Boots on the Ground: Donald Trump's Nightmare Scenario in Venezuela

Watch the Episode

Video originally published on January 9, 2026.

The United States' swift military operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro was executed with remarkable precision—completed in under four hours with no American casualties, dozens of Cuban bodyguards killed, and Venezuela's defenses crippled. Within days, Venezuelan authorities agreed to sweeping concessions, including the immediate export of thirty to fifty million barrels of oil and expanded US investment in Venezuelan extraction. Yet beneath Washington's triumphant rhetoric lies an uncomfortable truth: just because the operation succeeded today doesn't guarantee success tomorrow. From internal coups and military action to popular uprisings, foreign interference, and even Haiti-style gang takeovers, countless scenarios could destabilize Venezuela. If chaos erupts, Washington will respond—but the options are limited, and each step forward brings the United States closer to an outcome the Trump administration refuses to acknowledge: American boots on the ground in Venezuela.

Key Takeaways

The United States executed a four-hour military operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro with no American casualties, dozens of Cuban bodyguards killed, and Venezuela's defenses crippled.

Washington installed Maduro's former Vice President, Delcy Rodriguez, as interim leader and expects to receive thirty to fifty million barrels of Venezuelan oil immediately while assuming indefinite control of Venezuela's oil sales.

Trump's strategy relies on military intimidation and economic coercion rather than troop deployments, using fear of personal retribution and economic leverage to keep regime officials compliant.

Multiple threats could destabilize Venezuela, including military coups by pro-Maduro loyalists or power-seeking officers, organized crime syndicates, armed militias known as colectivos, spurned opposition groups led by Maria Corina Machado, and popular uprisings.

The administration faces a strategic paradox: Trump's public opposition to foreign troop deployments may embolden anti-US factions to call his bluff, potentially forcing him to either commit 50,000 to 200,000 troops or withdraw entirely.

Anti-US elements who studied America's War on Terror understand that prolonged violence and American casualties could force either oil industry withdrawal or sufficient domestic political pressure to end the intervention.

Washington's Consolidation Strategy and Current Reality

As of Thursday, January 8, 2026, the United States is consolidating control over Venezuela following what can only be described as a remarkably clean military operation. President Donald Trump, in an interview with the New York Times, made clear his expectations for extended American involvement, stating he anticipates US control lasting multiple years. His remarks were unambiguous about American intentions: "we're going to be using oil, and we're going to be taking the oil. We're getting oil prices down, and we're going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need."

The United States has installed Maduro's former Vice President, Delcy Rodriguez, as Venezuela's interim leader. Rodriguez, despite being part of Maduro's inner circle, has reportedly made all necessary early adjustments to accommodate her new reality, having received explicit orders to maintain stability or face consequences. According to Trump, the US will receive up to fifty million barrels of Venezuelan oil in short order. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio elaborated that America will assume control of Venezuela's oil sales indefinitely, simultaneously opening market access for Western companies and eventually overseeing a political transition.

On the same Thursday, the US Senate voted on a war powers resolution designed to force Trump to seek authorization before taking further military action. However, even if the resolution passes, its practical impact remains questionable at best. The legislative maneuvering reflects domestic concerns about executive overreach, but does little to address the fundamental strategic challenges facing the administration in Venezuela.

The Mechanics of American Control

Perhaps more revealing than current actions is what the United States has disclosed about how it intends to preserve control over Venezuela. The administration has not been subtle about its willingness to use force; Trump strongly implied that Venezuela's current leader could be killed if she fails to comply with US orders. America's substantial presence of warships, combat aircraft, and amphibious assault units continues lingering off the Venezuelan coast as a constant reminder of American military superiority.

Trump has also emphasized his willingness to leverage economic pressure to gain compliance from Venezuela's civil leaders, military establishment, and national elite. The strategy essentially makes Venezuela dependent on energy exports that the US will facilitate, creating a system of economic vassalage. According to leaked CIA assessments, the US has determined it can maintain control more effectively by working through members of the old regime rather than installing opposition leaders, whose ability to exert authority over the Venezuelan state appears questionable at best.

