Donald Trump insists on putting pressure on Nicolás Maduro's Venezuela while facing internal problems

US President Donald Trump said on his social media platform Truth Social that he would continue to send warships to the Caribbean until Venezuela returns all the oil, land and other assets it previously stole. He also reiterated his demand for oil rights.

Meanwhile, last week US forces seized an oil tanker, which represents a major escalation of tension between the two nations.

However, this action and others carried out in the Caribbean in recent months violate international law in some respects. One of these is the seizure and confiscation of illegal material in international waters. The UN protocol states that the procedure would be to contact the country operating these vessels and receive permission from it to intervene.

On the contrary, the United States takes refuge in its argument of combating drug trafficking. But in the US operation, which has been active since 2 September, the United States has directly attacked these vessels, leaving more than 90 dead and thus denying them the right to appear before the courts. These maritime operations were backed by the goal of curbing the flow of migrants and illicit substances into the United States, but Trump continues to insist that he will intervene in Venezuelan territory soon.

This increases the pressure on Nicolás Maduro to relinquish power, as he is considered an illegitimate president by the United States. The US national security strategy addresses this and other issues, such as the conflict with Russia.

Meanwhile, the US president also faces a number of domestic problems that threaten his image.

José María Peredo, professor of Communication and International Relations at the European University of Madrid and author of the book ‘Esto no va de Trump’ (This is not about Trump), analysed the situation of the Trump administration on Onda Madrid's ‘De cara al mundo’ programme. 

Should we Europeans be concerned about the US national security strategy, which we learned about a few days ago? Or, as the NATO secretary general says, despite criticism of Europeans, Washington is maintaining its defence commitments to its European allies.

Both. That is, the United States is maintaining its commitments, primarily to NATO and to shared security.

They are there, and therefore the document does not explicitly mention any change in that regard, which obviously gives us peace of mind and security. On the other hand, we Europeans should be concerned, not because Donald Trump has said so, but because the data and public opinion say so, and because of the feeling that Europe is losing its prominence as a pole of influence and international attraction, and is losing, as the data show, its economic capacity and prominence at the international level. The document itself points out that what a decade ago was 25% of international wealth, of international GDP, is now 14%.

We don't need Donald Trump to tell us to be concerned. If we are not concerned, we have a problem. And, above all, looking at immigration, perhaps the most relevant criticism that the national security strategy makes of Europeans.

Yes, what the document effectively points out is that, from the Trump administration's point of view, logically, there is a loss, a deterioration of traditional culture, let's say, of European values, whether these are understood in a broad sense, but certainly of the values of liberalism, the values of solidarity, of the free market. These foundations, and also other foundations of European political culture, and cultural culture, of course, are currently being diluted and weakened, and according to the document, this is also due to mass immigration, which is currently altering various issues within Europe.

This is an analysis, of course, that needs reflection. Obviously, we have this situation, but there are also others, such as the problems of polarisation in different countries and the weakening, I believe, of traditional parties, which has also been a major problem and, fundamentally, the absence of a common foreign and security policy. So, whatever the case may be, building it, always with the transatlantic link, is an essential piece.

And populism continues to pose a significant threat to liberal democracies, doesn't it?

Of course, the issue of populism that has emerged in different countries, which has greatly polarised positions and turned Europe into a boxing ring, hasn't it?

With problems of extraordinary significance, such as the war in Ukraine. And then there are various social conflicts that have been recurring, practically since the economic crisis.

We don't need the security strategy to tell us Europeans that we still live in the best place in the world, the richest, the most prosperous, the one where we have no idea what is happening around us.

On the international stage, in recent weeks the United States seems to be getting on more or less well with China and Russia, after many ups and downs. I say this because of the two recent abstentions by China and Russia as permanent members with veto power in the UN Security Council, one on the Sahara and the other on Gaza.

There is a certain conciliation there. I believe that Trump's document and policy aim to stabilise the international situation and to abandon, to some extent, the assumption that competition between major powers already exists, but that this competition is one of economic rivalry, fundamentally of alliances, interests and partnerships, and that it may even include some of those major powers considered to be rivals in many aspects of the document itself.

