2026 has begun with US imperialism on the offensive.
The reactionary juggernaut of Donald Trump dominated 2025, shaking world relations to the core. But the naked, shameless imperialist aggression against Venezuela with which he kicked off 2026 has taken things to a new level.
Having grotesquely campaigned as a peacemaker, Trump bombed his seventh country in less than a year when US warplanes descended on Caracas (Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria and Yemen were the other six). Less than one quarter of the way through his second term, he is already almost certainly on track to win the accolade of becoming the US President to have bombed the most countries in history.
These events have demolished the myth of an international “rules-based” order once and for all. As Trump acolyte Stephen Miller told CNN, “You can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else… But we live in a world, in the real world … that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power… “These are the iron laws of the world.”
Even more perplexed will be those who still swallowed the lie that US imperialism and its allies defend “freedom, democracy and international law” on the world stage against a non-Western league of autocrats. Indeed, in the hours and days after Trump invaded Venezuela, kidnapped its President and declared himself in charge of the country and in control of its economy, the same Western governments and media outlets which have so vehemently denounced Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, were engaged in all sorts of contortions. While some offered mumbling half-criticisms, most, like Keir Starmer in the UK, refused to criticize Trump’s “special military operation” at all.
Trump’s war on Venezuela also opens up a new chapter for Latin America. For working class and oppressed people throughout the continent, it is becoming clear that the old enemy – US imperialism – is back on the offensive. This must be met with a new wave of anti-imperialist, internationalist, socialist organization and struggle.
Campaign of threats and violence culminates in invasion
The 3 January attack was not exactly a surprise. It was the culmination of a campaign of intimidation, threats and violence which began in earnest last August, when Trump signed an order authorising military operations on Latin American territory, under the pretext of combating narco-terrorism.”
This was followed by the deployment of one fifth of the US navy to the southern Caribbean, before attacks on vessels off the coast of Venezuela and Colombia began. In total, it is estimated that there have been 35 attacks on boats, resulting in at least 115 deaths. These attacks included at least one infamous “double tap” assault, where after blowing up a boat, the US military carried out a deliberate follow-up attack to kill survivors – an obvious war crime.
Then in December, the US government closed Venezuelan airspace and Trump ordered a “total and complete” blockade of all sanctioned tankers entering and leaving Venezuela, which continues to be enforced with several vessels seized.
As the year ended, Trump announced that the US had carried out its first air strike on Venezuelan territory, using drones to target alleged drug storage facilities. Already at this time, reportedly on 25 December, Trump gave the order for the invasion and kidnapping of Maduro. While the timing of the attack was then delayed by a few days, allegedly due to poor weather, Trump used the spare time to carry out bombing raids in Nigeria.
What made it so easy for the US to capture Maduro?
But while the timing and nature of Trump’s assault was not shocking, the ease with which it was carried out certainly was.
When, exactly 36 years previously, US imperialism carried out a similar operation in Panama to remove President (and CIA agent) Manuel Noriega from power, 27,000 US troops were deployed from bases within the country. They had to fight on the streets of the capital, leaving over 3,000 dead, including 23 US soldiers. Noriega evaded capture for weeks before surrendering.
In 2026, the whole operation took less than five hours. US forces suffered no losses and lost no equipment. Only one helicopter was damaged as special forces descended on Maduro’s residence. 150 US aircraft flew over the country, with no response from what were supposedly the best air defence systems in Latin America, supplied by Russia and guided by Chinese radar systems, which were successfully jammed by US cyberwarfare in the early stages of the attack. The Venezuelan government claims that over 100 people were killed by US forces, including 32 Cuban members of Maduro’s personal security team.