These factors combine to reveal Washington's overarching approach to Venezuelan security. The Trump administration is betting that a combination of fear of personal retribution, economic leverage, and the ability for regime officials to retain some of their former power will be sufficient to ensure compliance. They're further betting that if regime officials at the top remain in line, they'll be able to keep their subordinates, military allies, and local supporters all in line as well. US leaders appear to believe that if the state apparatus remains stable, then opposition activists, organized criminal elements, local militias, and ordinary citizens will all act according to a belief that US intervention—and the reforms to Venezuela's oil industry and wider trade that will follow—serves their interests.

Each of these assumptions represents not just a prediction, but a potential point of failure. When individual elements develop in ways Washington didn't expect or failed to plan for, the much larger plan for Venezuela can begin to unravel.

Expert Warnings and Historical Precedent

The potential for chaos in Venezuela should come as no surprise to regional experts who have watched this situation develop over recent months. While it hasn't been wise to take individual expert evaluations as absolute truth—after all, the actual operation to remove Maduro differed significantly from what nearly any expert predicted—a common thread has run through nearly all objective coverage of Venezuela for years: the strong possibility of chaos if the United States attempted regime change.

These experts haven't argued for a single chaos scenario, and that's precisely the point. The argument is that Venezuela contains so many factors, so many self-interested actors moving at cross purposes, that somehow, somewhere, things are almost guaranteed to start unraveling, even in a scenario where the United States deploys every tool at its disposal to maintain stability.

Currently, it's become clear that the US does not plan to use every available tool, or even close to it. The theory of the case—where Washington relies on a combination of military intimidation and economic coercion to keep Venezuela stable—intentionally attempts to ensure Washington can maintain a light touch. The reasons are largely political: Trump has made his opposition to foreign troop deployments a core component of his political brand for years, and he has actively disdained American tools of soft power, including humanitarian aid, dedicated economic relief packages, and investment in initiatives that would immediately improve ordinary citizens' lives in hopes they might accept the foreign intervention.

Instead, Trump operates under the assumption that by avoiding troop deployments and otherwise avoiding acts that would place American interests at risk, he'll be able to shield US citizens—especially his political base—from experiencing any potential repercussions. The fundamental problem with this approach is that Trump also wants to maintain his hold on Venezuela, and it's not particularly likely that he can have it both ways.

The Oil Industry Dilemma and American Exposure

To understand where problems could emerge, it's essential to identify the core reasons US troops might be deployed on the ground: to stabilize Venezuela's security situation and to protect American interests. While Washington occasionally acknowledges the prospect of a future democratic transition, this remains purely abstract. The conversation happening in the here-and-now, with real details being worked out, centers on oil—and by all outward indicators, Washington wants America's energy industry heavily involved in what comes next.

This will require an incredible amount of work from private industry. While Venezuela possesses estimated reserves of roughly 300 billion barrels of oil, it's all a specific type that's not fit for purpose when initially extracted and is expensive to refine. Much of the country's oil infrastructure—from wells to pipelines to coastal refineries—is dilapidated or requires serious repair. Oil companies already appear hesitant based solely on the questionable financial proposition, and just days after capturing Maduro, Trump has already had to offer that oil company expenditures could be reimbursed.

Industry experts have pointed out that Washington risks undercutting itself by tanking oil prices and hurting American shale producers. In a tight economy, oil corporations want to be careful and avoid overextending themselves. But Trump's proposition becomes even more dubious from the oil companies' perspective if even their own security isn't guaranteed.

To achieve what Trump apparently wants, companies would need to place expensive physical assets in Venezuela, potentially rebuilding entire facilities or constructing them from scratch. They'd have to send people, probably American citizens, to participate in reconstruction, even if local labor does most of the heavy lifting. They'd need to invest in support personnel, including private security contractors, and retool their wider business practices on the assumption that Venezuelan oil will one day flow as Trump promises. This means risk, and it means American assets and American citizens exposed to all kinds of nefarious actors.

