In a striking revelation that has reignited debate over U.S. foreign intervention, former President Donald Trump confirmed that he had authorized the CIA to conduct operations in Venezuela Amid during his administration. The decision, reportedly made in response to growing tensions with the government of President Nicolás Maduro, underscores Washington’s long-standing opposition to the socialist regime in Caracas.
On September 15, 2025, President Donald Trump stated he gave the CIA permission to work inside Venezuela to combat illicit drug and migration flows from the South American country, but he did not specify that the CIA would have the power to overthrow President Nicolas Maduro.
According to multiple sources familiar with the matter, the covert operations aimed to gather intelligence and support efforts to weaken Maduro’s grip on power. According to sources, the President briefed CIA officials at the same time he signed a classified order earlier this summer directing the military to start targeting drug gangs in Latin America.
The move was part of a broader strategy to pressure Venezuela’s leadership through economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and covert intelligence missions. However, Trump’s recent public acknowledgment has brought renewed scrutiny to those policies and the extent of U.S. involvement in Venezuelan affairs.
Also Read: Always Friends Modi, Trump Make Bold Peace Push Amid Tariff Turmoil
Speaking at a political rally earlier this week, Trump said, “We had to deal with Venezuela — it was a disaster under Maduro. I gave our agencies the green light to take action because freedom had to be restored there.” His comments mark one of the few times a former president has openly discussed authorizing intelligence operations in a foreign country.
According to several people familiar with the situation, Trump and his administration have produced a classified legal opinion that supports lethal strikes against a long list of cartels and suspected drug traffickers, but they have not provided proof that these were drug-trafficking vessels.
Maduro, meanwhile, responded sharply, condemning the revelation as proof of Washington’s ongoing attempts at regime change. In a televised address, he declared, “Venezuela will never surrender to imperialist threats. Our sovereignty is not for sale.” The Venezuelan leader, who has long accused the U.S. of orchestrating plots to overthrow him, framed Trump’s statement as further evidence of a broader campaign to destabilize his government.
Trump’s decision fits within the historical context of U.S. involvement in Latin America, where intelligence agencies have often played a role in shaping political outcomes. Yet, critics argue that such actions undermine international law and the sovereignty of nations. Supporters of the move, however, claim it reflected a tough stance against authoritarian regimes and aligned with Trump’s foreign policy doctrine of defending democracy through strength.
Trump responded that prior attempts to halt drug traffickers over the past 30 years have “been totally unsuccessful” and “never worked” while conducted in a “politically correct manner” when questioned by reporters on Wednesday about why he did not just utilize the Coast Guard to intercept narcotics shipments.
Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, has also been negative. However, Trump has been defended by other GOP members. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s senior Republican, Sen. Jim Risch, stated on Wednesday that Donald Trump “has been doing exactly what president deserves to be doing.”
The CIA has neither confirmed nor denied involvement in Venezuela, maintaining its standard policy of not commenting on intelligence matters. However, declassified reports and statements from former U.S. officials suggest that Washington had intensified covert pressure on Caracas between 2018 and 2020, particularly as Venezuela’s economic crisis deepened and opposition leader Juan Guido declared himself interim president with U.S. backing.
As Venezuela continues to grapple with inflation, political division, and international isolation, the legacy of U.S. intervention remains a deeply polarizing issue. Trump’s remarks have now reignited debate over how far the United States should go in influencing other nations’ internal politics and whether such power plays serve the cause of democracy or undermine it.