By Nick Tselikov, Fall 2025 Marcellus Policy Fellow

Ever since Hugo Chávez became President of Venezuela in 1999, U.S. policy towards the country has been
characterized by antagonism. This has been especially so as Venezuela has been forging closer ties with
Russia, China, and Iran. The U.S. government has increasingly ramped up sanctions against the country, as the Venezuelan leadership has refused to back down on its behaviors. These tensions have culminated under the second presidency of Donald Trump. With Secretary of State Marco Rubio leading the regime change effort, the Administration has amplified anti-government rhetoric, authorizing strikes against alleged drug boats, and accusing the Venezuelan regime of aiding cartel operations.

The official rationale behind this push has been that Caracas employs an anti-American outlook and drives for more isolation away from the United States. The Venezuelan leadership has also been accused of deliberately facilitating the drug trade to harm Americans and harboring Hezbollah networks within its territory. However, while these claims are serious, contrary evidence suggests that these claims have little basis.

Beyond that, stubborn calls for antagonism are unlikely to lead to any productive solutions. The South American country is home to a large population and an array of natural resources, including the world’s largest oil reserves, and large amounts of other high-value minerals. Instability, and especially war, in Venezuela is likely to exacerbate the humanitarian crisis that it is already experiencing and is more likely to imperil access to its bonanza of resources. Upon this line of reasoning, this article argues that while Caracas’ policy towards Washington has been unfavorable, engagement is ultimately the best option to assume.