Trump puffed out his chest and boasted of the strength and efficiency of the operation. Indeed, demonstrating the power and superiority of US military technology – in order to threaten others with similar treatment – was one of the operation’s objectives. It exposed the gap which is still big, in military technology between the US and its main global rival, China. It cannot be disputed that this was an effective operation, no doubt facilitated by long-term CIA operations on Venezuelan soil and painstakingly prepared for – the US military even carried out exercises in a purpose-built exact replica of Maduro’s residence in Kentucky!
But military might alone does not explain the ease with which Trump whisked a sitting President out of the country. Political factors are also at play.
Speculation has, quite understandably, been widespread about the possibility of government insiders collaborating in the raid, including the potential implication of Vice-President Delcy Rodriguez (now sworn in as Maduro’s successor). The fact that the Venezuelan regime had shown a willingness to grant massive concessions to Washington in the course of lengthy negotiations only serves to reinforce such suspicions. So too does the fact that Trump immediately threw his weight behind Rodriguez’s continuity regime after the raid, unceremoniously snubbing the pro-US far right led by Maria Corina-Machado. In order to explain what took place, some degree of collaboration from some section of the regime is beyond question.
But for a socialist analysis of events, this is not decisive. Whether or not they directly collaborated with Trump, Delcy Rodriguez, Maduro himself and the entire regime are politically responsible for their defeat. Solidarity with the Venezuelan people and total opposition to Trump’s aggression should not, and cannot, prevent socialists from highlighting the government’s political bankruptcy. Their pro-capitalist policies and the betrayal of the Venezuelan revolution are the main reason for the fragility of the regime. They are both unwilling to and incapable of confronting imperialism.
Even before Trump’s campaign of intimidation had begun, Maduro’s policy was one of retreat on all fronts. His government offered to guarantee US interests regarding oil, minerals, rare earths etc. They offered to diminish trade and ties with China, Russia and Iran in exchange for winning favour in Washington. They made no serious preparation for resistance to imperialism or mobilisation of the population.
What does the Trump regime see in Delcy Rodriguez? As a member of the upper echelons of government since 2020, she has been at the forefront of implementing a policy of submission to imperialism. In charge of the oil sector since 2024, she worked directly with US oil giant Chevron, which continued operations in Venezuela, licensed by the US government, despite sanctions.
And so far, Rodriguez appears to be delivering for Trump and US imperialism. Almost immediately after she was sworn in, the Venezuelan government reportedly agreed to surrender control of all oil sales to the US “indefinitely.” A few days later, the government announced it had carried out a joint operation with the US, to seize an oil tanker leaving the country “without authorization!” On 14 January, Trump reported on a long telephone call with “terrific person” Rodriguez, which covered oil, minerals, trade and security.
More blood for oil
Officially speaking, US imperialism presented a detailed (and entirely fake) legal justification for the kidnapping of Maduro, linked to a legal indictment against him for narco-terrorism. The official argument had been that this was law enforcement, not war.
Even so, Trump could never really stick to the script. He made it clear that this had nothing at all to do with drugs and quite a lot to do with oil. Another theory justifying his imperialist aggression emerged: the US is the rightful owner of Venezuela’s oil which was “stolen” from Washington via nationalisation in the 1980s.
Venezuela’s oil has great strategic importance for US imperialism in its struggle to maintain global supremacy. The country holds the biggest known oil reserves on the planet, which if brought under direct US power will mean that Washington controls almost half of the planet’s reserves. Venezuela’s main oil reserves are also of a particular type of thick crude which US refineries need for the production of jet fuel and other products for which domestic oil supplies are less suitable.
The other key economic objective of converting Venezuela into a new energy colony is to massively ramp up oil production. Despite its massive reserves, oil production in the country is very low, due to sanctions and lack of investment in the sector by the cash-strapped regime. Trump is pushing US oil giants, some of whom remain reluctant, to get into the country and “drill baby drill.” He hopes that by increasing supplies in this way, a reduction in oil prices will also give a boost to the struggling US and world economy.
