Venezuela’s political and economic collapse has produced one of the largest displacement crises in the world, with more than 7.7 million people fleeing the country. Although public trust in the Venezuelan government has been eroded by years of economic turmoil and political repression, President Nicolás Maduro has remained in power through a combination of elite patronage, military loyalty, and centralized institutional control. The 2024 presidential election further threatened the nation’s democracy: the electoral council declared Maduro the winner despite opposition tallies showing that their candidate, Edmundo González, had won by a large margin. According to a BBC report, the United States and several other governments rejected the results and recognized González as “president-elect.”

In response, the U.S. under President Donald Trump has adopted a sharply escalatory and militarized approach toward Venezuela. In a BBC report, Trump was said to have doubled the reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest to $50 million and deployed 15,000 U.S. troops, including aircraft carriers and guided-missile destroyers, to the Caribbean. The Associated Press likewise reported that U.S. forces carried out more than 20 strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in international waters, killing over 80 people. Trump also declared Venezuela’s airspace “closed in its entirety,” a move that Maduro denounced as a “colonial threat” in a statement cited by the AP.

The White House has publicly framed these actions as part of a campaign to combat narcotics trafficking and rising migration from Venezuela. According to the BBC, President Donald Trump has made stopping immigration a central priority of his second term and has directly blamed Maduro for the large number of Venezuelan migrants arriving in the United States, accusing him without evidence of “emptying his prisons and insane asylums,” facilitating drug shipments to the U.S., and “sending people he shouldn’t be sending,” as he stated during a White House news briefing.

At the same time, several media outlets have noted political instability within Venezuela’s security forces. Reuters reported that during a recent phone call, Maduro signaled a willingness to negotiate an exit from power if granted full legal amnesty and sanctions relief, suggesting that elite cohesion may be less stable than it appears.

Despite this fragile internal landscape, the U.S. response has centered on military deployment and lethal force, raising major legal, humanitarian, and political concerns. This strategy persists not because it is effective, but because it aligns with longstanding drug-war frameworks and domestic political narratives. However, evidence suggests that militarization is exacerbating tensions, undermining legal norms, and reinforcing Maduro’s grip on power.

For example, the counternarcotics rationale behind the U.S. military escalation lacks empirical grounding. In a BBC publication, counternarcotics experts highlighted that Venezuela is not a major origin point for cocaine or fentanyl trafficked into the U.S.; instead, the majority of cocaine enters through Pacific routes, and fentanyl is primarily transported through land border crossings. According to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s 2025 National Drug Threat Assessment, Venezuela does not appear even once as a fentanyl source country. Despite this, the U.S. has focused its strikes almost entirely on the Caribbean, precisely where trafficking is least prevalent.

Moreover, legal scholars warn that these strikes may violate international law. The former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court stated that the U.S. campaign amounted to a “planned, systematic attack against civilians during peacetime.” The Trump administration has defended its actions by labeling the targets “narco-terrorists,” but as the BBC notes, experts emphasize that this designation does not automatically make individuals lawful military targets.

Third, militarization is strengthening Maduro rather than weakening him. According to researcher Ronal Rodríguez, quoted in an AP report, Venezuela’s populist ideology has “a remarkable ability…to unite” when faced with external threats. This dynamic, with external pressure creating internal cohesion, has defined Venezuelan politics for years. AP reporting further explains that Maduro maintains loyalty through a combination of harsh punishment for dissent and access to corruption networks that allow military elites to enrich themselves. This means that increased U.S. pressure simply validates the regime’s nationalist narrative and discourages defections.

Finally, the militarized approach does little to address Venezuela’s humanitarian emergency. Maritime strikes jeopardize the safety of migrants, fishermen, and civilians; troop deployments heighten fears of invasion; and the counternarcotics framing shifts attention away from urgent needs such as food security, healthcare, and displacement. According to Al Jazeera, Maduro’s government has responded to U.S. escalation by mobilizing mass rallies and invoking anti-colonial rhetoric, which is further polarizing the population and reducing space for internal reform.

The sum of these factors reveals a policy that is both ineffective and harmful: one that fails to weaken the regime and protect civilians.

A sustainable alternative to the current U.S. strategy must begin with a fundamental shift away from militarization and toward a diplomatic framework that recognizes the institutional and humanitarian dimensions of Venezuela’s crisis. The emphasis on warships, airspace threats, and maritime strikes has not weakened Maduro’s hold on power; rather, it has supplied his movement with a convenient external enemy. Any effective solution must therefore avoid reinforcing the very dynamics that allow the regime to consolidate loyalty.

The first step is reframing the crisis through regional diplomacy rather than unilateral U.S. force. Latin American states, particularly Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Chile, and members of the Caribbean Community hold far more credibility in the region than Washington, whose involvement has long carried connotations of interventionism. These states also possess a more nuanced understanding of Venezuela’s political culture and its vulnerabilities. A region-led mediation process, supported by the United Nations, could create conditions for gradual political opening: fairer electoral mechanisms and channels for humanitarian access that are insulated from political manipulation. Unlike military pressure, which Maduro’s Chavismo ideology exploits for internal unity, diplomatic engagement opens space for dissent and negotiation.

Yet diplomacy alone is insufficient if it interacts only with political institutions and not with the illicit economies that sustain the regime. One of the most significant failures of the current response is its focus on the symptoms of corruption, such as drug shipments, rather than the financial networks behind them. Because the Venezuelan military and political elite benefit from vast patronage structures, the international community must target the flow of illicit funds that underwrite loyalty. Breaking the financial logic of loyalty is far more effective than attempting to bombing alleged trafficking vessels.

Any revised strategy must also consider the maritime dimension of the crisis, but in a way that prioritizes civilian safety rather than escalating violence. Over 20 U.S. strikes since early September have killed over 80 people, many in circumstances that international legal scholars argue fall outside the bounds of lawful targeting. Instead of continuing lethal interdictions, the region could establish a demilitarized maritime monitoring and humanitarian response system. Joint naval patrols with transparent inspection protocols, rescue obligations, and non-lethal interdiction capabilities would reduce the risks of trafficking while preventing civilian casualties. Such a framework would restore legality, reduce tensions, and avoid the perception that Venezuelans at sea are being treated as combatants.

A humane response must also include a comprehensive migration strategy. As the BBC noted, millions of Venezuelans have fled economic collapse and political repression, with hundreds of thousands arriving in the U.S. Rather than relying on militarized deterrence, policymakers should support regional states that have absorbed the majority of migrants while expanding safe, legal pathways for Venezuelans seeking stability. 

Finally, any diplomatic process must include a credible transitional justice framework that acknowledges the incentives of the actors currently sustaining Maduro’s rule. Reuters reported that Maduro himself privately raised the possibility of negotiating an exit if granted sufficient legal guarantees. This suggests that, even within his inner circle, there is an understanding that an eventual transition is possible, but only if the stakes of leaving power are not existential. A balanced model would hold major human rights violators accountable through international mechanisms while offering limited, conditional amnesties to mid-ranking officials in exchange for transparency and demobilization. Such an approach avoids the trap of demanding total surrender, which only incentivizes prolonged authoritarianism.

Together, these strategies form a coherent alternative to militarization, focused on regional legitimacy, institutional dismantling of corruption, humanitarian protection, and political incentives for peaceful change. If the goal is a democratic and stable Venezuela, then force must be replaced by diplomacy and the careful construction of an exit opportunity. The current path hardens Chavismo; a new one must divide it.