A recent analysis has cast serious doubt on the stated motivations behind former US President Donald Trump's military incursion into Venezuela, arguing that his administration's domestic actions tell a contradictory story.
Domestic Actions Undermine Rhetoric of Liberation
The critique centres on policies directly affecting Venezuelan nationals in the United States. It highlights that if the mission were genuinely about liberating the Venezuelan people from tyranny and economic collapse, the Trump administration would not have lifted the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for roughly 600,000 Venezuelan refugees in the US. These individuals are precisely those fleeing the conditions the intervention claims to address.
Further evidence cited includes the deportation of 238 Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador's Cecot detention centres, facilities widely criticised for torture. Reports indicate only six had violent crime convictions, and none were on international lists of 1,400 suspected gang members. The analysis also points to broad travel bans affecting 39 countries, 24 classified as "not free" by Freedom House, including Venezuela and Iran.
Parallels with Maduro's Repression and Strategic Aims
The argument draws striking, if unequal, parallels between the human rights record of Nicolás Maduro's Venezuelan government and policies pursued or proposed under Trump. Amnesty International's 2024 report on Venezuela details repression of protest, obstruction of independent media, arbitrary arrests, and dire detention conditions.
While scale differs, the analysis finds echoes in the US context: attempts to imprison political opponents, actions against humanitarian aid non-profits, and deaths in immigration custody. It notes the 47 executions in US states in 2025 following a Trump executive order, described as the highest annual figure since 2009.
Strategically, the piece suggests Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio prefer dealing with Maduro's vice-president, Delcy Rodríguez, over opposition leader María Corina Machado, who is ready for elections. The reason, it posits, is that Rodríguez could be coerced for access to Venezuelan oil, whereas a legitimately elected leader would remove the pretext for control.
Potential for Escalation and Erosion of Liberties
Amnesty International has expressed concern about a potential "escalation of human rights violations" stemming from the US operations or Venezuelan government responses. Experts warn of inevitable resistance from various factions within Venezuela.
The analysis concludes that a foreign conflict could provide the "state of emergency" Trump appears to seek, potentially enabling the invocation of acts like the Insurrection Act to suspend civil liberties or the Alien Enemies Act to accelerate mass deportations. It argues that the primary freedom at stake is Trump's own, to exert power and enrich his circle, potentially at the cost of global legal order.
Ultimately, the examination of domestic policy presents a stark counter-narrative to the public justification for intervention, suggesting the freedom of the Venezuelan people is not the central concern.
