Under Trump, the primary tool for projecting U.S. power is shifting from economic instruments like tariffs to direct military, intelligence, and cyber capabilities. This "Donroe Doctrine" leverages America's asymmetrical advantages in these areas, especially in its hemisphere, to achieve foreign policy wins without relying on economic coercion.

The Trump administration reveals that governance is less about ideology and more about high-stakes transactions. Success in politics, much like a game of 'money chess,' comes from identifying and trading for what each party desires—be it money, oil, or influence. This transactional nature of power is far more pervasive than many believe.

Unlike predecessors who framed foreign policy within a broader worldview (e.g., democracy promotion), Trump's approach is purely transactional and theatrical. It lacks a moral or ideological justification, instead focusing on demanding tribute, like oil from Venezuela, to appeal to a nationalist base without building a durable governing coalition.

The Venezuelan intervention was coordinated with American oil businesses before and after, while Congress was kept in the dark. This demonstrates a shift where foreign policy serves specific corporate interests directly, bypassing traditional democratic oversight and processes.

Despite the public focus on oil, the primary goal of removing Maduro was likely to demonstrate U.S. primacy in the Western Hemisphere. The action serves as a strong signal that the U.S. is willing to act aggressively to enforce its influence in the region.

The U.S. strategy appears to be maintaining a weakened Chavista regime to ensure stability and access to oil, effectively turning Venezuela into a resource colony without genuine political change for its people.

The public narrative of fighting narco-terrorism in Venezuela is a red herring. The true strategic goal is to justify a U.S. military presence in the Caribbean to counter China's growing economic and military investments in the region, including control of key shipping routes and military partnerships.

Anne Applebaum highlights a disturbing shift where high-stakes foreign policy, like the Ukraine peace plan, is conducted by businesspeople seeking personal financial gain. This mirrors the kleptocratic systems of autocratic states, prioritizing private profit over national or allied interests, and raises questions about who American foreign policy truly serves.

The administration's aggressive posture in Latin America is framed not by traditional security interests but by a desire to curb migration. This reflects a core white nationalist belief that demographic shifts pose an existential threat to the US, making immigration control a primary national security objective, viewing Venezuela as an exporter of people, not oil.