A humiliation of Chinese imperialism
But for Trump and US imperialism, this is not primarily about economics but rather geopolitics. A red thread running through all of Trump’s imperialist aggression and colonialism is not just winning power, markets and resources for the US, but denying them to its main rival on the global stage, Chinese imperialism. This was an attack on Venezuela, but with Beijing firmly in mind.
Venezuela has been China’s most important bloc asset in Latin America in recent years. Beijing accounted for over 80% of oil exports from Caracas, and had provided the regime with loans to the tune of $100 billion. Venezuelan oil also played a crucial role in ensuring the survival of the Cuban regime, another of China’s regional allies.
As well as being a blow to its interests, Trump’s kidnapping of Maduro also deeply humiliated Beijing and undermined its authority in the region and globally. China signed an “all-weather comprehensive strategic partnership” with Caracas in 2024, and only hours before his capture, Maduro met with Xi Jinping’s top Latin America envoy, Qiu Xiaoqi. But when push came to shove, all Beijing could do was issue words of condemnation. Its military hardware, and Russia’s, also seemed to be of little use, with reports indicating that air defences were not even connected to radar systems.
The situation was the same when Bashar Al-Assad’s regime fell in Syria, and again when Iran was bombed last summer. While Trump represents the decline of US imperialism, it is clear that Washington maintains overall military supremacy, and an ability to act with virtual impunity in most arenas. The prospect of China intervening militarily today in defence of an ally in Latin America, the Middle East or elsewhere, appears to be all but ruled out.
This is above all due to the crisis-ridden state of Chinese capitalism. Even on the diplomatic front, the response of the Chinese regime has been strikingly tame, to avoid antagonising Trump, when compared with the past. So far, there has been no hint that Trump’s state visit to China in April risks cancellation in protest over his repeated acts of war against high profile allies of Beijing.
The “Donroe” Doctrine
The “Monroe doctrine,” which originated in the 19th century, was aimed at European imperialist powers, sending the message: stay out of the Americas. The Donroe doctrine includes the same message, this time aimed squarely at Beijing. Pushing China back on the continent has been one of Trump’s main priorities since taking office. He began his second term with a bullying campaign directed at Panama over Chinese influence around the canal. His trade war with Mexico was aimed at pushing China out. The same is now the case with threats against Greenland.
The rationale behind the attacks on Venezuela was partially laid out in the publication of Trump’s new National Security Strategy document in December. It declared a strategic priority for the regime was to “reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American [i.e., U.S.] pre-eminence in the Western Hemisphere.” This was professed even more bluntly after Maduro’s kidnapping when the US state department tweeted a sinister-looking image of Trump, alongside the text “this is OUR hemisphere.”
Under Trump, US imperialism is returning to a posture of naked brutality and aggression in Latin America. Indeed in some ways, its rhetoric goes further than any previous administration. No other US President has claimed to literally own the natural resources of a Latin American country and Pete Hegseth is the first senior US government official to say the quiet part out loud and refer to the region as “our backyard.”
What next for Venezuela?
Full of hubris following his “big win.” Trump was quick to escalate his bullying campaign in the region. In a flurry of threats, he and his acolytes named Cuba, Colombia, Mexico and Greenland as possible next targets. These threats should all be taken seriously.
However, it must first be stated that despite Trump’s hubris and hopes, his work in Venezuela is far from over. In order to fulfill his dreams for a new age of US dominance in the country, he requires stability and a compliant government which allows the oil companies to loot Venezuela in peace. And while Delcy Rodriguez is collaborating with him for now, consolidating the situation will be very difficult.
Trump does not want to put “boots on the ground” and, due to US public opinion, ultimately would not be allowed to do so in any significant long-term way. But without this, guaranteeing oil firms the security guarantees they are demanding in exchange for investments will be very difficult. While a full-scale ground invasion will not be attempted, Trump has already suggested the possibility of troops being deployed to defend oil facilities, which would in effect be a partial occupation.
