For several decades, the United States government has used the toolkit of economic sanctions as one of the major tools of foreign policy, and the Venezuelan case is one of the extreme instances of this sort of experience with the United States. These sanctions have really had a major effect on the Venezuelan economy, particularly the oil industry, which generates the major source of export earnings and revenues in Venezuela.

Critics claim that the use of such tactics has a kind of indirect warfare aim, which is directed at the economic infrastructure of the country in order to destabilize or weaken the government without necessarily using direct warfare tactics.

Within the broader context of pressure and confrontations, statements emanating from U.S. officials have at various points included an openly interventionist stance with regard to Venezuela. Donald Trump publicly said on January 3, 2026 during a televised press conference and remarks after a U.S. military operation in Venezuela that U.S. forces had captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and that the United States would “run” Venezuela temporarily and be involved with its oil industry until a political transition could occur.

Whether viewed as rhetoric or policy signaling, such remarks illustrate how far U.S.–Venezuelan relations have deteriorated and how explicitly resource management has entered the discourse.

U.S. interest in Venezuela’s oil has long been cited as a major driver of tensions between the two countries. Venezuela has some of the world’s largest known petroleum reserves. The United States has a rich history tied to energy markets within Latin America. Access to production, pricing, and political orientation within major states that are producers of petroleum can be considered a matter of high importance due to the importance attributed to petroleum within the world economy. For critics of U.S. policy, it is therefore difficult to separate sanctions and political pressure from broader energy considerations.

Beyond oil, Venezuela’s mineral wealth particularly gold has become increasingly significant amid the country’s economic crisis. As oil revenues declined under sanctions and production constraints, gold emerged as an alternative source of hard currency and financial resilience. However, the scale of Venezuela’s gold wealth remains contested. Venezuela does not appear near the top of internationally recognized unmined gold reserve rankings used by mining analysts and geological institutions.

But Venezuela’s potential gold resources in the Orinoco Mining Arc may be very large  often cited informally as  7,000–8,000 t of gold, though these figures are not independently verified by USGS-style geological assessments. Source https://www.sela.org/vzlaorocobre  

Even so, the strategic relevance of gold does not depend solely on precise geological certification. In a global environment marked by sanctions, currency instability, and geopolitical rivalry, the perception of large untapped mineral resources can itself shape foreign policy calculations. Based on this understanding, the possible gold reserves in Venezuela, whether proven or unproven, imply an additional geopolitical significance for the country.

These economic issues are impossible to distinguish from larger geopolitical concerns. Venezuela is a strategic location in the Western Hemisphere, an area of the world that has traditionally been a sphere of influence for the United States. Being seen as increasingly socialist or aligning with U.S. rivals such as Cuba, Russia, China, or Iran is, in effect, an attack on U.S. hegemony in this region. Issues of foreign policy and economics are not viewed as purely internal issues but, rather, as a form of communication.

U.S. backing of the Venezuelan opposition, especially the endorsement of Juan Guaido as the country’s interim president, should be considered in this context. It is argued that the level of U.S. support was not necessarily based on the country’s commitment to the values of democracy, thus enabling the country to experience a political transition to a government more aligned with U.S. policies.

This type of government could easily bring Venezuela back to the fold of western energy markets, cutting dependence on Russia, as well as China, for energy.

Within this critical frame, humanitarian and democratic discourses in regards to US policy toward Venezuela are a legitimizing narrative, rather than the driving motivation. Sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and political pressure are seen as tools aimed at reshaping Venezuela’s political economy and realigning it within the U.S.-led global order.

This reading has historical roots in the long-standing intervention of the United States in Latin America, including coups, regime changes, and other interventions in which resource considerations were at stake.

Ultimately, however, it is argued that the Venezuelans acts are driven by a combination of strategic priorities including access to energy and mineral resources, management of rival states, and maintaining U.S. influence within the Western Hemisphere. Concerns for good governance and human rights are not eliminated outright but remain a secondary consideration.

As far as those with this opinion are concerned, the problem is not merely with the politics of Venezuela but with the cost to individuals affected as a result of sanctions being imposed on the country. Economic breakdown and public services having deteriorated affect the average Venezuelan much more than the politicians in the country as far as the impacts of sanctions imposed by the U.S. government through foreign policy are concerned.