Just how committed is United States President Donald Trump to fighting communism in Latin America at this particular moment — you know, in Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua? It’s anyone’s guess.
Trump’s recent threats against Panama, Canada and Greenland, on top of his clash with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, take the spotlight off the “real enemies”, as usually defined by Washington. In that sense, Trump’s foreign policy actions in the first two months of his second administration are a far cry from his first, when regime change was the unmistakable goal.
It’s even unclear whether Trump will pursue the use of international sanctions, which he ratcheted up against Venezuela and Cuba in his first government. So far, Trump has indicated that his use of “tariffs as punishment” may be preferable to international sanctions, which, as one insider stated, the president “worries are causing countries to move away from the US dollar”.
Unlike Trump’s policies on immigration, trans rights and taxation, his Latin American policy is plagued by vacillations and uncertainties, a sign of his deepening reliance on a transactional approach to foreign policy. The anti-communist hardliners in and outside of the Republican party are not pleased.
The Venezuelan pendulum
Take Venezuela as an example. The Venezuelan opposition led by María Corina Machado had all the reason to be upbeat when Trump won in November and then chose Latin America hawk Marco Rubio as Secretary of State.
“Sadly, Venezuela is governed by a narco-trafficking organisation,” Rubio declared at his confirmation hearing. With regard to Cuba, Rubio issued an ominous warning: “The moment of truth is arriving, Cuba is literally collapsing.”
Events in Syria added to the euphoria on the right. Just days before Trump’s inauguration, Machado told the Financial Times, “Don’t you think [the generals supporting Maduro] look in the mirror and see the generals which Assad left behind?”
But then came the friendly encounter between Trump’s envoy for special missions Richard Grenell and Maduro in Caracas in late January, when Maduro agreed to turn over six US prisoners in Venezuela and facilitate the return of Venezuelan immigrants from the US. Days later, the Biden-approved license with Chevron for exploiting Venezuelan oil, constituting a quarter of the nation’s total oil production, was allowed to roll over. At the same time, Grenell declared that Trump “does not want to make changes to the [Maduro] regime”.
To make matters worse, the administration announced it would cancel the Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelan immigrants on grounds “there are notable improvements in … the economy, public health and crime that allow for these nationals to be safely returned”.
These developments did not sit well with the Miami hawks and the Venezuelan opposition. Notorious Miami Herald journalist Andres Oppenheimer put it forcefully: “The handshake of Grenell and Maduro fell like a bucket of cold water on many sectors of the Venezuelan opposition … and was like a legitimation of the Maduro government.”
Oppenheimer went on to point out that although the Trump government denied it had cut a deal with Maduro, “many suspicions have been raised and will not dissipate until Trump clarifies the matter”.
After Grenell’s trip to Venezuela, the issue of the renewal of Chevron’s license took surprising twists and turns. In a video conversation on February 26, Donald Trump jnr told Machado that just an hour before, his father had tweeted that Chevron’s license would be discontinued. Following a burst of laughter, a delighted Machado directed remarks at Trump snr: “Look, Mr President, Venezuela is the biggest opportunity in this continent, for you, for the American people, and for all the people in our continent.” Machado appeared to be attempting to replicate the deal between Zelensky and Trump involving Ukraine’s mineral resources.
But simultaneously, Mauricio Claver-Carone, the State’s Department’s Special Envoy for Latin America, told Oppenheimer that the license granted to Chevron was “permanent” and automatically renewed every six months. Then, just one week later, Trump reversed his position again. Axios reported that the latest decision was due to pressure from three Florida GOP House members who threatened to withhold votes for Trump’s budget deal.
Trumpism’s internal strains
Trump’s threats against world leaders come straight out of his 1987 book The Art of the Deal. For some loyalists, the strategy is working like magic. Trump’s approach can be summarised as “attack and negotiate”. “My style of deal-making is quite simple,” he states in the book. “I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing … to get what I’m after.”
This is precisely what happened when Trump announced plans to “reclaim” the Panama Canal, prompting a Hong Kong-based firm to reveal plans to sell the operation of two Panamanian ports to a consortium that includes BlackRock. Not surprisingly, Trump took credit for the deal. A similar scenario played out in the case of Colombia, in which President Gustavo Petro yielded on US deportation flights to avert trade retaliations.
