Trump’s domestic agenda behind escalating Venezuela tensions

The Trump administration is intensifying its rhetoric around Venezuela, raising the specter of military intervention.

While officials argue that the primary objective is to combat drug trafficking, critics contend that regime change is the underlying goal. However, these geopolitical aims might be secondary to a more domestic-focused strategy aimed at consolidating power and maintaining Republican unity at home.

One significant aspect of Trump’s political coalition is showing signs of strain, particularly among Latino voters. Mass deportations, a cornerstone of Trump’s immigration policy, have led to growing disillusionment among Florida’s Cuban and Venezuelan communities. Many of these voters initially supported Trump, assuming that his deportation strategy would not be as aggressive as it turned out to be.

The escalating rhetoric around Venezuela could serve as a way for Trump to reconnect with these voters, especially those who view President Joe Biden as too lenient on left-wing regimes in Latin America.

Ironically, Trump’s initial policy toward Venezuela in early 2025 was softer than Biden’s. Under the influence of a pro-oil coalition, Trump attempted to strike a deal with Nicolás Maduro's regime. The agreement, which included the return of prisoners, the acceptance of deportees, and greater access for U.S. oil companies to Venezuelan resources, was met with outrage from Cuban and Venezuelan exiles in Florida.

In response, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, a staunch critic of Maduro, became a key advocate for a more aggressive stance. By the summer of 2025, Trump had shifted his approach, trading diplomacy for war rhetoric.

While Maduro is undoubtedly one of the world’s most brutal autocrats, critics argue that framing military action as a necessary step to restore democracy in Venezuela obscures the broader strategic calculus at play.

Trump’s administration has emphasized the need for military action primarily on the grounds of drug security, despite the fact that the Maduro regime’s role in the drug trade, while significant, pales in comparison to its human rights abuses. In this regard, the Trump administration’s focus on drug trafficking serves as a convenient justification for military action, particularly as it aligns with the interests of multiple domestic constituencies.

In truth, the push for military intervention is more about managing Trump’s political coalition than about advancing democracy in Venezuela. A combination of far-right nationalists, MAGA factions that favor tough policies on the drug trade, oil industry stakeholders, and Florida-based Cuban and Venezuelan communities have all been vocal in their support for a hardline stance on Maduro.

Additionally, groups within the Republican base that advocate for stringent immigration policies—such as those pushing for more deportations—see the removal of Maduro as a potential means to reduce migration flows from Venezuela, which could make deportations easier to execute.

However, military action in Venezuela may not be universally popular within the broader MAGA movement. Non-interventionist factions, wary of prolonged foreign entanglements, may resist a protracted military campaign. Trump will likely need to balance these concerns, hoping that any military intervention remains short-lived or that these voters are willing to overlook the costs of such an operation.

At its core, Trump’s rhetoric about "lethal kinetic strikes" in Venezuela serves two main purposes. Internationally, it could encourage a shift within the Venezuelan military that leads to Maduro's ousting.

Domestically, it aims to satisfy various MAGA factions, including oil companies, nationalist hardliners, immigration enforcement advocates, and Florida’s Cuban and Venezuelan communities.

What is most striking, however, is how peripheral the promotion of democracy seems in the administration’s strategy. A change in leadership in Venezuela does not necessarily equate to the installation of a democratic government. For many factions within the MAGA coalition, a pro-Trump regime in Caracas, whether democratic or not, would be sufficient.

This raises the possibility that Trump views military intervention in Venezuela as a low-risk, high-reward proposition. While any military action comes with inherent costs, Trump may see Venezuela as a situation where the risks of war are mitigated by the absence of a requirement to promote democracy.

For him, this could represent a "war at a discount," offering significant domestic political dividends without the added burden of nation-building—a calculation that may make military intervention in Venezuela an appealing option.