The Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) organised a Monday Morning Meeting on 19 January 2026, featuring a presentation by Dr. Saurabh Mishra, Research Fellow, MP-IDSA on “President Trump’s MAGA Adventure in Venezuela: The Ideology and Praxis of a Global Strategy.” The Session was moderated by Dr. Cherian Samuel, Research Fellow at the Institute. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA and scholars of the Institute participated.

Executive Summary

The session examined the strategic, ideological, and economic motivations behind recent U.S. actions in Venezuela and situated the episode within the broader trajectory of U.S. foreign policy under President Trump’s second term. The presentation argued that the Venezuela episode represents an intersection of ideological framing and strategic interests, reflecting the operationalisation of the “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) worldview in the Western Hemisphere. It highlighted the administration’s emphasis on counter-narcotics, energy security, and political legitimacy, while also pointing to deeper structural considerations, including great-power competition and the changing distribution of global power. The discussion further explored the conceptual distinction between MAGA ideology and MAGA praxis and assessed the implications of this episode for regional order, international norms, and U.S. global strategy.

Detailed Discussion

In his opening remarks, Dr. Cherian Samuel, drew attention to the fast-moving and often unpredictable character of U.S. foreign policy during President Trump’s second term. He noted that the week had already witnessed significant developments, including tariff measures against several countries and discussions around alternatives to existing multilateral arrangements. Against this backdrop of norm contestation and strategic disruption, he framed the central question of the session: why Venezuela had emerged as a focal theatre for the projection of “MAGA praxis,” and what this indicated about the evolving U.S. approach to power, sovereignty, and regional order.

Dr. Saurabh Mishra began by characterising the Venezuela episode as an “adventure,” capturing both the speed and the high-risk, high-uncertainty nature of the developments. He argued that while the U.S. administration offered a set of justifications, the sequence of actions suggested a more complex interaction of ideological framing and strategic calculations. He recalled that on 3 January 2026, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife were reportedly seized and taken into U.S. custody. While U.S. official language described the action as an “arrest” under domestic legal grounds, Dr. Mishra noted that the manner of the operation raised serious questions under international law, particularly regarding sovereignty and non-intervention. Even the choice of terminology such as arrest, seizure, or abduction became politically and legally significant in shaping international reactions.

Dr. Mishra placed these developments within a broader policy arc, arguing that the Western Hemisphere was being repositioned as a central theatre of U.S. strategic attention. A military build-up had reportedly been underway for several months, publicly justified through counter-narcotics and anti-cartel narratives. The administration’s designation of drug cartels as terrorist organisations, he suggested, appeared designed to expand the legal and political scope for the use of force.

Turning to the counter-narcotics argument, Dr. Mishra acknowledged the seriousness of the U.S. overdose crisis, noting that deaths had risen steadily over several years, peaking above 100,000 in 2022 before declining. He highlighted the role of fentanyl, particularly its mixing into counterfeit substances, which significantly increases overdose risks. He also noted that drug control had been a major theme of President Trump’s second-term campaign, including proposals for maritime interdiction and stronger action against trafficking networks.

Dr. Mishra then examined whether Venezuela credibly fits the administration’s counter-narcotics rationale. He argued that, as a source country, Venezuela is not central to the U.S. drug supply chain in the manner suggested by official rhetoric. Venezuela does not produce coca, the primary raw material for cocaine, and major synthetic drug production networks, particularly those associated with fentanyl, are concentrated elsewhere. While Venezuela has functioned as a transit corridor, he noted that trafficking flows using Venezuelan routes are often destined for European markets rather than the United States. The principal entry pathways into the U.S. continue to be associated with the southern land border and eastern Pacific routes, rather than the Caribbean theatre where the operation unfolded. In this context, he suggested that the scale and symbolism of the intervention appeared disproportionate to Venezuela’s role in the U.S. domestic overdose crisis.

At the same time, Dr. Mishra noted that the U.S. administration had constructed a specific legal-political case around Venezuela’s leadership. He referred to allegations that elements within Venezuela’s military and security establishment had been accused of facilitating trafficking networks. Within this framing, President Nicolás Maduro was portrayed as a central figure within a broader trafficking ecosystem. The Speaker suggested that these allegations were used to strengthen a law enforcement narrative, even as the wider strategic context pointed to motivations extending beyond counter-narcotics objectives.