Political stability will also prove elusive. If Rodriguez’s government consolidates itself as a stooge regime for Trump, it will face opposition, including potentially from within the Chavista apparatus. Sectors of the state or armed forces could well find that the conversion into out-and-out quislings of US imperialism is too bitter a pill to swallow. Conflicts over which corrupt pro-capitalist factions gain or lose can assume an ideological cover: nationalism and anti-imperialism versus naked compradorism.
In addition, the pro-US far right, which has significant support in the country, is also not at all happy with Trump’s designation of Maduro’s successor as his preferred option to govern.
The main reason that Trump has not based his plans on Corina-Machado is that the far-right does not command support in the armed forces. For the same reason, any plan to hold new elections (for which no plan has yet been presented) and execute an “orderly transition” to an elected right-wing government will be fraught with danger. Venezuela’s vast territory, which governments have always struggled to fully control, could well descend into chaos, creating new quagmires and even the potential for civil war.
Most importantly for socialists, a return to direct US domination will, sooner or later, sow the seeds of mass opposition from below. Venezuela’s small but courageous Left forces, who have suffered significant repression under Maduro’s government, must safeguard their political independence from all pro-capitalist camps and prepare for mass struggle.
Cuba, Colombia, Mexico… where will Trump go next?
Trump following through on his threats to attack other countries in the region is a very real possibility. In the case of Colombia or Mexico it would not take the form of attacks on governments – in the case of Colombia, Trump will hope that his stooge, De La Espirella, replaces Gustavo Petro as President following May’s elections in any case. Trump could, however, conduct air strikes in either country aimed at narco cartels, which would nonetheless be an egregious violation of national sovereignty.
The Cuban regime, on the other hand, is certainly in Trump and Rubio’s crosshairs. The regime is passing through one of the most challenging moments in its history, with shortages and blackouts reportedly even surpassing the tribulations of the so-called “special period” in the 1990s after the collapse of the USSR.
The US is already conducting an economic war against Cuba and has been for decades. This is now being dramatically escalated. Venezuelan oil — supplied partially in exchange for medical and security assistance provided to Caracas — has been a lifeline for Cuba’s struggling economy, which could collapse completely if shipments are cut off for an extended period. In recent months, Mexico has stepped in to replace some Venezuelan supplies. But in recent days, Trump has threatened to blockade all oil, not just Venezuelan oil, from reaching Cuba.
Whether this economic strangulation of the country is combined with military aggression is an open question. The regime in Havana has attempted to address its deep crisis not with socialist policies but rather by moving in the same direction as the Maduro regime. Under President Diaz Canel, it promotes the road of “market reforms” and has repeatedly attempted to float the possibility of negotiations with Washington.
For US imperialism, managing the “day after” in a scenario of regime change in Cuba would be even more challenging than in Venezuela. Recognition of the Communist Party regime or a section of it would be politically unpalatable on the US right. On the other hand, despite the fragility of the current government, returning the exiled capitalist elite to power would be impossible without a prolonged and bloody war.
Greenland – the 51st state?
The threat which has really gotten Western commentators’ backs up is not in Latin America, but in the arctic. It was not Cuba, but Greenland which appeared, draped in the US flag, on MAGA twitter (X) feeds in the hours after Maduro’s kidnapping. In the days that followed, Trump dramatically doubled down on his commitment to make Greenland part of the US, with administration officials making it clear that this was official government policy and that a military invasion (of a NATO member’s territory!) was “always an option.” In Trump’s mind, the fact that it is a colony of Denmark is only a minor matter.
As with Venezuela, Trump has made it clear that this is about natural resources and geopolitics – again, about keeping China (and Russia) out of the hemisphere. But in this case, it is also about something else. Trump’s inauguration speech promised not just to increase US dominance but to expand its territory.
