The landscape of US military engagement across Latin America has undergone a dramatic transformation following recent geopolitical developments. What began as officially framed counternarcotics operations in the Caribbean has evolved into something substantially broader—a repositioning of American military assets and strategic doctrine aimed at reasserting hemispheric dominance. The implications extend far beyond security operations, raising fundamental questions about how regional powers will navigate this new strategic environment.
The Strategic Doctrine: Redefining American Hemispheric Authority
The Trump administration has articulated a comprehensive approach grounded in what officials describe as the Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, fundamentally reshaping assumptions about US power projection in its own hemisphere. This doctrine establishes a precedent that Washington will actively defend American interests throughout the Western Hemisphere, potentially unconstrained by traditional diplomatic norms or international legal frameworks that previously limited such interventions.
The National Defense Strategy released in January 2026 represents a formal codification of this approach, placing heavy emphasis on restoring unquestioned US military dominance across Latin America and the Caribbean. This represents a significant departure from the more restrained posture of the previous administration, signaling that Washington now views the region as a domain where American prerogatives supersede normal diplomatic constraints. Regional military planners have recognized the implications, with experts noting that military conversations across the region have become unprecedented, focusing on national vulnerabilities, procurement diversification, and technological independence.
Operational Presence: From Declared to Demonstrated Capacity
The physical manifestation of this strategic reorientation appears in the substantial military footprint now maintained throughout the Caribbean. The United States currently deploys approximately 15,000 troops and a dozen naval vessels throughout the region, including the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier. This force composition—widely considered excessive for purely counternarcotics operations—signals a longer-term commitment to regional military dominance.
Among the most significant operational developments has been the reactivation of Roosevelt Roads Naval Station in Puerto Rico, which had been abandoned since 2004. Satellite imagery confirms extensive renovations at this facility, transforming it into a forward staging area for regional operations. This represents a deliberate choice to establish permanent infrastructure for power projection, distinguishing it from temporary deployments or emergency responses. The reopening of shuttered military installations across Puerto Rico signals that American military planning assumes sustained, long-term engagement in the region.
The Counternarcotics Pretext and Broader Strategic Objectives
The initial justifications for military buildup—focused on disrupting drug trafficking networks—provided political cover for what appeared to be substantially broader objectives. Throughout late 2025 and into early 2026, the United States conducted dozens of strikes targeting alleged drug-smuggling vessels, with casualty estimates reaching at least 80 individuals. These operations created a military presence of unprecedented scale ostensibly designed to address narcotics flows, yet the operational scope exceeded what analysts considered proportionate to counternarcotics missions.
This pattern of shifting justifications has generated considerable concern throughout Latin America. Regional analysts note that the administration has alternated between focusing on narcoterrorism and controlling Venezuela’s oil resources, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio explicitly stating that hemispheric control constitutes an American imperative. These evolving rationales suggest that counternarcotics framing served primarily as political cover for a broader reassertion of American dominance.
Regional Responses and Shifting Diplomatic Tensions
The implications of this military repositioning have reverberated across the region, producing notable strain on relationships with countries that have historically aligned with Washington. Colombian President Gustavo Petro, long considered a reliable American partner, recently warned that his country faced a “real threat” of US military action and expressed serious concern about Washington’s pattern of interventionism. The deterioration in US-Colombia relations—with Trump repeatedly criticizing Petro over regional policy positions—illustrates how quickly partnerships can fracture when perceived through the lens of hemispheric dominance.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has similarly pushed back against suggestions that Washington should launch unilateral military strikes against drug cartels on Mexican territory. While Mexican security forces have increased cooperation with US law enforcement, including transferring significant numbers of alleged cartel members to American custody, Mexican officials have carefully distinguished such cooperation from endorsement of autonomous US military operations. This distinction reflects sovereignty concerns and domestic political constraints that limit how far neighboring governments can accommodate American military presence.
