Maduro is gone, but Venezuela isn’t free — and US taxpayers will pay the price

Earlier this week, Nicolás Maduro’s vice president was sworn in as president of Venezuela in a ceremony attended by the same officials who have led the regime for years. The country’s top military commanders were there, as well as the interior minister, who oversees much of the state’s repressive security apparatus. Also on hand to congratulate him were Caracas’ most powerful ambassadors, from Russia to China to Iran.

Despite our military and intelligence community’s successful operation that brought Nicolás Maduro into federal custody, control of the Venezuelan state has not changed in any meaningful way. The same people continue to run important institutions.

This continuity has consequences. Networks tied to drug trafficking and official corruption are entrenched within the government, conditions that have led more than seven million people to flee the country, most to the United States or neighboring countries such as Colombia and Peru. The American adversaries most invested in protecting this system remain actively engaged.

AFTER MADURO, VENEZUELA POWER VACUUM IS EXPOSING INSIDE TROUBLESHOOTS AND ENFORCEMENTS

Changing this reality is much more complex than removing a single leader. This will mean reforming Venezuela’s security forces, dismantling state-embedded criminal organizations, stabilizing a collapsed economy, and promoting a credible path to democratic elections. These efforts would require significant American resources and carry real risks with no guarantee of success.

At this early stage, the United States sent large military forces and personnel to the region. Approximately fifteen thousand US personnel and approximately 20% of US Navy assets were positioned in the region during the buildup, supported by air assets. This scale shows how quickly a limited operation can turn into a permanent liability.

Any expectations that Venezuela will be able to quickly finance its own recovery or absorb the costs of US intervention are unrealistic. Restoring Venezuela’s oil production is a long-term undertaking. Years of mismanagement led to the deterioration of infrastructure and the layoff of skilled workers. Bringing production back online at scale will require lengthy technical studies and significant private investment under security and management conditions that do not currently exist. Moreover, US refineries are already booked; They cannot abandon efforts to refine domestic crude oil to prioritize Venezuelan oil. That’s why President Trump recently acknowledged that U.S. taxpayers may have to compensate oil companies that want to set up shop in Venezuela.

Meanwhile, the administration has eliminated U.S. economic and democracy assistance, including cost-effective and targeted tools needed to stabilize Venezuela and support a shift away from corruption and criminal control.

China, by contrast, has consistently used infrastructure, financing, and humanitarian support to expand its influence in Venezuela and throughout the region. Undermining US economic engagement while signaling interest in resource extraction risks strengthening rather than weakening Beijing’s position – and it would be a message sent around the world: When China invests, the US receives.

Taken together, overcoming these challenges will mean a multi-year commitment of resources, attention, and political capital, with uncertain outcomes and competing demands elsewhere. That determination may grow as the president shows interest in increasingly expanding interventions across the hemisphere.

These trade-offs are not abstract. Long-term engagement abroad competes with immediate domestic priorities, including reducing household costs, protecting access to health care, and sustaining investments in affordability and economic growth at home.

I hear from my constituents in New Hampshire that, more than anything else, they want their elected leaders to focus on economic concerns in their budgets, on making their lives more affordable and on lowering the cost of basic expenses like housing, health care, energy and daily necessities. They recognize the importance of America playing a constructive and strong role in the world, but they do not want their elected leaders to ignore their real economic priorities.

CLICK FOR OTHER OPINIONS OF FOX NEWS

President Trump acknowledged these concerns during the election campaign, but since then his agenda, from across-the-board tariffs to cuts to health care, has had the opposite effect. Americans feel increasingly squeezed by the high cost of living. The president also ran a measured foreign policy campaign that eschewed the open-ended nation-building commitments we have seen in the past; However, when it comes to Venezuela and the Western Hemisphere, we see that he takes a very different approach. Threats and actions to seize or rule over sovereign territory are not only unwelcome among the American people; these are among the most costly and challenging partnerships and alliances, creating even more room for U.S. adversaries like Russia and China to gain advantage.

CLICK TO DOWNLOAD FOX NEWS APPLICATION

Americans know that our country and the world will be stronger, safer, and more prosperous when we intervene and shape what happens beyond our borders. But they are keenly aware of the real trade-offs that arise when our leaders drag us into costly commitments overseas without a clear endgame or strategy.

Now the president has dragged the United States into a potentially prolonged involvement in Venezuela and beyond. So far we have heard no coherent justification for our participation; Let alone a reasonable long-term strategy for how to stabilize Venezuela and transform it into a thriving democracy; This has long been a common goal of Republicans and Democrats. It is critical that the administration be transparent with the American people and Congress about the costs of participation and the real tradeoffs it will entail. And in the process, it is vital that the administration not protect autocratic systems and institutions that it once viewed as threats to U.S. national security.