Trump’s ‘Ego-Politics’: Why Does the US Prioritize Venezuela in Latin America?
The main reason the U.S. administration prioritizes Caracas over Havana has to do with the nature of the interests at stake: while Cuba represents a traditional ideological dispute, Venezuela possesses mineral and energy resources that hold global strategic value.
President Donald Trump’s foreign policy on Latin America has marked a drastic break with traditional diplomacy. Far from acting within the usual institutional channels, the U.S. strategy has placed Venezuela at the center of the hemispheric geopolitical stage, pushing Cuba into the background. International relations expert Dalai Urbina explains that this strategic shift isn’t based on purely ideological principles, but on a pragmatic calculation in which strategic resources, direct economic benefits and global political visibility determine the White House’s priorities.
Urbina, deputy director of the School of International Studies at the Central University of Venezuela, suggests that the U.S. approach is a response to specific interests. While the relationship with Cuba remains marked by historic, ideological confrontation, Venezuela carries significant weight due to its wealth and capacity to generate an immediate media and geopolitical impact on the international agenda.
Ego-politics and the 'Madman Theory'
Urbina describes Trump’s governing style as an exercise in “contemporary ego-politics,” a form of politics in which personal decisions and the pursuit of immediate results take precedence over bureaucratic filters and traditional institutional frameworks. According to the international relations expert, this approach seeks direct channels of communication with other leaders, regardless of their ideological orientation: “The Trump corollary and the Monroe doctrine view Latin America as a geostrategic region where the objective is to safeguard private capital, generate tangible economic benefits for the U.S. population and act as a counterweight to other global power centers.”
Within this framework, the predominant method of negotiation has been the strategy known in political science as the “madman theory” or the “game of chicken.” Urbina explains that this tactic consists of “applying maximum pressure and making decisions based on what one is seeking in each scenario.” In the Latin American context, he notes that both Cuba and Venezuela have been subjected to this pressure, albeit with radically different intensity and objectives.
Why Venezuela and Not Cuba?
The main reason why the U.S. administration prioritizes Caracas over Havana lies in the nature of the interests at stake: while Cuba represents a traditional ideological difference, Venezuela concentrates on mineral and energy resources that hold global strategic value.
“Venezuela’s position and its possession of various strategic resources for the contemporary world – which go beyond traditional commodities – set it apart,” Urbina says. In the scholar’s opinion, economic interests and high political symbolism take precedence in Venezuela’s situation, which allows the country to achieve much more tangible diplomatic victories in front of the international community.
In this sense, Urbina argues that the pressure applied to Cuba ends up being, in large part, a collateral effect of the stranglehold exerted on Venezuela. According to him, the real strategic objective isn’t just to weaken alliances between like-minded governments within the region, but also to expel or diminish the presence of non-Western powers – mainly China and Russia – from the historical sphere of U.S. influence.
Migration as a Bargaining Chip
Another crucial element of U.S. strategy has been the instrumental use of migration. The mass displacement of people on the continent has evolved from a humanitarian crisis into a tool for exerting political pressure and for internal and external negotiation.
Urbina highlights how migration has served to position key issues on the North American media agenda, justifying the use of force both to American voters and to interest groups linked to border security: “Based on the factual reality of the movement of people – not just Venezuelans – the issue is placed on the media agenda, and this leads the American electorate, as well as the border technology security lobby and other associated sectors, to view actions as justified, not only regarding Venezuela, but also other sectors. Put another way, beyond the rhetoric on the migration issue, it has actually served as a negotiating strategy while also fitting into a global wave of conservatism regarding migration as an international phenomenon.”
Furthermore, the international relations expert emphasizes that the presence of Beijing and Moscow on Venezuelan territory prompted Washington to elevate the Venezuelan crisis to a higher priority on the U.S. national security agenda. Since no economic returns or direct concessions to U.S. capital were guaranteed, the U.S. acted accordingly. However, global dynamics have led to this confrontation being resolved at high-level negotiating tables among the powers themselves, redistributing the balance of these alliances according to the interests of the White House.
“The influence of China and Russia has already been redirected and redistributed directly through negotiations between Trump, Xi Jinping, and Vladimir Putin, showing that the problem is not the existence of the alliance, but rather how to ensure that this alliance does not have a complex impact on key U.S. interests,” he insists.
The Rise of the Right in Latin America
Given the current rise of the conservative right in Latin America – often associated with Trump’s influence – Urbina clarifies that in reality, this development stems from preexisting disillusionment among local populations. Excessive bureaucracy, persistent economic crises and systematic corruption have led to a deep mistrust among citizens toward traditional politics and institutional chaos. Trump did not create this phenomenon; but he knew how to capitalize on it.
In the face of pressure on Latin America from the major powers, the expert points out that the region’s greatest unmet challenge continues to be the absence of solid and pragmatic integration. For over two centuries, Latin America has coexisted with a major power without ever managing to formulate joint responses that balance the power dynamics.
“Latin American integration has failed to respond to patrimonial leadership – that is, to those leaders who treat their territories as their own personal domains.” According to Urbina, the continent’s challenge will lie in overcoming internal ideological differences and taking advantage of natural geographic and political connections to build a unified stance in the face of global geopolitical pressures. “It just needs to be made a priority,” Urbina concludes.