The truth is that concretely, Trump can get all of what he wants from Greenland – mining contracts, control of resources, military control, etc. – without formally taking over the territory by forcing Denmark to comply. The US already has an operative military base on the island, and had up to 17 military bases there, equipped with nuclear weapons, at the height of the Cold War.
But despite this being made very clear by Danish capitalism, its foreign minister emerged from negotiations with JD Vance and Marco Rubio on 14 January saying that Trump remains committed to “conquering” the island. What Trump will do to further this agenda remains unclear, but the world already knows just how seriously he takes the power and authority of his fellow NATO members (which for him are his vassals). As Stephen Miller put it, “no one will fight the US military for Greenland”.
Socialists’ starting point is that Greenland should be no one’s colony, but an independent socialist state, with ownership and control over its economy and resources, as part of an international socialist federation.
The designs of all the main imperialist powers on the arctic could not be any more reactionary. They are maneuvering to take advantage of the “possibilities” provided by the accelerating climate catastrophe. Melting Arctic ice is part of a picture which will cause utter devastation for hundreds of millions of people but, in the eyes of the ruling class, it opens new waterways and lands for new mines, new profits and new military endeavours.
Trump’s hubris and limitations
Underestimating Trump’s determination to act on his threats would be a grave mistake. He is drunk on “success,” increasingly seduced by the prospect of using the US military to achieve quick and easy “wins.” He may also take the view, as many capitalist governments have before him, that delving into conflict on the world stage will prove a useful distraction from growing domestic difficulties. The fact that this deranged reactionary is at the helm of the most powerful military power ever is deeply dangerous to humanity and the planet.
However, it would also be a mistake to overestimate Trump. In fact, his hubris will inevitably lead to miscalculations in every sphere, and military miscalculations are the most costly of all. Trump’s increasingly unbridled aggression, combined with US imperialism’s inability to deploy significant ground troops, is a recipe for new crises and quagmires.
Even though the US military enjoys global supremacy, it too is subject to important limitations. Only five years ago, it was forced to complete a humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan, which crowned the utter failure of its sustained campaign of war and occupation throughout the region which began in 2001. Its limits are also being exposed today in the war in Ukraine, where billions of dollars and copious amounts of its best military hardware have been incapable of defeating Russia.
In addition, it is held back by mass consciousness in the US itself, which following the disastrous experience of the “war on terror” with invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, is firmly opposed to involvement in foreign wars. Even following Trump’s limited strikes on Venezuela, opinion polls in the US showed a majority against the attacks and in general polling, 65% believe the US should only engage in war “when the United States faces a direct and imminent threat.” This is actually the chief reality which governs Trump’s inability to put “boots on the ground” around the world.
In the face of new military adventures, this can be reflected in powerful new mass antiwar movements and sharpen the class struggle. At the time of writing, Trump’s war on immigrants is escalating, leading to a new upturn in struggle, with Minnesota poised for a potentially historic de facto general strike on 23 January.
For revolutionary struggle against imperialism
Trump’s Western hemispheric crusade is real and represents a certain turn. However, it is fundamentally a continuation of decades of US imperialist policy in Latin America. The last century and a half is full of examples of US aggression to maintain dominance, directed against rival powers but also, decisively, against the revolutionary struggles of workers and the poor. From direct invasions in Panama and Grenada, to the brutal imposition of allied dictatorships throughout the continent, US imperialism has left a trail of blood in its wake. This has been, and will be again, a driving force behind revolutionary struggle in the region.
Today, a debate must take place within the working class and popular movements in Latin America about what strategy is needed to defeat imperialism. Opposition to “yankee” oppression has long been a hallmark of the Left on the continent, but the response to the attacks on Venezuela offered many examples of just how hollow the “anti-imperialism” of the mainstream political left is.
In Brazil, Lula’s administration is seeking reconciliation with Trump following clashes over the latter’s interventions in support of now-jailed former far-right President, Jair Bolsonaro. Following Maduro’s kidnapping, Lula’s mealy-mouthed declaration was tokenistic and toothless, appealing for UN discussions without even naming the aggressor. Beyond words of criticism, none of the continent’s progressive governments took any meaningful action in response to the attacks, even of a diplomatic nature.
