President Donald Trump has turned Venezuela’s oil reserves into the centerpiece of a high‑stakes power play, presenting it as a way to weaken Beijing while securing cheap crude for the United States. Critics at home and abroad argue the move is less strategic masterstroke than old‑fashioned resource grab, accusing Washington of hypocrisy for toppling a leader it once sanctioned and then claiming the spoils.
Supporters counter that the operation is a calculated attempt to box in China and Russia in America’s own hemisphere, even as it ignites a fresh storm over imperialism, human rights and the future of global energy. I see a policy framed as a China trap that is simultaneously being blasted as a textbook case of great‑power double standards.
From “oil, not democracy” to imperialism charges
The backlash began almost as soon as U.S. forces moved in. In early Jan, Trump ordered a deadly U.S. military raid in Venezuela that led to the seizure of ousted Venezuelan leader Nicol, a dramatic escalation that critics quickly labeled imperial overreach. Human‑rights advocates and foreign‑policy experts now describe President Donald Trump’s actions in Venezuela as morally calamitous, arguing that the operation shows a perilous disregard for human dignity and the rights of smaller nations in the pursuit of conflict resolution peacefully, a charge that has hardened perceptions of an American empire in all but name. Those concerns are captured in assessments that group the Venezuela raid with other moves, from pressure on allies to talk of buying Greenland, as part of a broader pattern of imperialist policy.
Domestic opponents have seized on the oil angle to argue that the White House is dressing up a resource war as liberation. One viral critique came from Kamala Harris BLASTS Trump Over Venezuela Invasion, who warned, “This Is About OIL, Not Democracy, Seen This Movie Before,” casting the intervention as a replay of earlier U.S. adventures in the Middle East and Latin America. That message, amplified across social media, has helped cement a narrative that the administration’s rhetoric about restoring democracy in Caracas is secondary to securing control over Venezuelan crude, a perception reinforced by Trump’s own focus on who gets to pump and ship the country’s reserves.
Abroad, the operation has drawn global condemnation, with China and Spain warning of a dangerous precedent and Cuba confirming dozens of injuries and detentions linked to the fighting. Beijing’s diplomats have portrayed the U.S. move as a violation of sovereignty that could justify similar interventions elsewhere, while Havana has highlighted the human cost to underline what it sees as Washington’s disregard for regional stability. Those reactions, reported after the raid and the arrest of former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, show how quickly a tactical oil play has become a test case for the limits of American power, as seen in coverage of global condemnation and in opinion pieces warning that US President Donald Trump’s actions in Venezuela risk undermining the pursuit of conflict resolution peacefully in favor of coercion.
Trump’s China trap and the scramble for leverage
For the White House, the Venezuela gambit is not just about barrels, it is about Beijing. Trump and his advisers have framed the move as a way to crush China and Russia’s influence by redirecting Venezuelan oil flows away from America’s rivals and toward U.S. refineries and allies. Supportive analysts argue that if Washington can replace Chinese and Russian buyers with American ones, Beijing loses that leverage in the Western Hemisphere, turning a onetime stronghold of Chinese energy diplomacy into a strategic setback, a logic laid out in arguments that describe Trump’s Venezuela oil move as a calculated effort to weaken China and Russia.
Trump has been explicit about the China angle in public. At a recent press conference he asked, “Why does China need their oil? They are not going to come from outside our hemisphere, destabilize our region, in our backyard,” casting the contest over Venezuelan crude as a defense of the Monroe Doctrine updated for a multipolar world. That framing dovetails with reports that the U.S. seized two sanctioned oil tankers as part of a plan to assert control over Venezuelan oil shipments, even as Washington and Beijing maintain export controls on each other in a broader economic confrontation. In parallel, analysts note that U.S. companies have claims for tens of billions of dollars from when Caracas nationalized the oil industry, and it is not clear how those claims will be balanced against Beijing’s debt and oil stakes as Washington seeks to limit Chinese influence in the Western Hemisphere, a dilemma laid out in assessments of Trump’s China problem and in analyses of how U.S. companies and Caracas will navigate overlapping claims and influence in the Western Hemisphere.
More from Morning Overview