For the past two decades, Maduro has presided over Venezuela, and recently, despite the opposition’s best efforts, one of the most historic and contentious Venezuelan elections resulted in Maduro securing a successful bid for re-election.  This result is a blow to United States security as tensions between the two increase each year Maduro remains in power. The United States has tried the strong-arm approach to Venezuela, subsequently isolating any friendly relations. Rather than continuing to use negative sanctions and empty threats, the United States needs a threefold plan: diplomacy, positive sanctions, and, most importantly, the avoidance of any escalatory military action.

To understand the frosty relationship between the United States and Venezuela today, we must travel back to 1904, when President Theodore Roosevelt was in office. Following the Venezuelan Crisis of 1902, Roosevelt introduced the Roosevelt Corollary, which granted the United States the authority to intervene in South American affairs. It allowed the U.S. to amass incremental military power at the expense of South American security. Fast forward to the Chávez and Maduro presidencies, Venezuela began aligning with Russian ideologies. The U.S., fearing a shift in the balance of power, viewed this as a security threat and responded with sanctions, diplomatic breaks, and military threats. Today, Venezuela is sharply divided between distinct identities: the opposition, which advocates for democracy, and the ruling party, which supports socialism. The United States’ response has been to declare the election results rigged, but it has not responded with concrete actions. In the past,  the United States has responded with increased sanctions and threats of military action. The U.S. response to Maduro’s continued rule is likely to follow this pattern: using coercive diplomacy to try and pressure the regime to make concessions or step down.

However, doing so would be detrimental to the security of the United States and result in further harm to the civilians in Venezuela who have been disproportionately affected by the tariffs.

Multilateral diplomacy may be difficult to come by, as mediation requires trust in and cooperation with the mediator, but given the icy relations between the two, finding a neutral party may be impossible. Bilateral diplomacy provides a more realistic solution. The identity of a state is formed by its actions; thus, it would be in Venezuela’s best interest to make amends with the United States to be perceived more favorably by major trading partners. In turn, it would be in the United States’ best interest to make amends with Venezuela to remain a regional hegemon in order to stop enemies from challenging it with Venezuela’s help. Because bilateral diplomacy is in the best interest of both states, it posits a necessary solution rather than the inefficiency that multilateral diplomacy has shown in the past with I.G.O.s such as the United Nations.

As current sanctions weaken Venezuela’s economy, the U.S. faces the risk of a fragile neighbor. Fragile states can become bases for rebel mobilization, potentially incentivizing hostile nations to support rebels in Venezuela, which poses a significant risk to the U.S. without an oceanic buffer. These sanctions have proven ineffective, as Maduro sees them as preferable to meeting the United States’ demands. While not an intentional consequence, these sanctions have hurt an unintended audience: the working class. Additionally, the sanctions thus far have simply pushed Venezuela to rely further on China and strengthened ties between the two. C.N.N. reports that Lan Hu, China’s ambassador to Venezuela, has recently been celebrating the progress being made between the two countries, especially in the economy. President Maduro himself has taken to calling China a “sister” in economics, science, AI, and technology. China has additionally called out the United States for its use of sanctions, calling them °unilateral coercive measures°.

Under the Biden Administration, tariffs were lessened in an attempt to persuade the Venezuelan government to hold a fair, free presidential election. After President Maduro claimed victory despite international observers claiming the opposition had won over 67% of the vote, the Trump Administration announced a 25% tariff on countries that buy Venezuelan oil and allowed any licenses for American companies that operated in Venezuela to expire, including Chevron.

With economic sanctions not working and the United States only deepening the divide between the two nations, the United States should shift to positive sanctions, rewarding compliance.

In contrast to positive sanctions or diplomatic relationship strengthening, the Trump Administration appears to have begun a slight military escalation. At the end of August 2025, the United States carried out a major military deployment in the waters surrounding Latin America. This was stated as an intensified effort to combat drug cartels, according to U.S. defense officials in a statement to C.N.N.. President Maduro appears to have responded by announcing the deployment of 4.5 million militiamen throughout the country. The leader has assured the international community and his country that Venezuela will not stand down and has likened the situation to David vs. Goliath.

On the other hand, the United States continues its war on drugs, stating that they are prepared to use all the resources it can to halt the flow of drugs into the country and bring those responsible to justice. On that note, the United States has also increased its reward for information leading to the arrest of President Maduro to 50$ million. Beginning in 2020, the United States pointed to Maduro as the leader of the criminal group “Cartel of the Suns” despite strong refutation coming from Maduro’s government. The Cartel of the Suns is a Venezuelan crime and terrorist organization that is largely responsible for much of the international drug trade in Venezuela.

 With Venezuela being backed by strong anti-Western allies who may defend it against Western-led attacks, armed intervention itself is not worth the risk. Armed intervention risks legitimizing Maduro’s claims that the United States is responsible for Venezuela’s challenges. A less combative approach is needed through the employment of diplomacy and positive sanctions instead of exacerbating further tensions with violence.

The United States is currently faced with the most critical foreign policy decision since President Roosevelt’s Corollary. As tensions between Venezuela and the United States escalate, anti-Western nations stand poised to take advantage. If the United States continues the aggression, it risks great consequences such as rebel mobilization and full-scale war. Instead, the United States must embark on a new journey to diplomatic relations with Venezuela through embassies, positive sanctions, and no armed intervention.