In other words, China is not considered an enemy, but it is clearly rivalled as a target when it comes to seeking new markets and competing, even pushing aside Chinese influence in some way.

But the document has also been very surprising, for example, in the case of Russia, which is clearly considered an active rival since the aggression against Ukraine. I think that here too Trump has tried to open the door to differentiation from the Democratic leaders, Obama or Biden, who were more confrontational with Putin's policies. And it is difficult to understand in part because obviously our view is one of concern and risk with regard to Russia, which Trump seems to be trying to distance himself from a little.

I think it's a strategy of stabilisation first, and then we come back to understanding what each side wants. Drugs, especially fentanyl, cocaine, heroin, etc., but especially fentanyl, which turns human beings into zombies, are a major threat to generations of Americans. We are seeing this in numerous reports and videos.

Trump attacks drug trafficking to defend himself.

Clearly. This is one of the first identifications of the new national security strategy.

Identifying this problem, organised crime, drug trafficking. Mind you, Richard Nixon already identified drugs as the number one enemy of the United States. We are talking about the 1970s, so we are not discovering anything new, but we are discovering where they come from, through where they come from, and how they destabilise the country.

There is a policy of prioritising the Western Hemisphere, that is, Latin America, and, consequently, entering into this type of fight against drug trafficking, which has already begun. We are seeing this very clearly in the case of Venezuela, and also entering into a policy of greater investment, of generating new markets, and the document even identifies some strategic points, new points or non-strategic points. I think it refers a lot to the Panama Canal, for example. I think it also refers a lot to trying to cut off precisely those routes of entry, manufacture, etc., of drugs as a key element.

Yes, but internally there are also American criminals who traffic and then encourage consumption. The Mexicans have always said that the problem is consumption in this region.

Obviously, there is also the issue of trying to link internal and external security, that is, not only entry, of course, but also internal trafficking, consumption, etc. So, I think that's where Donald Trump's strategy comes in, which is a little complicated to understand and sometimes heavily criticised internally, with his pursuit of immigration with the National Guard and this type of very harsh action, using hard power internally. He even talks about domestic terrorism in the document, referring to those actors who operate within countries, in this case the United States, as instruments of destabilisation, for economic reasons, with drugs, or also for reasons of political destabilisation, terrorism, extremist groups, and so on.

That is what the document actually talks about. In addition, you mentioned the issue of immigration, the ongoing controversies over tariffs, day in and day out. Is the US economy responding? Because in your speech there has been criticism that you have inflated the results a little.

The economy is responding, but it must be said that it has been responding for some years now.

The emergence from the COVID crisis under Biden has yielded very satisfactory results that continue today. It is a tremendously dynamic country with an extraordinary market, with a population of over 300 million. And it also refers to stability and immigration. Donald Trump says that immigration is over.

That is obviously an exaggeration. If you want to stabilise the world, one of the things you have to do is stabilise its movement. So, an open phenomenon such as immigration to the United States has served it well for years, decades, and now it has a fairly good demographic situation, better than other powers in terms of population ageing, etc.
It has renewed its population, it has more than 300 million inhabitants with a very active labour market as well. All this movement in the labour market and immigration has also contributed to the dynamism of the country and to its economy being an active and prosperous one.

One last question. Trump has too many open fronts. It is true that he is successfully closing some of them. For example, the situation in Gaza with Israel, the peace plan, etc., although the body of a hostage still remains, but it can now enter the second phase. But too many open fronts that could lead to a decline in popularity, according to the latest polls. And then he has some internal problems there, linked to the information that is also constantly coming out in the media, such as the Epstein issue, for example. Let's say that Trump has so far been able to live with that media pressure and has so far been able to get out of it.

The Epstein case has had an impact, yes. Undoubtedly, the successes he is apparently having in foreign policy, and I believe this to be the case, may also be weakened internally. We have the elections coming up this year, in 2026. There are going to be elections then, no matter what.

The midterms are coming, and we will also see how his popularity rating stands then. And we will have to see what the Trump-Kennedy Centre does now. The Kennedy Centre now has a new name because Mr Trump has added his name to this prestigious centre.