By Juan Larrosa, January 12, 2026
Although several days have passed since the United States’ military incursion into Venezuela, the issue continues to occupy a central place in public debate. This raises many questions that demand answers. One of them concerns motives: why did Trump decide to attack a Latin American country and remove its president, who had become a dictator? Why did he choose—like in a Batman saga—to ignore laws and international treaties to achieve his goal?
There are many possible answers. The first, naïve and ingenuous, claims that the objective was to save Venezuelans and free them from a dictator. Another is the narrative according to which Venezuela is a country that has exported large quantities of drugs to the United States, thereby justifying the action. Yet another points to the United States’ need to control Venezuela’s oil reserves, among the largest in the world.
Very quickly, during a press conference, Trump sought to clarify some of these answers, while at the same time muddying the waters with ambiguous statements. In his remarks, democracy and drug trafficking faded into the background and, without any sense of restraint, he stated that the primary interest lay in hydrocarbon extraction. This, some analysts noted, gives shape to what has been called the Donroe Doctrine and to a reordering of the world into spheres of influence, in which the United States arrogates to itself the right to control the entire American continent at will.
But there are other explanations. One of them—which does not necessarily contradict the previous ones—lies in the realm of communication and propaganda. In recent days, an interpretation circulated by some U.S. media outlets has gained traction: that the incursion into Venezuela was an act of propaganda—propaganda through force. The military operation was preceded by weeks in which videos of U.S. drones and missiles attacking boats in the Pacific and the Caribbean went viral. Then, during the operation in Venezuela, great care was taken to present a flawless attack—prearranged, some say. We also saw the classic image of the president in the Situation Room directing the strike. All of this became television footage and reels designed to circulate on digital platforms.
Propaganda is usually understood solely in its symbolic dimension: speeches, narratives, and stories produced by political power to generate consensus around an idea and persuade the population to support actions such as a military incursion. However, communication—including political communication—also has a performative dimension. In this case, that means the action itself is the propagandistic message. And in this world, the president of the United States—formerly a celebrity and a participant in television programs—moves like a fish in water.
What did the United States seek with its military operation in Venezuela? Beyond the explanations already mentioned, the objective was to demonstrate its military might and to communicate that Uncle Sam has returned to claim Latin America as his sphere of influence. The action is the propaganda. And this is not a new idea. As an example, already in the sixteenth century, Machiavelli pointed out how cruelty and violent actions could produce a powerful effect on public opinion. He did so by recounting how Cesare Borgia, son of Pope Alexander VI, decided to display the body of one of his most brutal subordinates in a public square in Cesena to communicate his power. He did not give a speech or issue a statement; he acted. And that action clearly conveyed the message he intended to send to the population.
This text was originally read on Informativo NTR Radio, broadcast on January 12, 2026, and hosted by journalist Sonia Serrano.