In The Art of the Deal, Trump boasts about this strategy of bluffing, such as when he told the New Jersey Licensing Commission that he was “more than willing to walk away from Atlantic City if the regulatory process proved to be too difficult or too time-consuming”. Similarly, Trump has repeatedly stated that the US does not need Venezuelan oil. In fact, global oil volatility and the possibility that other nations will gain access to Venezuela’s vast oil reserves are matters of great concern to Washington.
The “Art of the Deal” approach to foreign policy exemplifies Trump’s pragmatic tendency. The Maduro government and some on the left welcome the pragmatism because it leaves open the possibility of concessions by Venezuela in return for the lifting of sanctions. The Wall Street Journal reported that several US businesspeople who travelled to Caracas and “met with Maduro and his inner circle say the Venezuelans were convinced that Trump would … engage with Maduro much like he had with the leaders of North Korea and Russia”.
But this optimism overlooks the contrasting currents within Trumpism. Although the convergences are currently greater than the differences, priorities within the MAGA movement sometimes clash. On the one hand, right-wing populism spotlights the issue of immigration, anti-“woke-ism” and opposition to foreign aid, all designed to appeal beyond the Republican Party’s traditional upper and upper-middle class base of support. On the other hand, the conventional far right calls for nothing short of regime change and destabilisation actions against Venezuela and Cuba.
Maduro’s agreement to collaborate on the repatriation of immigrants in return for the renewal of the Chevron license exemplifies the conflicting priorities within Trumpism. For the anti-left far right, the alleged deal was a “betrayal” of principles by Washington, while for the right-wing populists it was a victory for Trump, especially given the enormity of Venezuela’s immigrant population.
Another example of clashing priorities upheld by the two currents is the Trump administration’s decision to cut foreign aid programs to a bare minimum. Trump’s transactional thinking calls to question the logic behind Washington’s generosity toward the Venezuelan opposition: too many dollars for regime-change attempts that turned out to be fiascos.
In contrast, hawk champion Oppenheimer published an opinion piece in the Miami Herald titled “Trump’s Foreign Aid Cuts are a Boon for Dictators in China, Venezuela and Cuba.”
The issue of US aid has also produced infighting from an unexpected source: within the Venezuelan right-wing opposition. Miami-based investigative journalist Patricia Poleo, a long-time opponent of Hugo Chávez and Maduro, has accused Juan Guaidó and his interim government of pocketing millions, if not billions, granted to them by the US government. Poleo, now a US citizen, claims that the FBI is investigating Guaidó for mishandling the money.
The influence of the anti-leftist component of Trumpism can’t be overstated. Trump has become the leading inspiration of what has been called the new “Reactionary International”, which is committed to combatting the Left around the world. Furthermore, the hawks who have expressed interest in toppling the Maduro government (which the “populist” current is not at all opposed to either) — including Rubio, Elon Musk, Mauricio Claver-Carone and National Security Advisor Michael Waltz — populate Trump’s circle of advisors.
It is not surprising that during the honeymoon phase of Trump’s presidency, a populist wishlist would receive considerable attention. But the annexation of the Panama Canal, Canada and Greenland is unrealisable, as is the conversion of Gaza into a Riviera of the Middle East. His tariff scheme is not far behind.
Furthermore, while his use of intimidation has helped him gain concessions, the effectiveness of this bargaining tactic is limited — threats lose power when endlessly repeated. Finally, Trump’s unfulfilled promises to lower food prices and achieve other economic feats will inevitably add to the disillusionment of his supporters.
Trump loathes losing and, in the face of declining popularity, he is likely to turn to more realistic goals that can count on bipartisan support in addition to endorsement from the commercial media. In this scenario, the three governments in the hemisphere perceived to be US adversaries are likely targets. Short of US boots on the ground — which would not garner popular support — military or non-military action cannot be discarded against Venezuela, Cuba or Nicaragua, or, perhaps, Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua.
[First published by NACLA: Report on the Americas. Steve Ellner is a retired professor at the Universidad de Oriente in Venezuela where he lived for more than 40 years. He is currently an Associate Managing Editor of Latin American Perspectives. His latest book is his co-edited Latin American Social Movements and Progressive Governments: Creative Tensions Between Resistance and Convergence.]