By successfully overthrowing the Venezuelan government, President Donald Trump believes he is flexing American strength — but, according to a right-leaning foreign policy expert, Trump may actually be “throwing it all away.”
“Unlike Russia and China, the United States has been blessed with advantageous geography and benevolent neighbors,” Daniel DePetris, a fellow at the right-leaning foreign policy think tank Defense Priorities and foreign affairs columnist at the Chicago Tribune, wrote for Reason Magazine. “Both have been sources of strength. The so-called Donroe Doctrine risks throwing it all away.”
This is not to say that DePetris is entirely unsatisfied with the outcome of Trump’s early 2026 invasion of Venezuela, which led to the toppling of its left-leaning dictator Nicolás Maduro. “Maduro is now in a Brooklyn prison cell awaiting trial for narcoterrorism and drug trafficking,” DePetris wrote. “His capture is the most visible demonstration of how Trump views the Western Hemisphere in his second term: as America's exclusive domain, where partners are rewarded with economic goodies, adversaries are coerced into submission, and the region's governments are expected to cater to Trump's demands without the slightest reservation.”
DePetris added that “in the short term, this strategy of coercion over cooperation and the pursuit of total dominance may seem to be working.” He even acknowledged other “tactical wins” in clamping down on Mexican cartel activity, moving Panama away from economically linking up with China, influencing Honduran internal politics and opening up the US to Venezuelan oil. Yet in the long term DePetris warned that Trump risks weakening America’s influence over the Western Hemisphere by achieving what he wished to avoid by pressuring Panama to withdraw from China’s Belt and Road infrastructure initiative — that is, “driving neighbors into China's arms.”
“Tactical victories don't necessarily equate to long-term benefits,” DePetris pointed out. “Over time, the states encompassing the Western Hemisphere may grow tired of hostile U.S. behavior and respond accordingly. While no individual country can do much on its own to retaliate against the United States, all of them together can have an effect by complicating U.S. policy goals in the region and weakening Washington's power there as well.”
Indeed, DePetris noted that Brazil and Canada have already started reaching out to other nations for economic and military alliances, thereby weakening America’s influence within influential North and South American countries. If they and other Western Hemispheric countries succeed in their efforts, others may follow their example.
“No country likes to be pushed around,” DePetris wrote. “And all countries, no matter how small, have a degree of agency. Small and middle powers that find themselves under pressure from a larger, stronger neighbor will often resort to hedging, one of the oldest geopolitical insurance policies on the books. That is, instead of sitting still and allowing themselves to be victimized, they will broaden relationships with rival powers, thus reducing their vulnerability to coercion and creating more flexibility for themselves. If that fails to change the dynamic, then balancing — partnering with another great power with a shared interest in cutting the hegemon down to size — is an option.”
DePetris is not the only conservative thinker to criticize Trump’s approach to the Western Hemisphere as simplistic. Writing for the conservative website The Bulwark on February 3, retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling worried that Trump lacks any "coherent" strategy for leading Venezuela after the overthrow of Maduro.
"One month ago, the United States launched a dramatic military operation in Caracas that ended with the capture of Nicolás Maduro and his wife," Hertling pointed out. "The military strike was fast, precise, and unmistakably American in its execution. Within hours, President Trump and various Cabinet officials stood before cameras to declare success, describe the removal of a criminal regime, and suggest the beginning of a new chapter for Venezuela."
Yet Hertling continued, "They implied the end of Venezuela's longstanding authoritarian leadership…. Tactically, it was executed with precision. But the immediate aftermath revealed a strategic uncertainty. Even in the (Trump) Administration's first press briefings, it was unclear who was in charge in Caracas, what authority Washington claimed to exercise, and what political end state the United States was pursuing. That ambiguity has not improved with time."
Speaking with this journalist for Salon Magazine in 2019, President Bill Clinton’s centrist second term Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (1997-2001) observed that Trump’s belligerent language and posturing toward Maduro lent credibility to Maduro’s accusations that Trump was attempting secret coups against him even in his first term.
“This is a little difficult to talk about, because I do think that some of the parts in terms of supporting what has happened are absolutely appropriate,” Albright told Salon at the time. “Not only by the United States but also in conjunction with some of the Latin American countries, the so-called Lima Group [Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Lucia], who are supportive of what is going on, as well as Canada.”
She then added, “I thought, however, that the introduction of using military force at that particular time is something that did give kind of an alibi or an excuse to Maduro to say that this is just intervention.”
From the left, Trump’s policies toward Latin America have long been fiercely critiqued. Writing for Common Dreams shortly after the Venezuelan invasion in January, journalist and policy consultant R. J. Eskow cited numerous polls and studies to demonstrate “most Americans don’t want us in Venezuela, either. In fact, most Americans are sick of our government’s seemingly endless addiction to foreign military adventurism. And yet, here we are.”
Eskow concluded, “This is a desperate resource grab by Trump and the other overseers of this dying economic system. It’s also an obvious and deliberate distraction from the many problems here in the United States. And we all know they’re doing it for their benefit, not ours. Like the saying goes: it’s all about the grift. But at what price for the rest of us?”
Speaking with this journalist for Salon during Trump’s first term in 2020, the left-leaning economist Dr. Richard D. Wolff — professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst — argued that throughout history American coup attempts have been linked to the economic self-interest of those in power.
“These are always multi-causal, multi-dimensional events,” Wolff told Salon at the time. “We can talk about the economics, but the economic aspects — and that’s what they are — are never alone, or are never the only significant factor. . . . Economics always contributes to the attempt to make a coup, whether or not it’s successful, and economics are always affected by a coup — again, whether it’s successful or not. It’s part of the story, but it’s never some kind of dominating part, at least not in my experience. . . . but it’s never absent either, and it wouldn’t be here in the United States.”
