Venezuela is a direct security threat to the United States because they cooperate militarily with countries like Iran who considered giving missiles to Venezuela that can hit the US.
Because the Maduro regime is still in charge in Venezuela, it seems likely that these military ties will continue, even if they take a temporary pause.
Venezuela isn’t simply ruled by a dictator or a military junta, but by criminals who are in criminal enterprises to get rich. That makes it harder to negotiate away the rulers because the government is actually run by criminals who want to maintain their criminal enterprises.
Venezuela is a more homogenous country than Iraq, and it has a history of democracy before the authoritarian socialists took over.
Making a profit of Venezuelan’s oil will be difficult. Venezuela is in deep debt; those debtors will demand the first cut on any profits. Efficiently exploiting Venezuela’s oil will require tons of investment in both oil drilling and the infrastructure of the country.Trump doesn’t think like a businessman, but a Marxist. He sees resources and wants to steal it for his whims. The US is a wealthy country who can trade for what it needs; it doesn’t need to use force to take resources in another country.
Trump appeared to have meen riffing when he said that the US would run Venezuela. There appears to be no plan for the US to run Venezuela.
The US has never perfectly followed international law, but it did generally follow and enforce norms against overthrowing a leader or regime without assuming responsibility for the consequences. In Venezuela, Trump kidnapped the country’s leader and then took little to no responsibility to nation-build, just demanding oil from the new leader if she doesn’t want to meet a similar fate.
The Trump administration sometimes appeal to spheres of influence, saying they shouldn’t have to ignore a threat in this hemisphere. This is dangerous because it justifies other great powers doing the same thing and makes it harder for the US to rally a coalition against such actions because the US looks hypocritical. If the US can change Venezuela’s leader at will, why can’t China do it to South Korea?
“The fraud, while egregious, does not justify revoking legal protections for Somali immigrants: While the lion’s share of this monumental theft was likely perpetrated by people of Somali descent, the vast majority of this community had nothing to do it.”
“Of the roughly 281,000 people arrested by ICE from January 20 through December 9, fewer than 10,000 individuals are classified as “the worst of the worst” by the DHS, according to analysis done by the Cato Institute’s Director of Immigration Studies, David Bier. Of those classified, “a majority (56 percent) of the list has not been charged or convicted of a violent crime,” according to Bier, “and nearly a quarter…had nothing but a vice, immigration (e.g., illegal entry), or non-DUI traffic charge.” Thousands of faces and names have been placed on the DHS’ list for minor offenses, like drug possession charges.
The DHS database tracks closely with previous findings by Bier. After analyzing data on immigration arrests between October 1, 2024, and June 14, 2025, Bier found that 65 percent of people arrested by ICE had no criminal convictions, and 93 percent had no violent convictions. Even more recently, data on individuals booked into ICE custody since October 1 showed an increase in the number of detainees with no criminal convictions—73 percent—and even fewer people with violent convictions—only 5 percent. (Note that Bier’s analysis estimated an even higher percentage of violent criminals in ICE custody than the new DHS database.)
…
It’s clear the DHS is using a relatively small number of immigrants who have committed violent crimes to justify a slew of rights violations, including excessive force, due process violations, and overcrowded, inhumane conditions in detention facilities as a means to achieve one of the Trump administration’s chief goals: deporting 1 million people by the end of the year. Given this reality, Noem’s suggestion that the current methods of immigration enforcement are done in the name of following the law rings hollow.”
“U.S. troops entered Syria to fight the Islamic State group, which lost its last territory in 2018. They stayed to counter Iranian forces, who were in Syria at the invitation of former leader Bashar al-Assad and were kicked out during the December 2024 revolution by the new Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa. The possibility of a Turkish invasion of Syria scuttled Trump’s first withdrawal attempt in October 2019, but that is unlikely now that Kurdish factions are negotiating peace with the Syrian and Turkish governments.
…
the Trump administration has been expanding rather than shrinking America’s military involvement in Syria. It recently began talks to build a new U.S. base right outside Damascus, the Syrian capital, ostensibly for peacekeeping between Syria and Israel.
Sharaa, eager to stay in Washington’s good graces, visited the White House in November 2025 and announced that he would be joining the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State group. Americans were suddenly patrolling alongside Syrian forces in areas they had never patrolled before, such as Palmyra, which Trump described on social media as “a very dangerous part of Syria, that is not fully controlled by them.”
…
Cooperation with the new Syrian government may have looked like a relatively cost-free way to keep a U.S. foothold in Syria, but the incident in Palmyra shows that there is, in fact, a greater risk to American troops than the White House realized. Yet the administration is doubling down, arguing that the attack is actually a reason to stay in Syria.”
…
We’re told that American troops are in Syria to prevent “another costly, large-scale war,” but every time someone attacks those troops, we’re told the U.S. has to double down on its commitment to avoid humiliation—which will create more opportunities to attack Americans. And the Palmyra shooter is not the only Syrian who has a problem with the new government or its American backers.”
The Trump administration wants to keep Venezuela orderly and get oil flowing. Machado, the democratic activist behind the person that beat Maduro in an election that Maduro stole, has been bending over backward to please Trump, but she has not maintained alliances with people in power in Venezuela. Trump wants someone within the current power structure who can bend to his will and maintain support of the powers in the country. That’s why he went with Maduro’s vice president over the more democratically popular figure.