The US isn’t attacking Venezuela because of drugs
— it’s because of minerals.
by Krystal Kauffman, opinion contributor/The Hill
12/11/25 10:30 AM ET
A few months ago, most Americans were not thinking about Venezuela at all. Then, something alarming happened.
Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News host and current secretary of Defense, publicly suggested that a small Venezuelan boat in the Caribbean should be destroyed. Soon after, reports surfaced that U.S. forces had blown apart several boats near Venezuelan waters. The Trump administration made loud claims of narco terrorism, but no evidence of seized drugs was ever shown to the public.
Despite that lack of proof, the rhetoric stuck. It grew louder. And so did the military presence. The United States has now positioned its largest aircraft carrier near Venezuela’s coast, along with aircraft, troops and restricted airspace. That is not what a focused, limited counter-drug mission looks like — especially when federal data shows Venezuela is not a significant source of narcotics entering the United States. Something else is driving this escalation.
It is minerals, not drugs.
Those who doubt the centrality of minerals to U.S. strategy should consider the recent agreement between Washington and Kyiv, which granted U.S. entities preferential access to Ukraine’s mineral reserves as partial repayment for wartime assistance. Whatever one thinks about that arrangement, one thing is clear: minerals are emerging as geopolitical currency. And Venezuela has the kind of mineral wealth — $1.36 trillion, according to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro — that can shape the next century.
The U.S. has a history of intervening in resource-rich nations behind noble-sounding pretexts. From the oil fields of Iran to the copper mines of Chile, the agricultural lands of Guatemala, the oil reserves of Iraq and Libya, and the mineral wealth of the Congo and Indonesia, U.S. policy has time and again combined strategic interests with economic ambition. Often disguised as a fight against communism, terrorism or a humanitarian crisis, access to highly valued resources was always an important motive. Given its oil reserves and increasingly essential mineral deposits, Venezuela falls squarely within this historical pattern.
Abundant deposits of bauxite, coltan, gold and rare-earth minerals, which are now central to national security and global supply chains, are located in Venezuela, mainly in the southern part of the country. It is there that authority is weakest and armed groups are strongest.
Illegal mines are strewn across the Amazon and Orinoco basins, and the impact has been devastating. The forest has been turned into open pits. Toxic mercury, used to extract gold, has contaminated the river and killed fish. The guerrilla groups are brutal in the operation of the mines. Children are put to work inside the mines alongside the men. Women and girls are bought and sold for gold. Forced labor is prevalent. Indigenous communities are being forced out of their ancestral lands to make room for more mines. There is zero oversight.
The current exploitation of the people and the land is tragic. I say this not just as a researcher studying global technology and labor, but also as someone who studied geology: increased demand for Venezuelan minerals will only further the destruction and loss of life.
Some justify this show of force by citing Maduro’s long list of offenses. Maduro is the perfect villain: His claim to the presidency followed a deeply contested election, and more than 10 Latin American countries refuse to recognize his rule. Evidence suggests the opposition won by a wide margin. Maduro’s government is repressive, corrupt and ruinous to its own economy.
Condemning Maduro does not, however, justify deploying aircraft carriers. If the U.S. were really interested in restoring democracy to Venezuela, its strategy would include negotiations and humanitarian aid, among other things.
Before this country drifts any further toward conflict, the administration owes the public clarity. If the goal is democracy, state it and work toward it through diplomacy. Should the target be narcotics, present proof, not buzzwords. If the objective is minerals, make that clear, and negotiate agreements. Allow the public to debate whether any of these things are justification enough to escalate the military involvement.
Venezuelans deserve more than to become collateral in a global resource race. Americans deserve more than vague speak and shifting narratives. The world deserves a U.S. willing to speak plainly about its intentions before it commits to a conflict whose costs will remain long after the headlines fade. If we don’t demand the answers now, we may soon find ourselves locked into a fight we did not choose, for reasons the Trump administration never told us about.
