The Trump administration has developed several military options for Venezuela, including strikes on armed forces and potentially seizing control of the country’s oil fields, The New York Times reported. Officials say President Trump has not decided whether to act, citing concerns about risks to American troops and potential failure.

The Times added that some senior advisors are pushing for the most aggressive option: removing Maduro from power. To support this, the administration has asked the Justice Department for guidance that could provide a legal basis for targeting Maduro without congressional approval, beyond current operations against alleged narcotics trafficking.

The article noted that officials expect the Justice Department to push forward the claim that Maduro and his security officials are key figures in the Cartel de los Soles, a group labeled as a "narcoterrorist organization". This designation could allow the administration to justify targeting him despite longstanding US prohibitions on assassinating foreign leaders.

Trump's rhetoric on Venezuela marred with inconsistency

The New York Times also highlighted Trump’s inconsistent public statements. He has indicated that attacks on narcotics trafficking boats, which have killed at least 65 people, could expand to land operations, but no such action has taken place, and the administration’s rationale for confronting Maduro remains legally and politically complex.

According to CBS News, President Trump said he doubted the United States was headed to war with Venezuela, claiming that the country had treated the US poorly on drugs. He repeated his allegation that Maduro had opened prisons and mental institutions and sent Tren de Aragua gang members to the US, a claim he had made since his presidential campaign, with no proof provided.

The Times reported that support for aggressive options came from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, acting as national security advisor, and Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff and homeland security advisor. US officials said they privately pushed for Maduro to be removed from power.

Trump reportedly expressed reservations over the plan, partly due to fears of failure. He was in no rush to decide and repeatedly inquired about potential gains, particularly regarding the value of Venezuela’s oil for the United States.

A White House spokeswoman told The Times that Trump had made clear his intention to continue striking narcoterrorists he sees as involved in drug trafficking, calling any speculation about other military action “unfounded". The article noted that a final decision was unlikely before the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford arrived in the Caribbean, bringing 5,000 sailors and more than 75 aircraft.

Military build-up driving tensions

The New York Times reported that US troop levels in the Caribbean have been steadily rising since late August, with about 10,000 personnel deployed, roughly half on warships and half on bases in Puerto Rico. The Pentagon had also sent B-52 and B-1 bombers from Louisiana and Texas to fly missions off Venezuela’s coast as a show of force.

Related News

Iraq's oil war: Russian stakes, US sanctions, and the PMF

Kurdistan oil firms reach deal with Baghdad to resume exports

The Times noted that the Army’s 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, experienced in counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, had conducted training exercises off Venezuela. The buildup appeared intended to apply psychological pressure on Maduro, with Trump openly discussing a “finding” to allow CIA covert operations inside the country.

Any US action inside Venezuela would carry significant military, legal, and political risks. Unlike the June bombing of Iranian nuclear sites, an operation against Maduro would involve attempting to overthrow a government, with no guarantee of success or of installing a US-friendly administration.

The Times also reported that many of Trump’s close political supporters had cautioned against striking Maduro, reminding him of his campaign pledge to end “forever wars” rather than start new conflicts. Officials noted that more planning had gone into targeting Maduro than into managing Venezuela if the operation succeeded.

Three options on the table

US officials cited by NYT said that Trump’s authorization for the CIA to operate inside Venezuela could allow the agency to conduct activities ranging from information campaigns to undermining Maduro and potentially even capturing him.

However, national security officials noted that if such operations were truly decisive, Maduro would have been removed years ago, which is why military options were being considered.

One option involved airstrikes against military facilities, some allegedly linked to drug trafficking, intended to collapse Maduro’s support among the Venezuelan armed forces. Officials suggested that if Maduro felt unprotected, he might seek to flee, or, in moving around the country, make himself more vulnerable to capture, though critics warned such strikes could instead rally support around him.

A second option considered is sending US Special Operations forces, such as Delta Force or SEAL Team 6, to capture or kill Maduro. The administration could attempt to justify this by claiming that he heads a narcoterrorist organization, echoing arguments used to support airstrikes on boats allegedly smuggling drugs. The State Department had also doubled its reward for Maduro’s arrest or conviction to $50 million.

A third, more complex plan would have involved seizing Venezuelan airfields, as well as oil fields and infrastructure.

The last two options carried significantly higher risks to US forces and civilians, especially in urban areas like Caracas. Trump reportedly remained hesitant to endanger American troops, prompting planners to emphasize naval drones and long-range weapons that could be deployed once the Gerald R. Ford and other ships were in place.

Oil takes center stage

Oil also plays a role in the rationale behind action against Venezuela. Officials stated that Trump was intensely focused on Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, the largest in the world, though administration officials had wrestled for months with whether to cut off exports to the US or maintain them in hopes of retaining influence if Maduro were ousted.

Even as Trump doubled the bounty on Maduro and labeled him a "narcoterrorist", he canceled and later renewed Chevron’s license to operate in Venezuela. The renewed license, whose details remained confidential, reportedly prevented the company from sending hard currency into Venezuela’s banking system, yet Chevron’s exports continued to support Maduro’s economy.

Most US oil companies had long had their assets seized or nationalized, making Chevron a rare survivor. The company had navigated both Trump and Maduro, hiring a top Trump fundraiser as its Washington lobbyist, and benefiting from Maduro’s public support for its continued presence in Venezuela.

Legal aspect daunts the process

The New York Times reported that as Trump’s aides pushed for the most aggressive military options, Justice Department lawyers were working on a legal analysis to justify the potential actions.

White House officials said they wanted an updated opinion before taking further steps, and administration lawyers told Congress that lethal strikes on boats did not require congressional approval.

T. Elliot Gaiser, head of the Office of Legal Counsel, told lawmakers that the administration did not consider the boat strikes to constitute “hostilities” under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which limits presidential military actions to 60 days without congressional approval. Lawmakers from both parties expressed concern and requested more information about the operations.