‘Naked Imperialism’: How Trump’s Intervention in Venezuela Is a Return to Form for the US

The phrase “naked imperialism” has resurfaced in global discourse following Donald Trump’s rhetoric and actions toward Venezuela. Critics argue that Trump’s interventionist posture—marked by open assertions of control, threats of force, and disregard for sovereignty—represents not an anomaly, but a return to a familiar American pattern in Latin America. While the language may be blunt and the style unmistakably Trumpian, the underlying logic echoes decades of U.S. foreign policy in the region.

Venezuela, long entangled in U.S. strategic interests, has once again become a stage on which power, ideology, and resources collide.

Venezuela and the Long Shadow of US Influence

To understand why accusations of imperialism resonate so strongly, one must look beyond Trump himself. Latin America’s history with the United States is shaped by repeated interventions—covert and overt—justified by anti-communism, stability, or democracy promotion.

From Guatemala in 1954 to Chile in 1973, U.S. involvement has often resulted in regime change, economic restructuring, and long-term instability. Venezuela, with its vast oil reserves and defiant leadership, has always occupied a special place in Washington’s strategic thinking.

Trump’s approach did not invent this relationship. It stripped away its diplomatic polish.

Trump’s Venezuela Strategy: Less Subtle, More Explicit

Under Trump, U.S. policy toward Venezuela became markedly more aggressive in tone. Sanctions were expanded, opposition figures were openly recognized, and military options were repeatedly floated in public statements. At times, Trump suggested the U.S. could “take over” or “run” Venezuela—language that stunned allies and emboldened critics.

What made this intervention feel different was not its substance, but its lack of pretense. Previous administrations framed pressure as multilateral concern or humanitarian necessity. Trump framed it as power.

To many observers in the Global South, this honesty felt less like transparency and more like domination.

Economic Pressure as a Weapon

Sanctions have been a central tool of U.S. policy toward Venezuela, and under Trump they reached unprecedented levels. Officially aimed at weakening the Maduro government, the sanctions severely restricted oil exports, financial access, and imports.

While U.S. officials argued these measures targeted elites, humanitarian organizations reported widespread civilian suffering—shortages of medicine, rising poverty, and mass migration. Critics argue that such economic pressure functions as collective punishment, forcing political change by making daily life unbearable.

This strategy aligns closely with what scholars describe as modern imperialism: control exercised through markets and finance rather than formal occupation.

Sovereignty vs. Democracy: A Familiar Justification

Trump’s intervention was often justified in the name of democracy and freedom. Yet this framing has long been contested. Who defines democracy? And who decides when sovereignty can be overridden?

For many Latin American nations, these questions are not theoretical. U.S.-backed interventions have historically supported authoritarian regimes when it suited strategic interests. As a result, appeals to democracy from Washington are often met with skepticism.

In Venezuela’s case, critics argue that the U.S. showed little interest in Venezuelan self-determination, favoring outcomes aligned with American economic and geopolitical priorities.

Oil, Power, and Strategic Realities

Venezuela’s oil reserves—among the largest in the world—cannot be ignored in any serious analysis. Control over energy resources has consistently shaped U.S. foreign policy, and Venezuela is no exception.

Trump’s blunt rhetoric reignited long-standing suspicions that humanitarian concern masks material interest. Even if intervention is framed as liberation, the question remains: who ultimately benefits?

History suggests that imperial interventions often promise reconstruction while delivering dependency.

International Law and Global Reaction

Trump’s approach drew criticism from international institutions and allies alike. Open threats of regime change without UN authorization challenged the norms of international law. Several European and Latin American governments urged dialogue over coercion, warning that unilateral action could destabilize the region.

Yet the muted global response also revealed a deeper truth: international law often bends under the weight of power. The U.S., as a dominant global actor, faces few real consequences for interventionist behavior—reinforcing perceptions of imperial privilege.

Why “Naked Imperialism” Resonates

The term “naked imperialism” resonates because it captures the absence of disguise. Trump did not cloak intervention in diplomatic language. He did not rely heavily on multilateral frameworks. He said what previous administrations implied.

For critics, this honesty was alarming. For supporters, it was refreshing. Either way, it forced a reckoning with the reality that U.S. power has always been willing to override weaker states when interests collide.

Trump did not invent imperialism—he removed its mask.

A Return to Form, Not a Break from It

While Trump is often portrayed as a disruption to American norms, his Venezuela policy suggests continuity rather than rupture. The tools—sanctions, coercion, regime change rhetoric—are deeply embedded in U.S. foreign policy tradition.

What changed was the tone, not the trajectory.

This raises uncomfortable questions for future administrations. If imperial behavior persists regardless of leadership style, the issue may lie not with individual presidents, but with the structure of power itself.

Conclusion: Lessons Beyond Venezuela

Trump’s intervention in Venezuela serves as a mirror reflecting the enduring nature of U.S. imperial influence. Whether labeled “naked” or nuanced, the exercise of power remains consistent.

For Venezuela, the cost has been immense. For the world, the lesson is sobering: rhetoric may change, but empire often adapts rather than disappears.

As global power shifts and new alliances form, the challenge remains whether international relations can move beyond domination toward genuine sovereignty—or whether imperialism will simply continue, unapologetically exposed.