In a move that has reignited longstanding debates over American interventionism, President Donald Trump’s recent authorization of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) covert operations aimed at toppling Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has set off alarm bells among foreign policy experts, United Nations human rights officials, and members of Congress. The escalation, which includes a series of lethal strikes in the Caribbean and a heavy reliance on classified intelligence, has drawn fierce criticism both domestically and abroad, with many warning that the United States is edging dangerously close to another war of choice in Latin America.
According to Common Dreams, President Trump announced on October 22, 2025, that he had authorized the CIA to conduct operations inside Venezuela, citing two reasons: the alleged mass release of prisoners by the Venezuelan government into the United States, and the flow of drugs from Venezuela into American communities. "Number one, they have emptied their prisons into the United States of America," Trump declared. "And the other thing, the drugs, we have a lot of drugs coming in from Venezuela, and a lot of the Venezuelan drugs come in through the sea." However, these claims have been repeatedly debunked by experts and U.S. officials. There is no credible evidence that the Venezuelan government has systematically released prisoners and sent them to the U.S., and while Venezuela is a transit point for cocaine—mostly produced in neighboring Colombia—approximately 90% of U.S.-bound cocaine enters via Mexico, not Venezuela, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.
The Trump administration’s campaign has not been limited to rhetoric. Over the past eight weeks, the U.S. has conducted at least seven military strikes off the coast of Venezuela, resulting in the deaths of 32 people, as reported by Latin Times. Most of these strikes targeted speedboats in the Caribbean, and at least 27 people have been killed with no evidence provided that they were drug smugglers, according to United Nations human rights experts. The CIA has played a central role in these operations, supplying real-time intelligence from satellites and signal intercepts to identify potential targets. The details of these operations remain classified, raising concerns about transparency and accountability.
Anna Kelly, the White House deputy press secretary, defended the administration’s actions, stating, "The decisive strikes have been against designated narcoterrorists bringing deadly poison to our shores, and the president will continue to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into our country and to bring those responsible to justice." Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell echoed this sentiment, insisting that "every action taken by the Department is deliberate, lawful, and precise." Yet, the lack of public evidence and the secrecy surrounding the intelligence have only fueled skepticism.
Foreign policy analysts and historians have drawn parallels between the current campaign and previous U.S. interventions in Latin America. Matt Duss, executive vice-president of the Centre for International Policy and a former adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders, warned in a statement that "using covert or military measures to destabilize or overthrow regimes reminds us of some of the most notorious episodes in American foreign policy, which undermined the human rights and sovereignty of countries throughout Latin America and the Caribbean." John Coatsworth, a historian specializing in the region, noted that the U.S. has launched at least 41 successful interventions to overthrow governments in Latin America since 1898, with the true number of military interventions being even higher.
The human cost of such actions has been significant. Tens of thousands of Venezuelans have died as a result of U.S. economic sanctions, according to research from the Centre for Economic and Policy Research. Tim Weiner, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and expert on the CIA, told CNN, "The successes, for example, in Guatemala, ushered in dictatorships and led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people," referencing the 1954 CIA-backed coup against President Jacobo Árbenz. "Such interventions rarely lead to democratic or peaceful outcomes," Duss added. "Instead, they exacerbate internal divisions, reinforce authoritarianism, and destabilize societies for generations."
The United Nations has also weighed in, with three independent human rights experts, mandated by the U.N. Human Rights Council, condemning the U.S. for breaching Venezuela’s sovereignty and the U.N. Charter. "These actions also violate the fundamental international obligations not to intervene in the domestic affairs or threaten to use armed force against another country," the experts said. They further warned that the use of lethal force in international waters without a proper legal basis amounts to extrajudicial executions and that preparations for covert or direct military action against another sovereign state constitute "an even graver breach of the UN Charter."
Notably, the experts rejected the Trump administration’s justification of self-defense, pointing out that groups like Tren de Aragua, labeled as "terrorist" by Trump, are not attacking the United States and therefore do not provide grounds for invoking the right to self-defense under international law. They cautioned against repeating the "long history of external interventions in Latin America" and called for the international community to defend the rule of law and the peaceful settlement of disputes.
Inside Venezuela, President Maduro has accused Washington of plotting to oust him. "The CIA has been sent to Venezuela for regime change," Maduro declared in Caracas. "Since its creation, no U.S. Government has so openly ordered this agency to kill, overthrow, or destroy other countries. If Venezuela did not possess oil, gas, gold, fertile land and water, the imperialists wouldn’t even look at our country."
The domestic reaction in the United States has been far from unanimous. A majority of Americans oppose U.S. military involvement in Venezuela, according to polling referenced by Common Dreams. On October 17, 2025, a bipartisan group of senators—Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)—introduced a war powers resolution to bar unauthorized U.S. military action within or against Venezuela. "I’m extremely troubled that the Trump administration is considering launching illegal military strikes inside Venezuela without a specific authorization by Congress," Kaine stated. "Americans don’t want to send their sons and daughters into more wars – especially wars that carry a serious risk of significant destabilization and massive new waves of migration in our hemisphere."
While the Pentagon maintains that its actions are lawful and justified, the resignation of Admiral Alvin Holsey, head of the U.S. Southern Command, has raised eyebrows. According to The Guardian, Holsey reportedly stepped down after expressing concerns about the legality of the operations, although the Pentagon denies any objections to the strikes.
As the debate continues, experts like Joseph Addington of The American Conservative have cautioned that any U.S. invasion of Venezuela would come with significant costs and risks. "There is no free lunch in geopolitics," Addington wrote, emphasizing the dangers of both initial invasion and the long-term challenges of occupying and rebuilding another nation.
With the world watching and tensions mounting, the course of U.S. policy toward Venezuela remains uncertain. For now, the warnings from history, international law, and the voices of those most affected serve as a stark reminder of the stakes involved in America’s latest foreign policy gamble.