Dr. Mishra then turned to the second major explanation for the intervention: oil and energy security. He argued that this dimension appeared understated in initial public messaging, creating analytical uncertainty, as early official statements did not foreground oil as a central justification. However, he suggested that the energy logic becomes clearer when viewed from a longer historical and prospective perspective.

The Speaker recalled that Venezuela had historically been a major contributor to U.S. crude imports, particularly during periods when U.S. dependence on imported petroleum was higher. Over time, however, the United States reduced its reliance on Venezuelan oil due to several factors, including the shale revolution, diversification of import sources, and growing political tensions with Caracas. While U.S. import dependence did not disappear entirely, the Venezuelan component declined significantly as imports were redirected toward more stable suppliers, particularly within North America.

Dr. Mishra also pointed to Venezuela’s long-term production decline, with output peaking earlier and subsequently facing constraints due to underinvestment, governance challenges, and political decisions affecting the oil sector. These developments reduced Venezuela’s short- to medium-term leverage as a key supplier. Nevertheless, he cautioned against assuming that Venezuelan oil had lost its strategic relevance.

The Speaker argued that future-oriented energy projections offer a clearer explanation for renewed U.S. interest. Although the United States has expanded domestic production through shale and unconventional sources, projections suggesting that the shale boom could plateau or decline in the coming years creating incentives for long-term hedging. In this context, Venezuela’s vast reserves despite the complexities of heavy crude extraction and the need for substantial investment retain strategic significance.

Dr. Mishra also noted that parts of the U.S. refining system, particularly in the southern United States, are configured to process heavier crude grades. Re-engagement with Venezuelan supply chains could therefore be framed not only as securing volume but also as stabilising refinery inputs and shaping long-term market conditions. Taken together, he argued, the counter-narcotics narrative alone is insufficient to explain the intervention; the energy-security dimension helps clarify why Venezuela emerged as a focal point.

Dr. Mishra then turned to the political and legitimacy dimensions of the intervention. He noted that the operation did not occur in isolation, but against the backdrop of Venezuela’s prolonged political crisis and disputed electoral processes. According to the Speaker, the U.S. action was accompanied by efforts to elevate opposition figures as alternative centres of authority. He referred in particular to developments involving opposition leader María Corina Machado, whose international visibility had increased significantly. These developments, he suggested, indicated that the intervention was not limited to a law-enforcement or counter-narcotics operation, but also carried a political objective of reshaping leadership outcomes in Venezuela.

Dr. Mishra observed that the U.S. action appeared to remove the head of state while leaving the broader institutional structure intact, an approach he described as unusual in the historical record of U.S. interventions. This raised questions about the intended end state, whether the objective was regime change, coercive leverage, or long-term strategic positioning. He noted that significant uncertainties remained regarding the viability of Venezuela’s oil sector, the willingness of U.S. companies to reinvest, and the scale of capital required to revive production. Figures as high as US$100 billion had been discussed in policy circles. At the same time, several companies were reportedly seeking compensation for earlier nationalisation decisions, making rapid reinvestment uncertain.

The Speaker then moved to the conceptual core of his presentation: the distinction between “MAGA ideology” and “MAGA praxis.” He argued that the slogan “Make America Great Again” is not new, having appeared in earlier U.S. political campaigns across party lines. However, under President Trump, it has taken on a more personalised and centralised ideological character, shaped by the President’s own interpretation of national greatness and historical precedent.

Dr. Mishra described MAGA ideology as rooted in a form of strategic nostalgia, evoking periods of American economic and geopolitical dominance, particularly the mid-twentieth century. He suggested that the external expression of this ideology draws on elements of U.S. exceptionalism, historically associated with doctrines such as the Monroe Doctrine, which framed the Western Hemisphere as a zone of privileged U.S. influence.

In contrast, he characterised MAGA praxis as the operationalisation of these ideas in concrete policy actions. In this praxis, ideology is not always explicitly articulated; instead, it manifests through selective targeting, strategic pressure, and the use of coercive tools against governments perceived as ideologically opposed to the United States. He pointed to the pattern of attention directed toward left-leaning governments in parts of Latin America, suggesting that ideological alignment remained an underlying, though often unstated, criterion.