Venezuelan Oil Resources and Economic Implications
The immediate objective of maintaining military assets throughout the Caribbean increasingly appears focused on Venezuela’s strategic assets. Following the capture of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has made explicit that American interests center on petroleum resources rather than democratic renewal or regional stability. The United States completed its first sale of Venezuelan crude oil valued at $500 million in mid-January, while simultaneously easing sanctions restrictions on Venezuelan oil exports to facilitate increased commercial activity.
This explicit linkage between military occupation and economic control represents a marked departure from traditional American interventionist patterns. Trump has publicly stated that the United States now “controls” Venezuela’s oil industry, framing military presence as essential to ensuring that resource revenues continue flowing according to American preferences. The Trump administration has warned Venezuela’s interim government that failure to cooperate could produce consequences, creating conditions of coercive control mediated through sustained military pressure.
Experts have questioned whether this approach will ultimately prove sustainable or economically rational. Private American oil companies have expressed limited enthusiasm for operating within Venezuela’s complex business environment, despite Trump administration assertions about commercial opportunities. The necessity of maintaining a substantial military presence to enforce compliance with American policy preferences introduces significant costs that may outweigh short-term revenue gains from increased oil sales.
Congressional Constraints and Transparency Challenges
The constitutional dimensions of this military positioning remain contested. Lawmakers have questioned the strategic necessity for such extensive force deployment, with several senators proposing resolutions to restrict further military action in Venezuela absent explicit congressional authorization. However, these legislative efforts have encountered significant obstacles, with the administration maintaining operational opacity regarding long-term objectives.
In a revealing moment during confirmation proceedings, a Marine Corps general nominated to oversee Southern Command acknowledged that he did not know what the long-term plan was for the troops, ships, and aircraft currently in the region. This admission underscores the absence of comprehensive strategic planning beyond immediate operational objectives. The Pentagon’s stated mission—framed in terms of dismantling narco-terrorist threats and countering malign foreign actors—provides little guidance regarding specific political objectives or conditions for reducing military presence.
Public opinion has remained notably ambivalent about military intervention in the region. Initial polling showed that only one-third of Americans supported the military operation to capture Maduro, while comparable proportions either opposed the action or lacked sufficient information to form opinions. Even among Republicans, enthusiasm proved mixed rather than overwhelming. Across party lines, majorities expressed concern that the United States might become “bogged down” in Venezuelan affairs through mission creep or escalating security requirements.
Implications for Regional Powers and Alliance Structures
The pattern of threatened military action against multiple Latin American states—including Colombia, Mexico, and Cuba—has created an environment of strategic uncertainty that complicates regional cooperation. Brazil and other South American powers must now calculate how to maintain effective relationships with Washington while protecting national autonomy and limiting external military interventions. The absence of clear constraints on American military decision-making introduces profound unpredictability into regional strategic planning.
For allies like Colombia and Mexico, navigating this environment requires careful balancing between cooperation on counternarcotics matters (which advance shared security interests) and resistance to unilateral military action (which violates national sovereignty). This tension suggests that traditional alliance relationships may become more transactional and less characterized by mutual commitment to shared objectives. Countries may increasingly diversify their security partnerships and procurement relationships to reduce dependence on American military capabilities and decision-making.
Forward-Looking Uncertainty and Long-Term Strategic Questions
The current military positioning raises fundamental questions about American strategic objectives in the hemisphere and the sustainability of the underlying approach. Experts remain divided about whether maintained military presence will ultimately consolidate American control over Venezuelan resources and governance or generate the conditions for escalating conflict and state fragmentation. Historical precedent suggests that occupying military forces often face mounting costs and complications that exceed initial planning assumptions.
Whether the sustained military commitment represents temporary emergency positioning or the beginning of long-term hemispheric militarization remains unclear. The absence of explicit political objectives and transparent strategic planning creates conditions where military operations may continue indefinitely, driven by bureaucratic momentum and perceived security imperatives rather than coherent political strategy. The implications for democratic governance, regional stability, and American credibility across the international system remain fundamentally uncertain at this pivotal moment in hemispheric relations.
Original analysis inspired by John Haltiwanger from Foreign Policy. Additional research and verification conducted through multiple sources.
