Two analysts debate whether Brazil will face negative impacts from the US intervention in Venezuela, which led to Nicolás Maduro's capture. One argument highlights potential diplomatic and economic benefits, while the other warns of geopolitical and migration risks.
The US intervention in Venezuela, announced in 2026 under Donald Trump's administration, has sparked debates on its repercussions for Brazil. The action included Nicolás Maduro's capture, measures to maintain local power under external tutelage, control of mineral and oil resources, release of political prisoners, and operations against narco-traffickers. These steps, critics argue, deepen the fragility of the Venezuelan state and violate non-intervention principles.
In an opinion piece published in Folha de S.Paulo on January 9, 2026, a researcher from USP's International Relations Research Center and FAAP professor argues that Brazil will not face negative consequences. She points to improved relations between President Lula and Trump, starting at the UN General Assembly in September 2025, with an October meeting seen as a victory for Lula. Other advances include the suspension of tariffs on Brazilian exports to the US and the removal of Alexandre de Moraes from the Magnitsky Act sanctions list. Moreover, diplomatic channels with Chavismo remain open, unlike during Jair Bolsonaro's presidency, allowing Lula to act as a mediator. The author highlights potential benefits, such as new elections in Caracas favoring ties with Brazil, the region's largest economy sharing over 2,000 km of border, and Venezuela's economic recovery, which could boost Brazilian exports – peaking at $5.1 billion in 2008 – and settle a debt of about $1.8 billion.
In contrast, a USP Law professor and former UN consultant asserts that yes, Brazil will suffer negative impacts. Geographic proximity and Brazil's historical role as a regional moderator are threatened by the breach of sovereignty and non-intervention, weakening Itamaraty's protagonism. The Amazon border will require heightened vigilance, Venezuelan migration will intensify with humanitarian costs, and US control of oil resources will affect Petrobras strategies. The intervention breaks the Treaty of Tlatelolco, introduces global rivalries, and sets dangerous precedents based on 'narco-terrorism' combat, under a 'Trump Corollary' to the Monroe Doctrine. Condemning the action preserves Brazil's foreign policy coherence but incurs diplomatic costs.
Both views underscore Brazil's delicate position in Latin America, with the future hinging on the crisis's evolution.
