Why didn’t prior US presidents remove Maduro

1. The toolbox presidents preferred: sanctions, recognition and pressure, not boots on the ground

From the Obama through the Biden administrations and into Trump’s earlier term, U.S. policy toward Venezuela emphasized sanctions, diplomatic isolation and recognizing rival claimants rather than invasion or capture — a strategy described as “maximum pressure” that included sanctions and support for opposition leaders like Juan Guaidó rather than overt regime-change invasions ^{[1] [2] [6]}.

2. Legal and constitutional limits restrained kinetic options

U.S. leaders worried about the legal authority and international-law consequences of seizing a sitting head of state: questions about prosecuting a foreign president, immunity and the need for congressional oversight of uses of force loomed large in legal assessments that past administrations relied on to avoid direct action ^{[3] [4]}.

3. The operational and political risks of intervention were real and familiar

Experience from prior Latin America interventions — most notably Panama in 1989 — fed a cautionary instinct: removing a leader can produce insurgency, legitimacy crises and long occupations, a history invoked by analysts warning past presidents against interventions that could become another costly, destabilizing entanglement ^{[4] [5]}.

4. Geopolitical entanglements complicated any plan to oust Maduro

Maduro’s alliances with Russia, Cuba, Iran and regional networks elevated the stakes of any attempt at forcible removal, making deterrence and diplomacy more attractive than risky military options that could escalate into broader confrontation; past presidents judged those geopolitical costs too high for direct regime removal ^{[7] [8]}.

5. Competing U.S. priorities, domestic politics and the Monroe Doctrine

Domestic political calculations and shifting presidential priorities constrained action: administrations balanced Latin America policy against wars, priorities elsewhere and domestic appetite for interventions, while debates about invoking hemispheric doctrines like the Monroe Doctrine have long shaped political willingness to act overtly in the region ^{[9] [5] [2]}.

6. Motives and messaging: why past governments framed removal differently

U.S. officials often framed pressure as seeking to restore democracy and punish corruption, not to seize resources, but critics have long argued economic motives — access to oil and natural resources — and counter-narcotics narratives also influenced policy debates, complicating public justification for direct action and making presidents wary of accusations of self-interest ^{[10] [8] [6]}.

7. Why Trump crossed the line in 2026 — and why earlier presidents didn’t

The 2026 operation reflects a partisan political calculation combined with an administration willing to accept legal controversy, international backlash and occupation risks that prior presidents were unwilling to bear; Trump’s public focus on Maduro as a campaign and security priority, and a decision to treat Venezuela as an operational theater to be “run,” distinguishes this move from earlier, more cautious U.S. approaches ^{[8] [5] [11]}.

8. The unresolved question of legitimacy, consequences and alternatives

Scholars and institutions caution that even if removal is tactically successful, the legal controversies, regional fallout and the sidelining of opposition actors risk a chaotic transition and long-term harm to Venezuelans — a caution that historically persuaded prior presidents to pursue containment and pressure rather than forcible ouster ^{[4] [7] [12]}.