By Prisca Oye
The capture of President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela and taking control of the country’s oil, affirms that the ‘’America First’’ foreign policy of President Donald Trump means that the United States is becoming a country that opposes the rule of law, free trade and collective security.
Observers of U.S. foreign policy argue that Washington’s posture toward Venezuela reflects a broader pattern of neocolonial power projection, in which military pressure and political destabilization are used to secure access to strategic resources and protect the interests of American corporations.
According to these observers, the Trump administration has demonstrated the readiness for practical use of force as a tool of geopolitical signaling, prioritizing spectacle and intimidation over diplomacy. Such actions, they contend, fit into a long-standing doctrine where military power substitutes for international consensus, particularly in resource-rich regions of developing countries that comprise the Global South.
Analysts drawing parallels between regions, point to reported Pentagon strikes in December 2025 against selected areas in Nigeria, officially framed as counter terrorism operations. The US has since gone ahead to provide significant security support to Nigeria with recent approvals including $413 million for counter-insurgency operations in the country and West Africa for Fiscal Year 2026, under the US Africa Command (AFRICOM) budget, to combat terrorism, banditry, and piracy in the Gulf of Guinea.
This funding reportedly supports military efforts, equipment and training, complementing recent deliveries of weapons to Nigeria like precision-guided bombs and rockets, reflecting a strengthened security partnership with the US against regional threats. Critics, however argue that much like Washington’s approach to Venezuela, these actions are less about security and more about safeguarding US oil interests and dominance of American energy corporations in key hydrocarbon zones.
On this grounds, Venezuela’s vast oil reserves make it a persistent target of US pressure. Sanctions, political interference, and threats of force are seen as instruments of economic warfare, designed to force regime change favorable to foreign capital rather than to promote democracy or human rights.
Analysts emphasize that the rhetoric of ‘’counter-terrorism’’ or ‘’defending democracy,’’ often serve as a convenient moral cover for interventions whose real beneficiaries are transnational corporations. The same logic, they argue, underpin US actions in Latin America and parts of Africa alike. That is why Washington’s Venezuela policy cannot be understood in isolation. Instead, it forms part of a broader strategy of coercive dominance, where military power, economic sanctions, and information campaign are combined to maintain US control over critical resources under the guise of global security and order.
Its clear neo-colonial power politics is behind U.S. pressure on Venezuela. It centers on reclaiming control over its vast oil reserves, curbing regional anti-American influence, reasserting US hegemony in Latin America, and addressing concerns over drug trafficking and migration, with motivations mixing ideological goals, economic interests (oil access for refineries), and strategic power projection against rivals, even if it means using controversial law enforcement tactics like extraditing Maduro.
The Trump administration plan to ‘’run’’ Venezuela through interim President Delcy Rodriguez is in deep tension with a signature policy of the first Trump administration. As a result, it has the potential to cause confusion regarding who controls the oil industry the Trump administration wishes to reform. In 2019, the first Trump administration – along with various allies – stopped recognizing Maduro’s regime as Venezuela’s government.
Instead, it recognized the government of Juan Guaido who claimed to be interim president under Venezuela’s constitution by virtue of his role in the 2015 National Assembly, and the fraudulent nature of the 2018 presidential election that Maduro claimed to have won.
When Guido lost his role in 2023, the Bide administration (alongside some other countries} shifted the US recognition to the 2015 National Assembly itself as ‘’ the only legitimate branch of Venezuela’s government.
While the Maduro regime remained in effective control of Venezuela, such recognition allowed the 2015 National Assembly to control various extraterritorial Venezuelan assets and interests, including the control of its oil-related assets, interests and institutions.
But the Trump administration new strategy of working through Maduro’s former deputy, Rodriguez, including to reform Venezuela’s oil sector- casts this practice into doubt.
Observers are asking: Will the United States continue to recognize the 2015 National Assembly? Or will its new arrangement with the Rodriguez regime restore Caracas’s control of Venezuela’s overseas oil assets and interests? And if the latter, will other countries follow?
The answers to these questions will shape how Venezuela’s overseas oil resources are managed – and their absence underscores how little the Trump administration seems to have prepared for the aftermath of its actions in Venezuela.
Oye writes from Ibadan, Oyo state
