Trump in venezuela: a shock to the geopolitical chessboard

A year ago, we witnessed Trump’s inauguration in Washington, and while expectations already pointed to a disruptive and unconventional presidency in many respects, few predicted the series of events that have unfolded over the past 12 months.

At the time of writing this commentary (a necessary caveat given the speed at which events are unfolding), the United States’ intervention in Venezuela is dominating the news agenda.

As a starting point, it is worth recalling that analysing geopolitics requires setting ideological opinions aside. We will therefore begin by outlining the main facts and their consequences. Although ideological biases are increasingly present in financial analysis, we believe that avoiding them is essential to the proper exercise of our profession and, ultimately, to acting in the best interests of our clients.

Trump’s operation in Venezuela has marked a significant turning point in global geopolitics. It is well known that Trump has little regard for international treaties (which he considers entirely obsolete in the current environment), but the use of force and his self-designation as Venezuela’s leader during this transition period represent a major escalation, even to the extent of sidelining the Venezuelan opposition. The normalisation of the use of force could establish a framework for action that other superpowers such as Russia or China may also invoke in the future, undoubtedly increasing global geopolitical risk — or, more precisely, the economic and financial implications of that risk.

When Trump came to power for the second time last year, he immediately declared a national energy emergency, with the aim of reducing energy costs for US companies and consumers. He has made no attempt whatsoever to conceal this objective. From his earliest statements, and those of Secretary Rubio, oil has been cited as one of the main factors (albeit not the only one) behind the intervention that removed Maduro from the country and placed him and his wife in the hands of the US judicial system.

Headlines frequently note that Venezuela holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves, but they often overlook the fact that its production has fallen from 2.5 million barrels per day to close to 1 million at present. Venezuela is currently the world’s eighteenth-largest oil producer. Its infrastructure is obsolete, and investment by US producers in the country has already been announced — both to upgrade facilities and to generate returns on that investment.

However, the key issue here is not the volume of crude oil, but the fact that most of it is heavy crude, which is precisely the type that the United States needs to import. To put some figures into context, the United States ranks ninth globally in terms of oil reserves, yet it is the world’s largest producer. The United States imports around 8 million barrels per day, approximately 60% of which is heavy crude, while it exports around 11 million barrels per day, the majority of which is light crude.

Through this operation, the United States benefits from access to heavy crude, which refineries in the central and southern parts of the country are particularly well equipped to process. It also reduces its dependence on imports from Canada and Mexico, with whom new trade agreements are due to be negotiated in the near future. Finally, it strategically reduces its reliance on Russia, the world’s third-largest holder of heavy crude reserves.

The message conveyed by these actions is not directed solely at Venezuela, but at the entire Latin American region. When considering the multiple consequences of this operation, we can begin with Cuba, which is heavily dependent on Venezuelan oil supplies. However, the potentially greater impact across the region lies in statements concerning the control of drug cartels not only in Venezuela, but also in Mexico and Colombia. These remarks open up a new source of friction with these countries, the evolution of which remains to be seen. Setting aside Trump’s more histrionic statements, the key question is the negotiating strength with which Mexican President Sheinbaum will approach the trade agreements that are due to be renewed in the near future, particularly in light of threats of the deployment of ground forces to combat drug cartels operating in Mexico.

Much has been said about the Monroe Doctrine (a 19th century doctrine originally aimed at preventing European expansion in the Americas), but now updated to the 21st century under Trump. This so-called “Donroe Doctrine” (Monroe with a ‘D’ for Donald) implies the active rather than reactive use of force and reflects the imposition of a strategic vision designed to counter not only Europe, but also Russia and, in particular, China. At the same time, however, it provides these very powers with additional arguments to justify the use of force in pursuit of their own expansionist ambitions.  At another time, we could delve into the details of Greenland and why it is so important to Trump (from the scale of its rare earth reserves to its geographical position at a time of accelerating climate-related ice melt). However, what is already clear is that the geopolitical chessboard of recent decades is now moving at cruising speed, with tangible consequences for the economy and financial markets. In recent quarters, we have seen how crude oil prices have gradually declined, and, above all, how the ultimate safe-haven asset—gold—recorded one of the largest price increases in history in 2025, surpassed only by the turbulent year of 1979.

_{Date of report: January 7th 2026}