Do you support stronger U.S. actions, including sanctions or military measures, to influence political outcomes in Venezuela?

Background

The United States has a long and evolving history of using sanctions and, more recently, military force to influence political outcomes in Venezuela. Since 2005, the U.S. has imposed targeted sanctions on Venezuelan individuals and entities involved in criminal, antidemocratic, or corrupt actions, according to the Congressional Research Service. Under successive administrations, these measures expanded to include blocking the property of Venezuela's government and its state oil company, PDVSA. On January 3, 2026, U.S. special forces captured and extracted President Nicolás Maduro, who had claimed victory in a disputed 2024 election and was facing federal narcotrafficking charges in the United States. Maduro and his wife are now on trial in New York, having pleaded not guilty. Following his removal, the Trump administration began selectively rolling back sanctions to facilitate U.S. access to Venezuelan oil, while the Venezuelan government — now led by acting president Delcy Rodríguez — released hundreds of political prisoners. According to UNHCR, nearly 7.9 million Venezuelans have fled the country, making it the largest displacement crisis in Latin American history.

Supporters of stronger U.S. action argue that the Maduro government was essentially a criminal enterprise that used state power to suppress democratic opposition, rig elections, and facilitate drug trafficking, and that nonviolent diplomatic tools had failed to produce change. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has framed continued sanctions as leverage to push Venezuela toward legitimate democratic elections and severing ties with adversarial nations. Opponents raise serious concerns about legality and precedent. The UN Secretary-General stated that respect for the UN Charter, including the prohibition on the use of force, must remain the guiding principle. UN Human Rights High Commissioner Volker Türk warned that the military intervention damages the architecture of international security. The Brookings Institution cautioned that removing a leader does not automatically produce regime change, and that without sustained institutional rebuilding, the operation risks creating instability similar to past U.S. interventions. Multiple Latin American human rights organizations condemned the operation as a violation of sovereignty that sets a dangerous regional precedent.

The stakes extend well beyond Venezuela's borders. According to OCHA, approximately 7.9 million people inside the country need humanitarian assistance, with about 56 percent of the population living in extreme poverty, per the European Commission. Venezuela holds the world's largest proven oil reserves, and U.S. companies are cautiously evaluating new investment as sanctions are phased back. The Stimson Center has argued that U.S. use of force could push Latin American governments to deepen ties with China rather than the United States. Whether this moment leads to democratic elections, economic recovery, and humanitarian relief — or to prolonged instability, regional spillover, and erosion of international norms — depends on decisions still being made in Washington, Caracas, and international institutions. The outcome will shape not only Venezuela's future but also the rules governing how powerful nations interact with their neighbors.