Trump campaigned on putting an end to ‘endless wars’. As a self-described non-interventionist he also promised to stop the illegal drug flow and illegal immigration on the domestic front. And, the vision was attractive to a base who believed that the ‘old ways’ were washed away by an administration that, when confronted with solving pressing issues, would not resort to military intervention in the form of regime change on foreign soil. A significant section of his MAGA base was defined by an anti-neoconservative sentiment, but when Trump ramped up warlike rhetoric towards Venezuela and suggested that regime change would not be off the table, the move, at least for a significant part of his MAGA base, will potentially alienate and fracture the movement. Accusing the Caribbean nation of ‘emptying their prisons’ and smuggling illegal drugs into the U.S., Donald Trump appears to be preparing to topple the Maduro regime by force.
In its aggressive posture against the drug cartels, the U.S. has carried out 18 strikes on marine vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific Ocean, which it alleges are narcotics vessels headed to supply illegal drugs to the U.S. The latest drone strike in the Pacific Ocean killed six people. Head of the Pentagon, Peter Hegseth, stated on social media:
“Both strikes were conducted in international waters, and three male narco-terrorists were aboard each vessel. All six were killed. No US forces were harmed.”
It’s an interventionist foreign policy that would dismantle the idea that Trump is an isolationist. Unlike his predecessors thus far, several U.S. presidents have intervened in foreign countries and installed leaders who were favoured by the U.S. In 1953, the CIA aided in the overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohommad Mossadeq. In 1954, the CIA was instrumental in overthrowing the presidency of Jacobo Arbenz Guzman. More recently, in the war in Afghanistan, the U.S. ousted the Taliban and installed a new regime. And, in 2003, Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime was destroyed, and a new government and prime minister were appointed. While the latter Middle Eastern military interventions would be demonstrably disastrous for the U.S., Trump appears to be consulting the playbook of his predecessors in the case of Venezuela.
From the outset, Trump promised he could get the job done without resorting to war. In 2024, Trump said ” we want a strong and powerful military, and ideally, we don’t have to use it..they said he will start a war.. I said, I am going to stop wars”. The view is one shared by a significant portion of the MAGA base. In 2025, an Economist poll found that on the Iran issue, 63% of Trump voters were in favour of diplomatic solutions rather than military conflict.
The promise to stop illegal immigration and illegal drug trafficking into the U.S. was ambitious, to say the least. Then, in his second term, Trump did something intriguing: he designated cartels as foreign terrorist groups. His administration also authorised ‘ground missions’ in Mexico. While the nature of these operations remains unclear, the aggressive push against Venezuela is beyond doubt. The U.S. already has a $15,000,000 bounty on the head of Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro. Trump has openly conveyed to the U.S. media that he has authorised covert CIA missions within Venezuela. Speaking to media in the White House, Trump remarked, “We are looking at land now.”
His rhetoric is matched by an unparalleled show of force against Venezuela. Currently, there are 8 U.S warships,1 nuclear submarine and thousands of marines on standby in the region. Speaking to news organisation First Post, former foreign minister of Ecuador, Guillaume Long, claimed, “We know his MAGA base is increasingly hostile to military intervention in Venezuela; it would be the first time in history the U.S. will attack a South American state.”
All this is a far cry from the Trump who branded himself as almost an ‘anti-war’ figure.In 2016, then President-elect Trump insisted, ‘We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn’t be involved with,” Trump said. “Instead, our focus must be on defeating terrorism and destroying ISIS, and we will.”
“We don’t forget. We want to strengthen old friendships and seek out new friendships,” he said, the policy of “intervention and chaos” must end.
The White House claims:
“President Trump is keeping his promise to stop the flood of illegal aliens and drugs.”
Keeping the promise to stop the ‘flood’ of illegal drugs might mean breaking Trump’s self-professed status as a non-interventionist.
If the U.S. invades Venezuela to topple Maduro, whom he accuses of being a drug trafficker, it would involve more than just ousting a figurehead. As a consequence, Trump would have to deal with the complexities of regime change, not limited to the power vacuum in a post-Maduro Venezuela, as well as addressing the impoverished plight of millions within the country. Then, there’s the issue of how Trump would fight against the cartels in Venezuela. Would there be urban warfare in a country where there are still 28 million civilians?
The drug cartel is a trillion-dollar business and involves a complex network of nation-state involvement of China, Mexico, Canada, and Colombia, and cartel involvement operates within a vast socio-political network. While Trump appears to be considering his options, an invasion of Venezuela would create huge instability in the region and would tarnish Trump’s non-interventionist reputation among his MAGA base.
Fulfilling a promise of stopping the drug cartels by invading a nation state closely allied with Russia and China would surely open a Pandora’s box of further regional instability and geopolitical chaos, and it is not clear how the Cartels would respond to such an invasion. Moreover, the degree to which cartel operations are embedded within the structures of countries like Venezuela is a known unknown, and Trump not only faces the complexities of a potential regime change but also the huge task of deciding who he can trust in the country. Nevertheless, Trump is already developing trust issues within his own MAGA base as his potential invasion of Venezuela would be heretical for many in his base, and it may signify the death of the MAGA movement. Long defined by its opposition to endless wars, regime change in the Latin American nation is not something Trump could just dip his toes into and declare victory.