Krystal Kauffman is a research fellow with the Distributed AI Research Institute and a Public Voices fellow on Technology in the Public Interest with the OpEd Project.
by Krystal Kauffman, opinion contributor/The Hill
12/11/25 10:30 AM ET
A few months ago, most Americans were not thinking about Venezuela at all. Then, something alarming happened.
Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News host and current secretary of Defense, publicly suggested that a small Venezuelan boat in the Caribbean should be destroyed. Soon after, reports surfaced that U.S. forces had blown apart several boats near Venezuelan waters. The Trump administration made loud claims of narco terrorism, but no evidence of seized drugs was ever shown to the public.
Despite that lack of proof, the rhetoric stuck. It grew louder. And so did the military presence. The United States has now positioned its largest aircraft carrier near Venezuela’s coast, along with aircraft, troops and restricted airspace. That is not what a focused, limited counter-drug mission looks like — especially when federal data shows Venezuela is not a significant source of narcotics entering the United States. Something else is driving this escalation.
It is minerals, not drugs.
Those who doubt the centrality of minerals to U.S. strategy should consider the recent agreement between Washington and Kyiv, which granted U.S. entities preferential access to Ukraine’s mineral reserves as partial repayment for wartime assistance. Whatever one thinks about that arrangement, one thing is clear: minerals are emerging as geopolitical currency. And Venezuela has the kind of mineral wealth — $1.36 trillion, according to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro — that can shape the next century.
The U.S. has a history of intervening in resource-rich nations behind noble-sounding pretexts. From the oil fields of Iran to the copper mines of Chile, the agricultural lands of Guatemala, the oil reserves of Iraq and Libya, and the mineral wealth of the Congo and Indonesia, U.S. policy has time and again combined strategic interests with economic ambition. Often disguised as a fight against communism, terrorism or a humanitarian crisis, access to highly valued resources was always an important motive. Given its oil reserves and increasingly essential mineral deposits, Venezuela falls squarely within this historical pattern.
Abundant deposits of bauxite, coltan, gold and rare-earth minerals, which are now central to national security and global supply chains, are located in Venezuela, mainly in the southern part of the country. It is there that authority is weakest and armed groups are strongest.
Illegal mines are strewn across the Amazon and Orinoco basins, and the impact has been devastating. The forest has been turned into open pits. Toxic mercury, used to extract gold, has contaminated the river and killed fish. The guerrilla groups are brutal in the operation of the mines. Children are put to work inside the mines alongside the men. Women and girls are bought and sold for gold. Forced labor is prevalent. Indigenous communities are being forced out of their ancestral lands to make room for more mines. There is zero oversight.
The current exploitation of the people and the land is tragic. I say this not just as a researcher studying global technology and labor, but also as someone who studied geology: increased demand for Venezuelan minerals will only further the destruction and loss of life.
Some justify this show of force by citing Maduro’s long list of offenses. Maduro is the perfect villain: His claim to the presidency followed a deeply contested election, and more than 10 Latin American countries refuse to recognize his rule. Evidence suggests the opposition won by a wide margin. Maduro’s government is repressive, corrupt and ruinous to its own economy.
Condemning Maduro does not, however, justify deploying aircraft carriers. If the U.S. were really interested in restoring democracy to Venezuela, its strategy would include negotiations and humanitarian aid, among other things.
Before this country drifts any further toward conflict, the administration owes the public clarity. If the goal is democracy, state it and work toward it through diplomacy. Should the target be narcotics, present proof, not buzzwords. If the objective is minerals, make that clear, and negotiate agreements. Allow the public to debate whether any of these things are justification enough to escalate the military involvement.
Venezuelans deserve more than to become collateral in a global resource race. Americans deserve more than vague speak and shifting narratives. The world deserves a U.S. willing to speak plainly about its intentions before it commits to a conflict whose costs will remain long after the headlines fade. If we don’t demand the answers now, we may soon find ourselves locked into a fight we did not choose, for reasons the Trump administration never told us about.
Krystal Kauffman is a research fellow with the Distributed AI Research Institute and a Public Voices fellow on Technology in the Public Interest with the OpEd Project.
