Trump’s Military Intervention in Venezuela Serves Big Oil, Not the American People

This article contains a correction.

Days after abducting Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration is taking a victory lap, claiming a successful military action that toppled a dictator with, as the administration would tell it, little cost to the American people. In reality, it represents yet another reckless use of the U.S. military, this time with no clear end game for Venezuela or its people, who are left with another illegitimate leader. Far from cost-free, this brazen show of force placed American troops directly in harm’s way and continues to come at a cost to the American taxpayer. These actions provide no tangible benefit to the American people—at the gas pump or elsewhere—and the only clear objectives seem to be to benefit President Donald Trump’s corporate donors.

It’s estimated that the current extended deployments for the campaign, dubbed Operation Southern Spear, involve up to 15,000 troops and cost more than $600 million. The January 3 operation, which involved approximately 150 military aircraft, several naval vessels, and 200 elite special operations forces, drove up those costs further. At least 80 people were killed in Venezuela, including civilians. Yet despite the scale of the operation, the political reality inside Venezuela remains largely unchanged. Maduro’s removal did not dismantle the brutal regime he built; it merely shifted power to his vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, who continues to oversee the same repressive apparatus responsible for the political persecution and economic mismanagement that defined the Maduro government—only now at the behest of the Trump administration.

The Trump administration has justified much of its previous military activity in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific as necessary to combat drug trafficking.* It’s a premise with little basis in reality, belied by the administration’s recent pardoning of Honduran ex-President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was serving a 45-year sentence on drug trafficking charges. But Trump made it clear in his Saturday press conference that this military action is explicitly tied to oil extraction, effectively mobilizing the U.S. military to advance the interests of U.S. oil companies. In 2024, Trump pressed oil and gas executives to raise $1 billion for his campaign, promising that he would deliver on their policy priorities if reelected. The industry responded favorably, contributing at least $96 million directly to Trump’s campaign and super PACs, over $100 million to Trump allies and ads supporting policies championed by these allies, and more through undisclosed dark money channels, quickly making the oil and gas industry a top backer of the administration. Indeed, the industry as a whole has contributed at least $41 million to either the inaugural fund or Trump’s super PAC after the election. Now, the administration’s intervention in Venezuela is fulfilling Trump’s campaign pledge.

However, it is unclear whether many American oil companies actually view Venezuela as an attractive prospect: With prices hovering around $60 per barrel of oil, companies have been reluctant to make major new investments. Venezuela’s oil infrastructure will require billions of dollars to update in the medium term, and the political instability and potential security breakdowns that come from removing a head of state create a poor environment for long-term investments. That isn’t to say that companies are completely uninterested: Some U.S. oil companies are looking to collect billions of dollars from the country over decades-old seized oil assets. To sweeten the deal, Trump recently has floated the prospect of subsidizing companies for rebuilding infrastructure. Still, this tepid response from the industry only underscores the chaotic and reckless nature of the administration’s foreign policymaking, which has adopted an “act first, plan later” approach.

Meanwhile, U.S. forces remain deployed across the Caribbean, well-positioned to intervene and enforce control should Rodríguez prove to be a less compliant leader than expected or should Chevron—the only U.S. company currently present in Venezuela—or other major energy companies demand greater access to Venezuela’s oil reserves. This posture is not speculative; it reflects the administration’s stated policy. President Trump has repeatedly suggested that boots on the ground could be used to guarantee access to oil resources, with the current buildup of forces signaling that a “second wave” of military action is on standby. In essence, U.S. military power is being used as a de facto security force for the president’s corporate donors and their oil interests, leaving the American taxpayer to effectively subsidize a security force for Big Oil.

Following Venezuela, President Trump has doubled down on his rhetoric in suggesting similar actions across the Western Hemisphere. He has issued sharp warnings aimed at Colombia, Cuba, and Mexico, accusing these governments of drug trafficking, instability, and failure to control criminal networks. He openly suggested that military action against Colombia “sounds good,” claimed Cuba is nearing collapse without U.S. intervention, and warned that the United States “has to do something” about Mexico. He continues to propose annexing NATO ally Denmark’s autonomous territory of Greenland for “national security purposes.” The casual suggestion of expanded military actions casts a renewed threat of instability in a region that has historically been shaped by U.S. intervention, risking the influx of an immigration and humanitarian crisis on the border.

These actions make one thing unmistakably clear: The Trump administration is serious about asserting its dominance over the Western Hemisphere, explicitly invoking its so-called Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, as outlined in the recent National Security Strategy. American taxpayer-funded military operations are being used not to protect national security but to guarantee access to oil resources for major oil corporations, while Americans are left empty-handed. This behavior reveals a moral hazard on the part of the administration: From Iran to Nigeria to Venezuela, Trump and his closest advisers see military operations as a silver bullet to achieve their narrow interests, taking greater and greater risks with American service members in more and more complicated theaters.

The Trump administration owns the fallout from Maduro’s removal and the U.S.-backed installation of Rodríguez, including the continued detention of political prisoners and any degradation of the security environment. The upside for the American public seems nonexistent. Energy costs continue to soar and basic groceries remain unaffordable. There is no credible scenario by which a U.S. takeover of Venezuela’s oil resources will translate into cheaper energy at the pump back home, nor has the administration offered a plan to make that happen. The Trump administration’s actions are creating a more dangerous and unpredictable world and could potentially drag the United States into another open-ended military action in Latin America—all for the benefit of corporate interests and without the consent of the American people.

The authors would like to thank Frances Colón, Dan Herman, Will Ragland, Courtney Federico, Jenny Rowland-Shea, and Dan Restrepo for their insights in this analysis, as well as Michael Clark for his fact-checking.