At the same time, Dr. Mishra cautioned that attempts to revive strategic practices reminiscent of the nineteenth or early twentieth centuries face significant structural constraints. The global distribution of power, he argued, has changed fundamentally. Emerging economies possess advanced technological capabilities, financial and production centres are more widely dispersed, and the relative power differential between major and smaller states has narrowed. In such a context, strategies based on earlier models of unilateral intervention or economic dominance may prove difficult to sustain.

He concluded this segment by posing a broader question: whether the Venezuela episode represents a temporary, personality-driven phase in U.S. foreign policy, or a deeper structural shift in American strategic thinking. The answer, he suggested, would depend on domestic political dynamics within the United States and the durability of the ideological currents associated with the MAGA movement.

Q&A Session

The presentation was followed by discussion moderated by Dr. Cherian Samuel,  during which the Director General of MP-IDSA and other participants raised a number of conceptual and strategic questions regarding the U.S. intervention in Venezuela.

In his intervention, the Director General,  Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy observed that while the Speaker had unpacked the various justifications offered by the Trump administration, a central question remained: why Venezuela was chosen as the principal site for the demonstration of MAGA praxis. He suggested that the administration’s approach could be interpreted as the selective application of an “America First” logic across different international orders, ranging from pre-Westphalian coercive practices to post-Westphalian, rules-based frameworks. In this spectrum, the United States appeared willing to shift between normative and coercive approaches depending on strategic convenience.

The Director General questioned the strength of the counter-narcotics argument, noting that countries such as Mexico present a far more substantial narcotics challenge to the United States. Drawing on his diplomatic experience, he observed that drug production, trafficking, and synthetic drug manufacturing networks are far more deeply entrenched in Mexico than in Venezuela. If the primary concern were narcotics, he argued, Mexico would logically have been the focus of U.S. attention.

Amb. Chinoy then addressed the oil dimension, pointing to a potential contradiction in the administration’s energy strategy. On the one hand, President Trump has emphasised domestic shale production, which generally requires relatively higher oil prices to remain viable. On the other hand, domestic political pressures often demand lower fuel prices to control inflation and public discontent. In this context, the Director General suggested that long-term strategic control over major oil reserves, such as those in Venezuela, could provide leverage over global energy markets and help manage these competing pressures.

Placing the episode in historical perspective, he noted that U.S. intervention in Latin America is not unprecedented. From earlier actions in Cuba and Panama to Cold War-era interventions in Chile, the United States has repeatedly exercised coercive power in the Western Hemisphere. In this sense, he argued, the Venezuela episode reflects a continuation of a long-standing strategic pattern, though executed in a more direct and personalised manner under the current administration.

Other participants raised additional questions. One query related to whether the developments represented the emergence of a more explicit American imperial order, or instead a defensive attempt to preserve an existing one. Another question focused on whether such actions could revive anti-imperial or decolonisation narratives across the Global South. There were also queries regarding the implications of the Western Hemisphere’s renewed priority for U.S. commitments in the Indo-Pacific, and the extent to which policy blueprints such as Project 2025 may have influenced the administration’s decisions.

Responding to these interventions, Dr. Mishra argued that Venezuela was likely chosen because it combined strategic value with relative vulnerability. Unlike Mexico, which has strong nationalist traditions and deep interdependence with the United States, or Cuba, which retains strong ideological and external partnerships, Venezuela appeared more susceptible to coercive pressure. He also pointed to the scale of Chinese investments in Venezuela’s energy and infrastructure sectors, suggesting that strategic competition with China may have reinforced Washington’s focus on the country.

On the broader theoretical questions, Dr. Mishra suggested that the current phase of U.S. policy does not represent the creation of a new empire, but rather a defensive attempt to preserve strategic primacy under changing global conditions. Structural shifts in technology, finance, and production, he argued, have narrowed power differentials between states, making nineteenth century-style coercive strategies difficult to sustain.

In his concluding remarks, the Speaker emphasised that the long-term viability of such policies would depend heavily on domestic political dynamics within the United States, including Congressional constraints and electoral outcomes. The Session concluded with the observation that the Venezuela episode may represent either a temporary phase in U.S. foreign policy or the beginning of a deeper strategic reorientation, an issue that would require continued analytical attention.

The Report has been prepared by Mr. Mohanasakthivel J, Research Analyst, ALACUN Centre, MP-IDSA.