Monthly Update: 1/5/2026

Earlier this weekend, it appeared that the U.S. attack on Venezuela might warrant an increase in the Threat Index’s Militarism and Foreign Aggression score. With the benefit of a couple additional days, however, we have decided not to change the Index at this time.

Following the U.S. bombing of Iran in June, we raised the Militarism score from 5 to 6. That change reflected a shift by the Trump administration from relying primarily on threats of military action to actually using direct military force to unilaterally shape the international order. That action fell short of a score of 7, which is reserved for full-scale invasions of one or more foreign countries aimed at toppling governments and imposing foreign rule.

Although President Trump has claimed that the United States now “runs” Venezuela, the facts on the ground do not support Trump's claim. Statements by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, along with available reporting, indicate that the Maduro administration—now led by Delcy Rodríguez—continues to govern Venezuela. There is no significant U.S. military presence on the ground, and no evidence of an occupation consistent with a Militarism score of 7. Secretary Rubio has instead described the current U.S. approach, even after the attack, as applying pressure through sanctions, blockades, and other coercive measures to compel Venezuelan compliance with U.S. interests. That strategy, while aggressive, aligns more closely with a score of 6 than a 7.

That said, the situation in Venezuela remains fluid, and future developments could justify an increase in the Militarism score or in the Wealth Centralization & Erosion of Economic Freedom measure. President Trump has been unusually candid in stating that a primary objective of the attack is to ensure that U.S. oil companies gain control over Venezuela’s oil reserves. If the Rodríguez government agrees to transfer that control without further military escalation, the Militarism score will likely remain at 6. If, however, the Venezuelan government resists and the US responds with a sustained military occupation, the score would rise to 7.

Trump’s stated objectives also raise concerns related to the Threat Index’s Economic measure. His explicit linkage of military action to the financial interests of U.S. oil companies, combined with threats of escalation to achieve those interests, invites scrutiny of the relationship between the administration and oil industry leaders. Trump has repeatedly framed policy decisions in openly transactional terms. Considering that, it is reasonable to ask what he expects from the oil industry in return for deploying U.S. military power on its behalf. If it becomes clear that foreign policy is being negotiated directly between business leaders and the president in ways that expand presidential control over the economy, that would be consistent with the actions of past fascist leaders and would warrant raising the Economic measure from 4 to 5.