This, together with the increasingly naked collaboration of the remnants of Chavista officialdom with Trump’s diktats, clearly shows the need to draw a balance sheet of the failures of the successive waves of left-wing reformist movements seen on the continent since the turn of the century.
No trust can be placed in governments or international institutions to fight imperialism today. A new phase of mass struggle, led by the working class and social movements must begin. This must be combined with a new reorganization of the Latin American left, based on learning the lessons of past failures and drawing new, revolutionary conclusions.
Legacy and lessons of Chavismo
Venezuela was emblematic of the wave of leftward change which shook Latin America during the 2000s, and became one of its most advanced expressions. It, and the figure of Hugo Chavez, played an important role in inspiring new generations of socialists internationally.
“Chavismo” actually arose as the political expression of a powerful revolutionary movement in Venezuela. Mass struggle against successive right-wing governments pushed a nationalist grouping, mostly of military origin, around Chavez to power in 1998. Under mass pressure, it moved particularly sharply to the left following an attempted US-backed coup in 2002.
Social programmes, funded by income from the nationalized oil industry, led to transformative changes in the lives of working-class people. Extreme poverty was reduced by over 80%, free public education abolished illiteracy and free public healthcare was introduced. Chavez himself, who was re-elected several times before his death in 2013, began to use radical socialist rhetoric, even going so far as to praise Russian Revolutionary Leon Trotsky.
However, Chavismo ultimately failed due to the limitations of reformism. Beyond oil and public services, the key sectors of the economy were not removed from private hands. Capitalism fundamentally remained in place, with high oil revenues providing space for historic redistributive policies. Dramatic falls in oil prices, combined with the impact of US and European sanctions, threw the country into crisis in the 2010s.
The response of the government was to turn to the right, a process which accelerated under Maduro. Cuts and privatizations became the dominant policy, and the left and labour movement suffered significant repression. The remnants of Chavismo, now totally divorced from any notion of revolutionary struggle, consolidated into an authoritarian capitalist administration. In place of working-class internationalism, Chavismo pursued nationalist diplomacy, orientating to several right-wing authoritarian regimes in conflict with US imperialism and deepening its alliance with Chinese imperialism in particular.
Such a regime cannot expect the masses to mobilise in its defence, as was the case when helicopters descended on Caracas in 2002 to remove Chavez, and millions mobilised to force his return to power. Resistance to US imperialism today must be independent of the Venezuelan government.
Ultimately, revolutionary movements which remain isolated, as in Cuba, or do not expropriate the ruling class, as in the case of Venezuela, will succumb to the pressure of imperialism. To win decisive and lasting change, a working class centered revolution must spread internationally and pose a challenge to the rule of capital inside the imperialist powers themselves. As Trotsky said, the revolution must become permanent.
Latin America is no one’s back yard! Oppose all imperialism
A new wave of anti-imperialist struggle should also stand in opposition to all imperialism. Sections of the left and labour movement in Latin America which harbour illusions in China as a “progressive” alternative to US imperialism will have been sorely disappointed and wrong-footed by Beijing’s pathetic response to Trump’s assault. However, such illusions nonetheless remain and must be dispelled.
Chinese imperialism may be a “newer kid on the block” but experience has shown it is no better boss than Uncle Sam. Its economic “aid” is classical imperialism, aimed at looting resources and exploiting workforces. Its “investments” are climate-killing and destructive of eco-systems and indigenous communities. It too must be told: Latin America is no one’s back yard! Imperialists go home!
A future of dignity and development for Latin America can only come based on socialist change, based on democratic public ownership of resources and key industries. The program of new struggles against imperialism must be one of a free and voluntary socialist federation of the continent.
