritarian leader is likely to be viewed positively by many observers, the more consequential issue concerns the political, institutional, and humanitarian trajectory Venezuela will face in the immediate aftermath.
From a normative perspective, the organization of internationally supervised elections would appear to be the logical next step. However, such a process presupposes a level of institutional capacity and political neutrality that Venezuela currently lacks. Maduro did not govern in isolation. His administration was sustained by a military leadership deeply embedded in illicit economic networks that flourished under conditions of opacity and impunity. The future role of this military apparatus, particularly its control over parallel markets and strategic infrastructure, remains unresolved.
Equally important is the status of community-level organizations modeled on Cuba’s neighborhood surveillance committees. These groups, many of which are armed and economically dependent on state patronage, have played a central role in social control and political enforcement. Their integration, demobilization, or dissolution presents a significant challenge for any transitional authority. In the absence of a functioning state, questions also arise regarding who will manage the distribution and logistics of essential goods such as food, medicine, and fuel during the interim period.
Once the initial political transition occurs, these structural issues will require immediate attention. Despite official rhetoric portraying Venezuela as insulated from external dynamics, the country has long been embedded in regional economic, migratory, and security systems. Consequently, developments in Venezuela will generate spillover effects, including domestic political implications within the United States. Given that Congress was not formally consulted prior to the intervention, questions remain regarding legislative oversight and whether the current Republican majority will seek to retroactively legitimize the executive action.
Regional implications are equally significant. Colombia, which shares an extensive and porous border with Venezuela, faces heightened exposure to instability. Relations between Bogotá and Washington have been strained, with President Gustavo Petro engaged in ongoing public disputes with President Trump. In addition, Petro’s inclusion on a U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) list associated with major drug trafficking figures further complicates bilateral coordination. Even under optimal diplomatic conditions, Colombia would be ill-equipped to absorb the consequences of large-scale displacement resulting from political turmoil or armed conflict in Venezuela.
Such a scenario could lead to the movement of hundreds of thousands, or potentially millions, of Venezuelans into neighboring countries, triggering a humanitarian emergency that would require substantial international coordination, financial resources, and logistical capacity.
The coming weeks will therefore be critical. Venezuela’s ability to reestablish political authority and administrative control will shape not only its internal recovery but also regional stability. Historical precedent is instructive in this regard. The United States has intervened more than forty times in the Americas, often with mixed or adverse long-term outcomes. Post-intervention reconstruction has proven complex and prolonged, as illustrated by cases such as Puerto Rico, where decades were required to address entrenched structural poverty.
From a U.S. domestic perspective, a successful transition toward democratic governance in Venezuela could present political and strategic advantages for the current U.S. administration, insofar as such outcomes might be invoked to inform policy narratives on immigration and to support efforts to reengage segments of the Hispanic electorate. However, any such political recalibration would face significant structural and perceptual constraints, rendering its effectiveness uncertain.
While the removal of Maduro marks a significant political rupture, the central question remains unresolved: what follows, and how does the formal articulation of a Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine reshape U.S. engagement and intervention norms across the region?
