In one of the scariest moments in modern history, we're doing our best at ScheerPost to pierce the fog of lies that conceal it but we need some help to pay our writers and staff. Please consider a tax-deductible donation.
By Joshua Scheer
As tensions between Washington and Caracas intensify, the Trump administration appears to be accelerating a multifaceted strategy that critics say goes beyond traditional sanctions and diplomatic pressure. According to multiple reports, elements of U.S. covert action and naval enforcement are converging in a way that may have profound effects on Venezuelan civilians and regional stability.
Alleged CIA Strike Signals Escalation
Yesterday Venezuelanalysis reported that the Central Intelligence Agency may have conducted a drone strike against what U.S. officials believed to be a drug-linked dock on the Venezuelan coast. Citing CNN and the New York Times, the story states that the strike targeted a “remote dock” used allegedly for drug trafficking—though neither Washington nor Caracas has confirmed the incident. The report notes that analysts monitoring open-source data have found no independent evidence of an explosion at the site.
Read more: Venezuelanalysis — “CIA Claimed to Have Launched Strike on ‘Remote Dock’ on Venezuelan Coast”: https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/cia-claimed-to-have-launched-strike-on-remote-dock-on-venezuelan-coast/
These covert strikes, represent a dangerous blurring of intelligence operations and overt military force, increasing the risk of civilian harm without transparent oversight.
From Narcotics to Oil: Shifting Rhetoric, Expanding Pressure
The U.S. has long justified diplomatic, economic, and military interventions in Latin America under the banner of counternarcotics. Yet evidence from international agencies indicates that Venezuela is neither a major producer nor a primary trafficking hub for drugs entering North America. As Military.com has reported, much of Washington’s policy commentary on Venezuela centers on drug-trafficking claims, even though available data show the country plays largely a secondary or transit role, rather than serving as a principal source of U.S.-bound cocaine or other major illicit drug flows.
Still, President Trump has repeatedly threatened action against Venezuela under the pretext of combating “drug trafficking.” The claim rings hollow. At the same time, Washington has backed Honduras’s right-wing government amid well-documented allegations of narco-corruption and has tolerated—or enabled—the release of major drug traffickers in allied countries. The contrast exposes a blatant hypocrisy: drug enforcement is invoked selectively, wielded against adversaries while overlooked among U.S.-aligned regimes. With Juan Orlando Hernández pardon being the clearest example.
Because the drug-trafficking rationale has proven increasingly laughable, Trump’s public rhetoric has recently shifted toward Venezuela’s oil industry. The president now accuses Caracas of having “stolen” oil rights from U.S. companies during past nationalizations and has ordered a naval blockade aimed at strangling Venezuela’s crude exports. U.S. forces have since seized multiple oil tankers carrying Venezuelan oil in international waters—actions condemned by Venezuelan officials as outright piracy.
We have documented this repeatedly: from Secretary of State Marco Rubio to White House aide Stephen Miller, senior figures in the administration have shown a sustained obsession with Venezuela. Both Miller and Trump have gone so far as to suggest that Venezuela’s oil rightfully belongs to the United States. This is, of course, not the first time Washington has intervened in a foreign oil dispute following nationalization—most notably in Iran, where U.S. involvement set a long and destabilizing precedent. And as in Iran, both countries have suffered under embargoes and economic warfare, producing devastating consequences—felt most acutely by children. With according to lancet most of the sanctions-related deaths in the five decades after 1970 were children under the age of five.
Human rights scholars and UN experts have repeatedly described sanctions as a form of “collective punishment,” contributing to widespread shortages of food, medicine, and essential services. In a statement issued in late December, a group of United Nations experts warned that U.S. maritime coercion “violates fundamental rules of international law” and endangers the human rights of Venezuelans and people across the region.
While some commentators argue that a full military invasion of Venezuela would provoke severe backlash in both the United States and abroad, others contend that Washington’s current approach may be worse—because it combines economic warfare, extralegal force, and covert action without democratic debate or accountability.
Michelle Ellner, writing for Common Dreams, suggests that Trump “isn’t planning to invade Venezuela… he’s planning something worse.” Her progressive critique highlights how economic and paramilitary pressure can devastate civilian life more effectively—and quietly—than a traditional invasion would.
Read more: Common Dreams — “Trump Isn’t Planning to Invade Venezuela. He’s Planning Something Worse”: https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/will-trump-invade-venezuela
This context matters not only for U.S.–Venezuela relations, but for global norms on sovereignty, use of force, and the rights of people subjected to decades of sanctions and foreign pressure.
Looking Ahead
As the U.S. continues to tighten its grip on Venezuela’s oil and enforce maritime blockades, the human toll grows more urgent. Civil society groups globally have called for renewed diplomatic engagement, respect for international law, and humanitarian relief—not punitive measures that disproportionately harm ordinary people.
or more on the situation on the ground—where even many Venezuelans who oppose Maduro and his policies say they will not accept a prolonged war or foreign aggression—original reporting from Truthout offers critical perspective. Anais Márques, a communal leader from the 5 de Marzo Commune in Caracas, explains that “both Chávez and now Maduro have always had the support and backing of an organized, mobilized people,” adding that this popular organization “is why they still haven’t defeated us.”
For a closer look at the situation on the ground and the work of local activists, today from an article from Drop Site News examines Venezuela’s grassroots response to escalating U.S. pressure. Focusing on communal organizations rather than state elites, the piece places recent naval actions and oil seizures within a broader history of economic warfare, framing these measures as forms of collective punishment rather than law enforcement. By highlighting voices from communes, legal experts, and social movements, the article emphasizes resilience, showing how sanctions and blockades have, paradoxically, strengthened local food production, communal distribution networks, and political organization. Regardless of one’s stance on its conclusions, the reporting raises urgent questions about international law, sovereignty, and the human cost of economic coercion.
Editor’s Note: At a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.
You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.