The Threat Matrix: Who Might Destabilize Venezuela

Unfortunately for both Venezuelans and Americans, the list of potential nefarious actors is extensive. It begins with elements in Venezuela's military that either remain loyal to Maduro or may see this as an opportunity to seize power for themselves. Venezuela's interim leader, Delcy Rodriguez, may be a former member of Maduro's inner circle, but now she's doing the bidding of the United States, making it very easy for anti-US or anti-intervention elements to make the case against her.

Washington clearly understands this threat. According to Reuters, the US has told Venezuela's hardline interior minister, Diosdado Cabello, that he should personally tread very carefully and avoid sabotaging Washington's agenda—lest he go the same way as Maduro, or worse. From Cabello to Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino, to the nation's powerful generals and intelligence leaders, even to cabals of junior officers, many in the Venezuelan military may seek to overthrow Rodriguez, either independently or with help from elements within Venezuela's civil government. With few trustworthy elements within the Venezuelan government, Maduro's Cuban bodyguards either dead or opposed to the US, and American troops absent, the question becomes: who protects Rodriguez?

Outside the government, organized crime presents another significant concern. Across Latin America, in places like Peru, Chile, and Ecuador, as well as Haiti in the Caribbean, rising gangsters have realized they can seize power or exploit instability to great effect. Venezuelan organized crime has been tied to state institutions for a long time, but if these syndicates judge that their interests now diverge from the new government, they could easily shift to sow chaos nationwide.

Venezuela's many armed militias at the local level also pose a threat. According to sources on the ground, these militias—known locally as colectivos—are already active across the country. They have gone door-to-door in opposition-friendly neighborhoods questioning locals for any sign of support for America's actions, while patrolling the streets with automatic weapons and vowing to defend Venezuelan sovereignty.

The opposition itself must also be accounted for. Maria Corina Machado and her allies have just been spurned by Washington and have little reason to believe they'll have a mandate to govern anytime soon. While Machado herself seems interested in maintaining the current course with Washington, there's no telling what the Venezuelan public might do if people who disdained the old Maduro regime but oppose America's conduct in their country attempt to take their country back.

Perhaps worst of all, any one of these groups could take action in ways that bring them into conflict with another group—pro-democracy protesters against pro-Maduro militias, or corrupt elements of the military competing with organized crime for a larger share of money that will be siphoned away by whichever faction is positioned to act.

The Strategic Paradox: How Trump's Rhetoric May Force His Hand

One would think the Trump administration should be able to keep all these factions in line. After all, Trump has been anything but sheepish about the entire operation; there's a reason all those warships are waiting off the Venezuelan coast, and there's a reason Trump has been threatening high-level officials who might have trouble remembering who they really answer to. But in an ironic twist of fate, Trump's constant rhetoric against foreign deployments of American troops abroad might end up making it more likely that he's forced to deploy them in Venezuela.

When considering all the forces in Venezuela that might act against Washington's interests, one of two things will be true. Option one: These people are stupid, purely self-interested, and haven't bothered to do even the slightest research about the global superpower now dictating their government's policy. Option two: they've done their homework.

If America's long deployments during the War on Terror showed anything, it was that the American people have very little patience for large-scale, long-term military expeditions abroad, especially when they start claiming American lives. Trump clearly understands this—he made an entire campaign about it. This leads anti-US factions in Venezuela to ask themselves: Is America's military presence really a threat that Trump is willing to act on? If these factions sow chaos, if they threaten American industry, American dollars, and American lives, will Trump really commit the many tens of thousands of troops required to stabilize the country?

Speaking to the American military outlet Stars and Stripes, former Marine officer Mark Cancian explained that at a minimum, fifty thousand US troops would be necessary to maintain a foothold in Caracas and other major urban centers while securing oil-related facilities. He added that "from a doctrine standpoint, a commander would probably ask for something more like 150,000 to 200,000 troops."

Given Trump's intense public opposition to even small troop deployments, it's not hard to imagine a scenario where America's president would hesitate to commit those forces—and even if he did, that just puts even more US assets in the line of fire. If anti-US elements in Venezuela have learned the lessons of al-Qaeda or the Afghan Taliban, then they understand that the way to get the US to disengage from Venezuela isn't by playing nice, but by bleeding the United States dry, for as long as possible and as violently as possible, until one of two things happens: Either America's oil industry gets cold feet and refuses to cooperate further, or the domestic pressure against Washington's troop deployments in Venezuela becomes so intense that Trump is forced to withdraw.

