Venezuela, once one of South America’s wealthiest countries, now finds itself at the heart of a political and humanitarian storm. As of December 2025, a series of escalating U.S. military actions and threats under President Donald Trump have brought the country’s crisis to a boiling point, with experts warning that any further intervention could unleash an even larger wave of refugees and deepen the suffering of millions already caught in the crossfire.
The warning signs are everywhere. According to new research reported by AhlulBayt News Agency, any U.S. military intervention in Venezuela could spark a humanitarian crisis, potentially displacing millions more people. The country is already buckling under the weight of U.S. sanctions and economic pressure, which have crippled its oil industry and left ordinary Venezuelans struggling to find food and medicine. During Trump’s first term, these sanctions led to a surge in migration from 1 million in 2017 to 5 million by 2021, as shortages became unbearable.
But the exodus hasn’t stopped. According to the BBC, Venezuela’s political and economic collapse has produced one of the world’s largest displacement crises, with more than 7.7 million people fleeing the country. The government of Nicolás Maduro, despite widespread public distrust and accusations of political repression, has managed to hold on to power through a mix of elite patronage, military loyalty, and centralized control. The 2024 presidential election only deepened the turmoil: although opposition tallies showed Edmundo González as the clear winner, the electoral council declared Maduro victorious. The United States and several other governments rejected these results, recognizing González as “president-elect.”
In response, President Trump adopted a sharply escalatory—and highly militarized—approach. The BBC reports that Trump doubled the reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest to $50 million and deployed 15,000 U.S. troops, including aircraft carriers and guided-missile destroyers, to the Caribbean. Over 20 strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats have been carried out in international waters since early September 2025, killing more than 80 people, according to the Associated Press. In a move that drew fierce condemnation from Caracas, Trump declared Venezuela’s airspace “closed in its entirety,” a step Maduro denounced as a “colonial threat.”
The White House has framed these actions as part of a campaign to combat narcotics trafficking and stem the tide of migration from Venezuela. During a White House news briefing, Trump accused Maduro of “emptying his prisons and insane asylums,” sending drugs and people he “shouldn’t be sending” to the U.S.—claims for which there is no evidence, as CNN News points out. Experts and former officials are sounding the alarm that this strategy is dangerously misguided and could make things far worse.
“Any kind of military strike would cause panic and disrupt supply chains, and it would be very easy for rumours to spread and push people to flee,” said Gil Guerra, an immigration policy analyst at the Niskanen Center, speaking to CNN. Their study found that even limited airstrikes could force tens of thousands from their homes, while a short civil war could displace between 1.7 million and 3 million people. If conflict drags on, the number could rise above 4 million, overwhelming neighboring Colombia and Brazil.
Former U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela James Story offered a more cautious view, telling CNN, “If the U.S. took kinetic action, it would pale in comparison to the millions who’ve already fled. I don’t think you’d see many people flee at all…The only way I see a humanitarian crisis is if there is widespread, sustained military combat.” Still, the sheer scale of existing displacement and the fragile state of Venezuelan society suggest that even targeted strikes could have outsized effects.
Behind the headlines, the logic of U.S. intervention is being questioned on multiple fronts. Counternarcotics experts cited by the BBC point out that Venezuela is not a major origin point for cocaine or fentanyl trafficked into the United States. Most cocaine enters via Pacific routes, and fentanyl is primarily transported through land border crossings. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s 2025 National Drug Threat Assessment does not even list Venezuela as a source country for fentanyl. Yet, the U.S. has focused its military strikes on the Caribbean, precisely where trafficking is least prevalent.
Legal scholars are also raising red flags. The former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court told the BBC that the U.S. campaign amounts to a “planned, systematic attack against civilians during peacetime.” The Trump administration has defended its actions by labeling the targets “narco-terrorists,” but as the BBC notes, experts stress that this designation does not automatically make individuals lawful military targets under international law.
Ironically, the militarized approach may be strengthening Maduro’s grip on power rather than loosening it. According to researcher Ronal Rodríguez, quoted by the Associated Press, Venezuela’s populist ideology “has a remarkable ability…to unite” in the face of external threats. This dynamic, where foreign pressure creates internal cohesion, has defined Venezuelan politics for years. AP reporting further explains that Maduro maintains loyalty through harsh punishment for dissent and access to corruption networks that enrich military elites. Increased U.S. pressure, rather than weakening the regime, simply validates its nationalist narrative and discourages defections.
Meanwhile, the humanitarian crisis on the ground continues to worsen. Maritime strikes jeopardize the safety of migrants, fishermen, and civilians, while troop deployments heighten fears of invasion. The focus on counternarcotics operations shifts attention away from urgent needs like food security, healthcare, and displacement. In response to U.S. escalation, Maduro’s government has mobilized mass rallies and invoked anti-colonial rhetoric, further polarizing the population and shrinking the space for internal reform, as reported by Al Jazeera.
So what’s the alternative? Many regional experts and international organizations argue that a sustainable solution must move away from militarization and toward diplomacy. Latin American states such as Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Chile, along with members of the Caribbean Community, hold more credibility in the region than Washington, whose involvement is often seen as interventionist. A region-led mediation process, supported by the United Nations, could create conditions for fairer elections, humanitarian access, and gradual political opening—without playing into the hands of the regime’s nationalist propaganda.
Addressing the root causes of Venezuela’s crisis will also require targeting the illicit financial networks that sustain Maduro’s regime, rather than simply bombing alleged trafficking vessels. Breaking the financial logic of loyalty among military and political elites is more effective than kinetic strikes. In addition, a humane migration strategy is needed: supporting regional states that have absorbed the majority of migrants and expanding legal pathways for Venezuelans seeking stability.
There are signs that even within Maduro’s inner circle, there is an understanding that a transition is possible. Reuters reported that Maduro privately signaled willingness to negotiate an exit if granted legal amnesty and sanctions relief, suggesting that the regime’s cohesion may not be as solid as it seems.
Ultimately, the evidence is mounting: the current approach of force and escalation is not only ineffective but actively harmful. As millions of Venezuelans continue to flee hardship and repression, the world faces a stark choice—double down on militarization, or chart a new, diplomatic course that offers hope for peaceful change and genuine relief for those who need it most.