President Donald Trump’s foreign policy on Latin America has marked a drastic break with traditional diplomacy. Far from acting within the usual institutional channels, the U.S. strategy has placed Venezuela at the center of the hemispheric geopolitical stage, pushing Cuba into the background. International relations expert Dalai Urbina explains that this strategic shift isn’t based on purely ideological principles, but on a pragmatic calculation in which strategic resources, direct economic benefits and global political visibility determine the White House’s priorities.
Urbina, deputy director of the School of International Studies at the Central University of Venezuela, suggests that the U.S. approach is a response to specific interests. While the relationship with Cuba remains marked by historic, ideological confrontation, Venezuela carries significant weight due to its wealth and capacity to generate an immediate media and geopolitical impact on the international agenda.
Ego-politics and the 'Madman Theory'
Urbina describes Trump’s governing style as an exercise in “contemporary ego-politics,” a form of politics in which personal decisions and the pursuit of immediate results take precedence over bureaucratic filters and traditional institutional frameworks. According to the international relations expert, this approach seeks direct channels of communication with other leaders, regardless of their ideological orientation: “The Trump corollary and the Monroe doctrine view Latin America as a geostrategic region where the objective is to safeguard private capital, generate tangible economic benefits for the U.S. population and act as a counterweight to other global power centers.”
Within this framework, the predominant method of negotiation has been the strategy known in political science as the “madman theory” or the “game of chicken.” Urbina explains that this tactic consists of “applying maximum pressure and making decisions based on what one is seeking in each scenario.” In the Latin American context, he notes that both Cuba and Venezuela have been subjected to this pressure, albeit with radically different intensity and objectives.
Why Venezuela and Not Cuba?
The main reason why the U.S. administration prioritizes Caracas over Havana lies in the nature of the interests at stake: while Cuba represents a traditional ideological difference, Venezuela concentrates on mineral and energy resources that hold global strategic value.
“Venezuela’s position and its possession of various strategic resources for the contemporary world – which go beyond traditional commodities – set it apart,” Urbina says. In the scholar’s opinion, economic interests and high political symbolism take precedence in Venezuela’s situation, which allows the country to achieve much more tangible diplomatic victories in front of the international community.
In this sense, Urbina argues that the pressure applied to Cuba ends up being, in large part, a collateral effect of the stranglehold exerted on Venezuela. According to him, the real strategic objective isn’t just to weaken alliances between like-minded governments within the region, but also to expel or diminish the presence of non-Western powers – mainly China and Russia – from the historical sphere of U.S. influence.
Migration as a Bargaining Chip
Another crucial element of U.S. strategy has been the instrumental use of migration. The mass displacement of people on the continent has evolved from a humanitarian crisis into a tool for exerting political pressure and for internal and external negotiation.
Urbina highlights how migration has served to position key issues on the North American media agenda, justifying the use of force both to American voters and to interest groups linked to border security: “Based on the factual reality of the movement of people – not just Venezuelans – the issue is placed on the media agenda, and this leads the American electorate, as well as the border technology security lobby and other associated sectors, to view actions as justified, not only regarding Venezuela, but also other sectors. Put another way, beyond the rhetoric on the migration issue, it has actually served as a negotiating strategy while also fitting into a global wave of conservatism regarding migration as an international phenomenon.”
Furthermore, the international relations expert emphasizes that the presence of Beijing and Moscow on Venezuelan territory prompted Washington to elevate the Venezuelan crisis to a higher priority on the U.S. national security agenda. Since no economic returns or direct concessions to U.S. capital were guaranteed, the U.S. acted accordingly. However, global dynamics have led to this confrontation being resolved at high-level negotiating tables among the powers themselves, redistributing the balance of these alliances according to the interests of the White House.
“The influence of China and Russia has already been redirected and redistributed directly through negotiations between Trump, Xi Jinping, and Vladimir Putin, showing that the problem is not the existence of the alliance, but rather how to ensure that this alliance does not have a complex impact on key U.S. interests,” he insists.
The Rise of the Right in Latin America
Given the current rise of the conservative right in Latin America – often associated with Trump’s influence – Urbina clarifies that in reality, this development stems from preexisting disillusionment among local populations. Excessive bureaucracy, persistent economic crises and systematic corruption have led to a deep mistrust among citizens toward traditional politics and institutional chaos. Trump did not create this phenomenon; but he knew how to capitalize on it.
In the face of pressure on Latin America from the major powers, the expert points out that the region’s greatest unmet challenge continues to be the absence of solid and pragmatic integration. For over two centuries, Latin America has coexisted with a major power without ever managing to formulate joint responses that balance the power dynamics.
“Latin American integration has failed to respond to patrimonial leadership – that is, to those leaders who treat their territories as their own personal domains.” According to Urbina, the continent’s challenge will lie in overcoming internal ideological differences and taking advantage of natural geographic and political connections to build a unified stance in the face of global geopolitical pressures. “It just needs to be made a priority,” Urbina concludes.
Previous article![]( "US Interference in Colombia*")