The Impossible Choice: Tactical Success, Strategic Failure

There's a substantial chance that Trump and his allies have already placed themselves in an impossible situation. Pro-Maduro loyalists, self-interested warlords, the democratic opposition, criminal cartels, and other anti-US factions may all want to call Trump's bluff. They face him with two options: Option one, they force Trump to commit to an unpopular, costly troop deployment that represents everything Trump campaigned against. Option two, he caves, and all that military hardware off the Venezuelan coast is revealed as a paper tiger, only capable of punishing whichever Venezuelan elite is unlucky enough to be in charge of the country on a given day.

Washington's actions to remove Maduro were, unequivocally, a tactical success. The operation was clean, efficient, and achieved its immediate objectives with minimal American losses. But in taking Maduro out and then committing to their current course, Trump and his allies may already have doomed themselves to a strategic failure. The administration has created a situation where maintaining control requires resources and commitments they've publicly sworn never to make, while abandoning Venezuela would represent a humiliating defeat and embolden adversaries worldwide.

The nightmare scenario for Trump isn't just that American boots might touch Venezuelan ground—it's that he may have no choice but to deploy them, contradicting years of campaign promises and political positioning. Worse still, any deployment would likely need to be massive and sustained, exactly the kind of open-ended military commitment that Trump built his political brand opposing. The alternative—watching Venezuela descend into chaos while American interests are threatened or destroyed—may prove equally unpalatable, both politically and strategically.

This is the bind that Trump has created: a situation where every available option contradicts either his stated principles or his strategic objectives, where tactical brilliance in execution has given way to strategic vulnerability in occupation, and where America's adversaries in Venezuela and beyond are watching carefully to see which principle Trump will sacrifice first.

Related Coverage

FAQ

How long did the US military operation to capture Maduro take?

The entire military operation was completed in less than four hours, with Venezuela's defenses crippled, dozens of Cuban bodyguards killed, and not a single American service member lost.

Who did the United States install as Venezuela's interim leader?

The United States installed Delcy Rodriguez, Maduro's former Vice President, as Venezuela's interim leader. Despite being part of Maduro's inner circle, she has reportedly made necessary adjustments to accommodate US demands.

How much Venezuelan oil does Trump expect to receive?

According to Trump, the US will receive up to fifty million barrels of Venezuelan oil in short order, with America assuming control of Venezuela's oil sales indefinitely.

What is Washington's strategy for maintaining control over Venezuela?

Washington's strategy combines military intimidation through warships and aircraft off the coast, threats of personal retribution against officials who don't comply, and economic leverage by making Venezuela dependent on energy exports that the US will facilitate.

Why did the US choose to work with former regime officials rather than opposition leaders?

According to leaked CIA assessments, the US determined it can maintain control more effectively by working through members of the old regime rather than installing opposition leaders, whose ability to exert authority over the Venezuelan state appears questionable at best.

What are the main threats to stability in Venezuela?

The main threats include military elements loyal to Maduro or seeking power for themselves, organized crime syndicates, armed local militias called colectivos, spurned opposition groups, and potential popular uprisings. Any of these groups could also come into conflict with each other.

Who are the colectivos?

Colectivos are armed militias at the local level in Venezuela. According to sources on the ground, they are already active across the country, going door-to-door in opposition-friendly neighborhoods questioning locals for support of America's actions, while patrolling streets with automatic weapons and vowing to defend Venezuelan sovereignty.

Why is Trump reluctant to deploy troops to Venezuela?

Trump has made opposition to foreign troop deployments a core component of his political brand for years. He assumes that by avoiding troop deployments and acts that would place American interests at risk, he can shield US citizens and especially his base from experiencing potential repercussions.

Sources

About the Author

Jackson Reed

Jackson Reed creates and presents analysis focused on military doctrine, strategic competition, and conflict dynamics.

About the Team →