On Jan. 3, 2026, the United States launched Operation Absolute Resolve in Venezuela, capturing Venezuelan president Nicholas Maduro and first lady Cilia Flores.
Serving as the president since a controversial 2013 election, Maduro gained an authoritarian title as he faces responsibility for Venezuela’s economic decline and faces accusations of human rights violations and voter fraud.
The Trump administration initially cited Maduro’s alleged complicity with drug trafficking along with his authoritarian oppression and mishandling of the economy as the main reasons for the attack, but later claimed that their main motivation was to secure Venezuelan oil reserves for U.S. companies and to “Run the country,” according to Trump. The president is supposedly considering Maduro’s opposition party leader María Corina Machado for an unspecified level of involvement in the country’s affairs.
Little detail has been given on what exactly Trump plans to do to “run” Venezuela and secure the oil reserves, but critics believe shipping crude oil out of Venezuela poses little short term benefit for U.S. companies or consumers.
“The oil companies so far are very disinclined to do so, for a lot of good reasons.” Said Ralph Espach, a social studies teacher at ACHS. “Venezuela’s an unstable country, it’s a violent country. No one knows who’s going to be running it in one to two years, and if it’s still going to be as unstable as it was before or even worse. So why would you invest hundreds of billions of dollars, as Trump says, in a situation like that, when you have all these options around the world, and the oil price is extremely low?”
Beyond the logistics of Venezuelan oil, the American people are left wondering about Trump’s action plan; should negotiations fall through with acting Venezuelan president Delcy Rodriguez, and whether or not U.S. intervention will actually improve the life for Venezuelans.
“I think that Venezuela is going to transition into having an election And María Corina Machado is going to win that election.” said Darwin Salazar, ACHS senior and president of Latinos 4 Latinos “And what’s gonna happen is that the U.S. will continue to bring their companies in, because María Corina Machado does want to privatize the oil.”
The prospect of U.S. companies working with foreign puppet regimes strikes a historical note with both Titans and Venezuelans, with some Titans comparing the future of American oil companies in Venezuela with the 1954 coup in Guatemala.
“They’re showing that Venezuelans [in the U.S] are cheering for this, but they’re not showing what’s happening [in Venezuela.]” said Tommy Cruz, ACHS senior. “They really want [Maduro] back. Why? Because, and this is the same reason why he won the elections again, because he’s an opposition to American Imperialism.”
The attack on Venezuela was not the first time the United States has used military force to impose American policy on foreign countries. In 1989, the U.S. invaded Panama with the goal of deposing Manuel Noriega, and in 2003 the U.S. invaded Iraq with the goal of deposing Saddam Hussein.
“Panama’s considered a successful intervention in the sense that it led to the installation and the endurance of a relatively effective democratic regime with elections, which up to this point, Panama’s been a relatively thriving country.” said Espach “It’s been one of the economic miracles of the region, it’s a nice place to live, and has held its government and democracy together.”
The aftermath of the invasion in Panama left nearly 20,000 Panamanians displaced, after which the U.S. funded plan for rebuilding houses in Panama failed.
Despite these initial setbacks, the international community sees the invasion of Panama as a success due to the lasting economic and political stability in the country.
“Iraq, on the other hand, turned into a war, first of all, that led to the hunting down and the extraction of Saddam Hussein, and the inheriting of a country that took us almost two decades to get out of.” said Espach “And since that time, it’s [become] kind of a democracy, but it’s under adversary influence from Iran, it was very bloody, with hundreds of thousands dead and millions of people displaced, so that’s not seen as a positive example. And unfortunately, Venezuela is more similar to Iraq than Panama.”
Domestically, Trump’s invasion of Panama without the approval of congress has negative implications for the continued abuse of checks and balances by the Trump administration.
“I mean, I think this fits in well with what’s been happening for decades when it comes to executive power.” said Andrew Orzel, an AP government and AP economics teacher at ACHS. “The war powers Act that came out of the 1970s was Congress trying to take some power back from the president, but it does essentially say that the president can use force for sixty days without their approval. If the president wants to go beyond 60 days, Congress does have to authorize it. And then the only other piece of it that may be in violation is this idea that he’s supposed to notify them within 48 hours.”
This isn’t the first time a President has enacted military operations without Congress’s approval. George W. Bush’s controversial invasion of Iraq is a frightening parallel to today, where the president deployed American troops without explicit approval from congress. The Trump administration’s continued defiance of executive norms and centralization of power bodes negatively for his continuingly aggressive foreign policy.
“All of the things combined are setting a precedent where our beautiful experiment is showing its weaknesses if the branches don’t at least serve as a check on the other branches.” said Erin Hudson, a social studies teacher at ACHS. “I think it is a very slippery slope that will continue until the other branches step up.”
Combined with the continued rise of the cost of living, Trump invading Venezuela and entertaining the idea of invading Greenland seems to be a step back on many of his campaign promises ahead of the already tumultuous 2026 midterm elections.
“And so, the fact that, in 2026, we have midterm elections, and the fact that Trump is gonna be what’s considered a lame duck president, my hope in terms of having more balance of power would be that the legislative branch starts to listen more to their constituents in order to be reelected rather than just acquiescing to the power of the executive.” Said Hudson. “And if that happens in large enough numbers, then it could represent the legislative branch taking some of their power back.”
If congress can balance the power between branches and the Republican party loses control of either house of congress, it could set the current administration on a more unified front towards foreign relations and providing for the American economy.
