The recent forcible removal of Nicolás Maduro, the Venezuelan leader, by U.S. special forces has raised concerns about the stability of the Cuban government, which relied heavily on Maduro's regime for essential oil supplies. With Maduro's ousting, Cuba faces increased economic challenges, including a declining gross domestic product, which has reportedly fallen by 11 percent since 2020. This economic downturn is compounded by deteriorating infrastructure, widespread power outages, food scarcity, and inadequate access to clean water. Anti-government protests in Cuba have become more frequent, although they remain disorganized and are met with harsh repression. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has suggested that the removal of Maduro could be part of a broader strategy targeting Cuba's leadership, highlighting the interconnectedness of regional politics and the humanitarian challenges faced by these nations.

The removal of Maduro has prompted varied diplomatic reactions globally, particularly among European leaders. While many European governments have welcomed the end of Maduro's regime, they have refrained from explicitly endorsing the means by which it occurred, citing concerns over international law. The UK has seen opposition politicians express differing views, with some calling for condemnation of the U.S. intervention as illegal, while others argue it was morally justified. France has voiced the most concern, warning that the operation contravened the principle of non-use of force.

Domestically, the U.S. government's actions have faced backlash, with critics arguing that the intervention prioritizes American corporate interests, particularly in the oil sector, over genuine democratic principles. Former Vice President Kamala Harris acknowledged Maduro's dictatorial regime but criticized the legality and wisdom of the U.S. intervention, warning that such actions often lead to chaos and negatively impact American families. The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal has characterized the military intervention as justified due to Venezuela's alliances with adversarial nations, while others emphasize the complexities and mixed outcomes of U.S. interventions historically.

The U.S. government argues that maintaining Maduro's regime would have exacerbated the suffering of the Venezuelan population and allowed foreign powers to establish a foothold in the region. However, the transition following Maduro's removal is complicated by armed groups and a fractured political environment, raising concerns about the potential for further instability.

In the context of U.S. actions, President Donald Trump has escalated rhetoric against Colombia and Venezuela, making unsubstantiated claims about Colombian President Gustavo Petro's involvement in drug trafficking. This approach raises concerns about sovereignty and self-determination in the region, with critics highlighting the implications of U.S. aggression and interventionist policies.

The situation in Venezuela underscores the need for a careful approach to ensure that U.S. involvement aligns with humanitarian goals and the restoration of democratic norms, rather than exacerbating existing challenges or undermining the principles of democracy and human rights that the U.S. claims to uphold.