Apr 6, 2026 By Kent James 6 min read

The Trump administration’s recently released National Security Strategy puts renewed focus on the Americas, which has largely been neglected since the U.S. involvement in the civil wars in Central America during the Reagan administration. Donald Trump’s vision for the Americas is evident in his attacks on alleged “drug boats” from Venezuela, and his capture of Nicholas Maduro, the president of Venezuela (and his wife). He has also blockaded Cuban oil in an effort to promote regime change there.

To justify blowing up boats in international waters, Trump claims they pose a national security threat even though (assuming they actually are running drugs, which the Trump administration has yet to prove), they are selling a product Americans willingly buy, not trying to overthrow the government. Drugs certainly cause major problems, but decades of conducting a “War on Drugs” has demonstrated the futility of that militarized approach.

The first target (Sept. 2) had 11 people on it; smuggling drugs doesn’t require a large crew, and after the first strike, there were two survivors clinging to the wreckage who were killed by a second strike. This was likely a war crime (or simply murder, if one does not accept Trump’s characterization as a war), because the survivors were “out of combat” and posed no threat. Fast boats originating in Venezuela are not likely to come directly to the U.S., a journey that would require that they refuel multiple times. Most go to Trinidad and Tobago (a 12-minute journey from Venezuela), which is a primary transit point for shipping drugs to Europe.

These boats may well be carrying drugs, but that’s not the point. We used to be a nation of laws that did not summarily execute suspected criminals. Prior to Trump’s new policy, the Coast Guard conducted most drug interdiction in the Caribbean. In January and February 2025, Panama Express Strike Force (Coast Guard, ICE, DEA, FBI and Florida prosecutors) seized more than 44,500 pounds of cocaine (worth $500 million) and detained 34 suspects. Detention (instead of destruction) preserves evidence for criminal prosecution and provides the opportunity to learn about higher-ups in the drug organization; killing the low-level couriers operating the boats will not make a dent in the supply chain, for as long as there is demand, there will be money made supplying that demand.

But Trump’s pardons show that Trump is not really interested in stopping drugs from entering the country. He pardoned Ross Ulbricht, the creator of Silk Road – the dark web marketplace that facilitated the purchase of illegal drugs. In the midst of Trump’s campaign against drug traffickers in the Caribbean, he pardoned the former president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted of smuggling more than 400 tons of cocaine in the U.S. I cannot imagine how discouraging those pardons are for the law enforcement, who spent years building a case and winning a conviction, only to have Trump throw away all their work.

Venezuela is not a major cocaine producer (Colombia, Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador are), and the drug ravaging American communities is fentanyl, which is mostly produced in Mexico using products from China, and smuggled across the border by American citizens. Trump’s campaign against Venezuela is not about drugs.

The Jan. 3 extradition operation was impressive, carried out with no U.S. loss of life (though 80 to 100 people died, including 32 Cubans). In December, prior to the invasion, Trump began seizing tankers in the “shadow fleet” carrying oil from Venezuela. The first ship seized, the Skipper, was flying the flag of Guyana but was not actually registered there. International law does allow for the boarding of such a “stateless” vessel. When Trump was asked what he’ll do with the oil in the tanker, he said “Well, keep it, I guess.” Legally the U.S. cannot sell the oil without the court’s permission, and thus far, because of the tanker’s age and poor upkeep, it has cost the U.S. $47 million to hold it.

Oil is probably the real reason the U.S. removed Maduro; Venezuela has the world’s largest reserves, and under U.S. sanctions, it has struggled to maintain production. Trump gets a lot of support from the fossil fuel industry, and he seemed to think removing Maduro would allow him to restore the time when U.S. oil companies extracted Venezuelan oil. Chevron (and Dutch Shell), which were still operating in Venezuela under Maduro, are now negotiating better deals, but other oil companies (notably ExxonMobil) are not eager to rush in, given the high costs of investment and uncertain future. After all, the nationalization of the oil industry was very popular and the current government does not have electoral legitimacy.

Trump doesn’t care much for history, and good policy should not be dictated by the past. But the history of U.S. interventions in the last 100 years should be a cautionary tale. The U.S. has often intervened to protect business interests (Guatemala, Chile), as part of the Cold War (Cuba, Vietnam), or the war on terror (Iraq and Afghanistan). Even where initial success seemed to validate the intervention (supporting the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s, the CIA installing the Shah in Iran) these interventions ultimately led to disasters; the Taliban sheltered Al Qaeda (who attacked the U.S. on 9/11) and the brutality of the Shah led to the Iranian Revolution (and the capture of the U.S. embassy).

Since America was founded on the value of self-rule, and American history shows the power of that idea, it should not be hard to recognize the futility of trying to deny that liberty to other people to install governments America prefers. While the extradition of Maduro has been a positive development, with many political prisoners released, a policy that allows international oil companies to profit while the Venezuelan people suffer in poverty is not likely to endure.

Kent James, of East Washington, has a doctorate in history and policy from Carnegie Mellon University.