In recent weeks, the long and complicated saga of U.S. intervention in Latin America has entered a dramatic new phase, with the Trump administration openly authorizing covert CIA operations in Venezuela. This move, reported on October 20, 2025, marks a stark departure from the shadowy, deniable tactics of previous decades and has sent ripples of anxiety and speculation throughout the region.
Historically, U.S. involvement in Latin America has ranged from overt military invasions—like the 1989 operation in Panama—to clandestine support for coups, such as the infamous 1973 plot that toppled Chilean president Salvador Allende. According to EL PAÍS, the Trump administration’s actions represent both a continuation and an escalation of this legacy, with the president recently admitting to authorizing CIA operations against Venezuela’s Chavista government. In the words of Sergio Guzmán, director of Colombia Risk Analysis, “It would be very naive to think that the CIA began operating after Trump said so. All of this has a performative dimension. What is going on is that before, we knew the United States had that capability, and now we know it also has the intention.”
Since September 2, 2025, at least six extrajudicial operations have unfolded in Caribbean waters, resulting in the deaths of at least 27 people. Two survivors—a Colombian and an Ecuadorian—were detained and are set to be repatriated. These operations, which have targeted alleged drug boats and even a small submarine, are only the most visible part of a broader campaign. According to CounterPunch, the U.S. military has deployed F-35 fighter planes, 10,000 troops in Puerto Rico, eight combatant ships, and an attack submarine to the region. There have even been sightings of elite Special Operations aviation units and B-52 bombers near the Venezuelan coast.
What’s perhaps most unusual—if not outright alarming—is the way President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have abandoned the traditional cloak of plausible deniability. In the past, presidents have kept covert actions, well, covert. Trump, however, has publicly acknowledged the “secret” authorization of CIA activity in Venezuela, a move that has left intelligence veterans and regional diplomats alike unsettled. As CounterPunch notes, this is a significant break from the past: “Donald Trump has gone a step further than all other presidents by ignoring plausible denial; he announced the ‘secret’ authorization to allow the CIA to conduct covert action in Venezuela against President Nicolas Maduro.”
The pressure on Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, is mounting. The Trump administration has not only authorized covert intelligence actions but also hinted at a possible second phase of the offensive, suggesting that ground incursions could be on the horizon. This escalation has prompted concern among Latin American governments, especially those with their own histories of U.S. interference. A Latin American diplomatic source in Washington told EL PAÍS, “There’s a fear of who might be next. And also a certain confidence that countries that maintain a good relationship [with Washington] will be spared. Although with this administration, you never know.”
The current campaign is being closely monitored by embassies from countries like Mexico and Colombia. These nations, already grappling with organized crime and drug trafficking, are wary that the U.S. could expand its operations beyond Venezuela. The U.S. State Department, as of February 2025, has listed six major Mexican criminal organizations—including the Sinaloa and Jalisco New Generation cartels—as foreign terrorist organizations, raising the specter of further military or intelligence interventions.
The historical context looms large. The U.S. has a long record of intervention in Latin America, justified variously by the need to protect strategic interests, economic assets, or to fight communism during the Cold War. The infamous Monroe Doctrine and its Roosevelt Corollary gave Washington a self-appointed mandate to “stabilize” the Western Hemisphere, often through force. This legacy includes the occupation of Haiti from 1915 to 1934, the 1954 coup in Guatemala, the 1964-65 intervention in the Dominican Republic, the 1983 invasion of Grenada, and, more recently, the 1989 ouster of Manuel Noriega in Panama.
According to CounterPunch, the CIA’s covert activity has often led to disastrous outcomes—overthrowing leftist leaders only to pave the way for brutal authoritarian regimes, as seen in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), the Congo (1959), and Chile (1973). The agency’s involvement in training and supporting repressive security forces throughout Central America, particularly in Nicaragua, Honduras, and El Salvador, has left lasting scars. In Honduras, for example, the CIA was instrumental in the formation of the notorious Battalion 316, which was responsible for widespread human rights abuses.
The CIA’s willingness to push legal and ethical boundaries is nothing new. In the early 1960s, revelations of assassination plots in Cuba, the Congo, the Dominican Republic, and Vietnam led to a formal ban on CIA-directed political assassinations. Yet, as CounterPunch points out, the agency continued to skirt these restrictions, producing manuals for the Nicaraguan Contras that discussed “neutralizing” officials as late as 1984. The nadir of U.S. clandestine operations arguably came with the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, a fiasco that exposed the limits of American intelligence and the perils of underestimating local support for indigenous leaders.
Despite the repeated failures and moral hazards of covert action, congressional oversight has often lagged behind. As Senator Frank Church warned in 1976, “The United States must not adopt the tactics of the enemy. Each time we do so, each time the means we use are wrong, our inner strength, the strength that makes us free, is lessened.” General Walter Bedell Smith, a former CIA director, put it more bluntly: “The CIA has committed every crime there is except rape.”
The Trump administration’s approach has only deepened concerns about accountability. Admiral Alvin Holsey, head of the U.S. Southern Command, announced his retirement two years ahead of schedule, reportedly in protest of the administration’s actions. According to CounterPunch, Holsey privately complained that he wasn’t consulted about some of the more provocative moves orchestrated by Trump, Rubio, and CIA director John Ratcliffe. Such an early departure by a combatant commander is highly unusual and underscores the internal tensions surrounding the current policy.
For Venezuela, the U.S. campaign represents a dramatic escalation. While tensions have simmered since the U.S. recognition of Juan Guaidó as interim president in 2019, direct intervention had not previously materialized. Now, with open admissions of CIA involvement, a significant military buildup, and the threat of ground operations, the stakes have never been higher. As history shows, the consequences of U.S. intervention—both intended and unintended—have a way of reverberating far beyond their initial targets.
As the world watches, the latest chapter in U.S.-Latin American relations unfolds with all the intrigue, risk, and uncertainty that have defined this relationship for more than a century. The choices made in the coming months will shape not only the fate of Venezuela but also the broader trajectory of American influence in the hemisphere.