An interview with Professor Richard Downie, a Professor in the USC M.A. in Global Security Studies Program
On January 3, 2026, the United States military captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. The couple is currently in New York City, where they face criminal charges of narco-terrorism and drug trafficking. Following Maduro’s capture, President Trump installed Venezuela’s Vice President, Delcy Rodríguez, as interim leader stating that her actions would align with whatever his administration believes is necessary to make Venezuela great again.
Many critics of Trump’s actions in the region have claimed that Trump’s reasons for ordering this operation are economic, focused on controlling Venezuela’s oil industry. Another possibility is that Trump conducted these operations in order to carry out his Trump Corollary, according to Professor Richard Downie, adjunct professor of Spatial Sciences and Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies at the Pacific Council on International Policy. The Trump Corollary is Trump’s declaration that the United States will be dominant in the Western Hemisphere.
The roots of the concept of the Trump Corollary come from 1823, when President James Monroe delivered a speech warning Europe to refrain from encroaching upon any portion of the Western Hemisphere. In 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt expanded upon this with the establishment of the Roosevelt Corollary which asserted that the U.S. has the right and responsibility to prevent European intervention and preserve order for the countries of the Western Hemisphere.
“The removal of Maduro is an example of how he was going to ensure that the U.S. used its might and power to run the Western Hemisphere basically, make sure that things didn’t happen that were not in our interest,” Downie said.
The ideas of intervention based on oil and economic interests are a way for Trump to appeal to his political voter base, which tends to be against foreign wars, especially since the reasoning of oil is difficult to argue as Venezuela has crude oil which would require a lot of money and investment in order to reinvigorate, according to Downie.
The oil justifications could possibly be tied to the fact that the economy was a top issue for Trump supporters, with 93% of Trump voters saying it was very important to their vote in the 2024 Presidential election, according to a study by Pew Research Center. Trump ran his campaign on claims that he would lower gas prices and increase tariffs, so it is possible that his voting base views his actions in Venezuela as a way for him to reduce those gas prices.
Despite justifying the intervention in Venezuela based on oil, it is highly likely that Trump intervened on the basis of furthering his realist international agenda. This view was strengthened by Stephen Miller, who made a statement in a CNN interview with Jake Tapper regarding U.S. intervention in Venezuela about how “might makes right.”
“He quoted, essentially, a statement out of Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian Wars [the Melian Dialogue] and he said that the strong will do what they will, and the weak will do what they must,”said Downie. “He said that’s always the way it’s been, and that’s how it is now.”
This is indicating that the international order is changing from a “rules based order,” because strong powers like the U.S. can simply do whatever they want, there is no central authority, and we all have to do whatever we need to do in order to protect ourselves and survive, Downie said.
Additionally, Trump’s actions likely have broader implications for other major powers such as Russia, China, and Iran as it furthers these realist ideas of strong powers exerting themselves upon weaker ones, which is especially reflected by the Trump administration’s actions in holding back support for Ukraine and giving Russia more favorable terms in negotiations, according to Downie.
“It seems that it’s a recognition of the fact that the order has changed. Russia’s powerful. China’s powerful. Yeah, that’s that—you can do what you want to, if you have the power to do so and the desire,” Downie said.
Trump’s increased actions of intervening in foreign countries in violation of international law signify a potential change in the international system, where international norms and institutions are ignored, and strong powers dominate over weaker ones based on their own interests.
On the other hand, concerns for a transition to genuine democracy in Venezuela remain as many of the bad actors in the Venezuelan government, such as the military and government officials who ran many of the illicit activities for decades, remain in power, according to Downie.
“Given the size of the country and all that’s going on, we don’t know–and reportedly, the same kinds of illicit activities that were going on under Maduro are continuing to go on,” Downie said.
The fact that many of Maduro’s regime remain in power in Venezuela is extremely concerning since it allows for corruption and autocracy to continue, and there seems to be no path for the U.S. to facilitate a transition to democracy in a timely manner.
The most clear plan for the future of Venezuela was laid out by Secretary of State, Marco Rubio who said there would be a three-phased operation of stabilization, recovery of the oil industry, and a transition to Democracy, according to Downie.
Furthermore, the fact that President Trump chose to install Delcy Rodríguez, rather than the legitimate victor of Venezuela’s last election in 2024, Edmundo González, who won with 70% of the vote, raises additional questions about the timeline of the transition to democracy in Venezuela. Trump’s past actions suggest that it is more likely that he will keep Rodríguez, or other political actors who align with his world vision, in power over a democratically elected leader.
“As Marco Rubio mentioned in his testimony…the transition to Democracy could take years,” Downie said, “So it didn’t appear that the U.S. was really interested in getting down and dirty quickly to accelerate the transition back to Democracy…we’ll let things go with the current government and then over time, there will be reformation.”
The true reasons for Trump’s decision to intervene in Venezuela: oil, drugs, or the furthering of his international agenda, remain unclear and may never be clarified. What does remain evident is that American involvement in the arrest of Maduro has tremendous significance not only for Venezuelans and the Western Hemisphere, but also for the major powers of the international system—and will continue to be relevant as it contributes to the changing international system.
The presidential administration can no longer view people as pawns in a game and needs to examine the real costs of foreign policy interventions. Rather than keeping the same corrupt officials in power, Venezuela needs a genuine transition to democracy, which is something the U.S. will have to assist with as a result of choosing to be involved in the first place despite international law.
American policymakers have to remember that U.S. actions in Venezuela and across the globe have a significant impact on the world order and sets the tone for how other superpowers behave. For this reason, it is imperative that rather than pursuing a selfish foreign policy, the U.S. should act in accordance with international norms, rules and organizations in order to restore some sense of respect for these values and institutions as well as a sense of world order, rather than creating the system of disorder theorized by Thucydides where the “strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what the must.”