As U.S. warships slice through the turquoise waters of the Caribbean and explosions light up the night sky near Venezuela’s coast, Latin America finds itself at a crossroads. The Trump administration’s recent escalation—strikes on vessels Washington claims are drug traffickers, and open talk of regime change in Caracas—has sent shockwaves through the region. Instead of forging unity, the crisis has exposed deep ideological divides, pragmatic calculations, and a crumbling sense of regional order.
According to Foreign Policy, the U.S. has conducted at least 19 strikes in Latin American waters since early September 2025, resulting in at least 76 deaths (other sources put the figure at 80). These operations, officially aimed at disrupting drug trafficking, have been met with a patchwork of outrage, nervous silence, and even open enthusiasm from Latin American governments. In a region with a long memory of U.S. interventions, the lack of a united front is itself historic.
Left-leaning leaders in Colombia, Mexico, and Brazil have voiced the most pointed criticism. Colombian President Gustavo Petro didn’t mince words, denouncing the boat strikes as “murder” and calling them unilateral executions in international waters. His outspokenness came at a cost: the Trump administration slashed U.S. aid to Colombia and publicly smeared Petro as an “illegal drug leader.” Yet, as Foreign Policy notes, Petro seems prepared to weather the storm, having built his career on challenging both U.S. policy and Colombia’s own establishment.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva also criticized the U.S. campaign, albeit in more measured tones. Both leaders face the reality that their nations’ economies are deeply linked with the United States, and harsh words could provoke damaging retaliation—tariffs, trade disputes, or worse. As Will Freeman of the Council on Foreign Relations observed, “They’re more cautious, pragmatic people, aware that their electorates care at least as much about growth, jobs, and inflation as about abstract questions of international law.”
On the other side of the spectrum, right-leaning governments in Paraguay, Argentina, and Ecuador have largely echoed Washington’s narrative, even going so far as to designate Venezuela’s Cartel de los Soles as a foreign terrorist organization—mirroring U.S. policy. Yet even some of Trump’s closest ideological allies have been reticent to cheer the strikes publicly. El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele, for instance, has kept quiet, despite reports that U.S. planes involved in the operation may be using Salvadoran territory.
Trinidad and Tobago’s Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has emerged as perhaps the region’s most enthusiastic supporter of the U.S. campaign. She welcomed the U.S. military buildup and, according to Foreign Policy, went so far as to say of suspected smugglers, “the United States should kill them all violently.” Her government recently allowed a U.S. warship to dock in Port of Spain, despite public protests and unease. The calculation is clear: by aligning closely with Washington now, Persad-Bissessar hopes to reap rewards if Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro falls and new energy deals become possible.
Maduro, meanwhile, is fighting back. On November 26, 2025, dressed in camouflage and brandishing a sword before a crowd in Caracas, he vowed to “defend every inch of this blessed land from imperialist threat or aggression, no matter where it comes from.” As reported by Sky News, he declared, “Failure is not an option.” Maduro has retaliated against Trinidad and Tobago by tearing up energy agreements and accusing Persad-Bissessar of turning her country “into an aircraft carrier for the U.S. Empire against Venezuela.”
The U.S. insists its campaign targets “narco-terrorists” poisoning American communities. Earlier this week, the Trump administration designated Venezuela’s Cartel de los Soles as a foreign terrorist organization, claiming Maduro is involved—a charge Venezuelan officials have dismissed as a “ridiculous fabrication.” But critics, including the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, have called the strikes “unacceptable” and a violation of international law. Legal experts in Washington and beyond question both their legality and their effectiveness. A recent poll cited by Sky News found that only 29% of voters support the policy, with many labeling it as extrajudicial killings.
Economic motives are never far from the surface. Venezuelan minister Delcy Rodriguez accused the U.S. of seeking “Venezuela’s oil and gas reserves. For nothing, without paying. They want Venezuela’s gold. They want Venezuela’s diamonds, iron, bauxite. They want Venezuela’s natural resources.” The Trump administration, like that of Joe Biden before it, does not recognize Maduro as Venezuela’s legitimate leader. Maduro is now in his third term after last year’s election, despite evidence that the opposition defeated him by a two-to-one margin.
The fallout from the U.S. campaign is already reshaping regional politics. The Dominican Republic postponed the 2025 Summit of the Americas, citing “profound divisions” that make dialogue impossible. European Union leaders pulled out of an EU-CELAC summit in Colombia amid President Petro’s public clash with Trump. Analysts warn the military buildup could hammer key economic sectors, from Caribbean tourism to fishing industries that sustain coastal communities.
Meanwhile, Cuba’s foreign minister Bruno Rodriguez condemned the U.S. military presence as “exaggerated and aggressive,” warning that ousting Maduro could “cause an incalculable number of deaths and create a scenario of violence and instability in the hemisphere that would be unimaginable.” He appealed directly to Americans: “We appeal to the people of the United States to stop this madness.”
Despite the saber-rattling, some U.S. officials doubt a full-scale war is imminent. Carlos Diaz Rosillo, a former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense, told The World With Dominic Waghorn, “What I do see is a strategy of maximum pressure on the regime. I do think if there’s any change, that change has to come from within the military.” Officially, the U.S. government says regime change is not the goal, but as Rosillo noted, Trump “would like to see that happen in Venezuela.”
For ordinary Latin Americans, the specter of U.S. intervention is less immediate than the daily realities of crime, corruption, and economic hardship. Many young voters have no memory of past U.S. invasions; their anger is aimed at their own elites, not Washington. Yet the crisis in Venezuela—millions fleeing repression and economic collapse—remains a pressing regional concern. As James Bosworth of Hxagon told Foreign Policy, many in the region “would be thrilled to see [Maduro] gone,” believing only the U.S. military has the capacity to make that happen.
But the regional gamble on silence and fragmentation carries risks. Juan Gabriel Tokatlian, an international relations scholar, warns that by failing to define collective red lines—on sovereignty, targeted killings, and counter-narcotics operations—Latin American governments may find themselves powerless to protest future interventions. “We do not have constraints today vis-à-vis the question of the use of force,” he said, pointing to a broader collapse of the rules-based international order.
As the U.S. prepares for a possible new phase of operations, the question remains: will Latin America find its voice, or will the region’s divisions deepen, leaving it vulnerable to the shifting winds of great-power politics?
