How will the USA control Venezuela
Executive summary
The United States is consolidating control over Venezuela through a mix of direct military action, legal and economic instruments focused on the oil sector, and diplomatic posture that conditions any normalization on Caracas severing ties with geopolitical rivals—moves that have already provoked international condemnation and raised constitutional and legal questions at home [1] [2] [3].
1. Military decapitation and the immediate security footprint
U.S. forces executed a surprise operation that captured President Nicolás Maduro and key figures in early January 2026, an act that established the bluntest possible form of control by removing the incumbent leadership and projecting permanent American coercive capability into Caracas [4] [5]; that operation and its tactical success reoriented policy debate from coercion to occupation and raised urgent questions about the legality and prudence of unilateral regime removal [6] [7].
2. Oil as the lever: quarantine, acquisition, and conditional access
Control over Venezuela will be exercised primarily through command of its oil revenues and production: U.S. officials publicly framed oil access as central to the intervention, implemented an oil “quarantine” and announced plans for the secretary of energy to acquire Venezuelan crude for U.S. sale, while sanctions remain formally in place as a gating mechanism to authorize any corporate engagement [1] [2] [4].
3. Legal and institutional instruments to consolidate power
Washington is coupling military means with law-and-regulation tools—OFAC sanctions, criminal indictments tied to drug trafficking and corruption, and executive actions aimed at freezing or channeling Venezuelan assets—to bind businesses and courts to a U.S.-centric reconstruction of the energy sector and to deter foreign partners of Caracas unless they comply with U.S. terms [2] [8].
4. Political messaging, proxies, and the ambiguity of governance
Public statements from the White House about “running” Venezuela and selling its oil have been rhetorically prominent but inconsistently hedged by the administration and its allies—Secretary of State comments sought to walk back direct governance claims even as Washington recognized alternative Venezuelan actors and released political prisoners as bargaining chips—creating a governance ambiguity that can be exploited for leverage while avoiding full-scale occupation responsibilities [1] [9] [5].
5. International backlash, regional risk, and strategic contestation
The intervention has provoked widespread international alarm—European governments, Latin American actors, Russia, China, Iran, and rights groups have condemned the strikes or warned of violations of sovereignty—transforming U.S. control into a geopolitical flashpoint that risks escalation with rival patrons of Caracas and complicates efforts to legitimize long-term American influence [3] [10] [11].
6. Domestic constraints and contested authority at home
Control of Venezuela will not be unchallenged domestically: Congress moved to assert war-powers scrutiny in response to the strikes, public opinion surveys showed most Americans prioritized domestic issues over foreign interventions, and legal scholars warn that the administration’s unilateral use of force strains U.S. constitutional norms and international law—factors that will limit the endurance and scope of direct control [9] [12] [6].
7. Two possible endgames and the contingencies that decide them
The first pathway to durable control is transactional: sustained sanctions relief and tightly managed opens in the oil sector in exchange for Caracas cutting ties with China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba and granting U.S. firms privileged access—an outcome the administration has publicly sought [2] [13]. The second is entropic: continued insurgency, international isolation, legal contestation, and regional destabilization that leave U.S. influence costly and precarious; Brookings and other analysts stress that tactical success in removing a leader does not guarantee strategic victory without coherent political reconstruction [11] [6].