US President Donald Trump’s recent foreign policy maneuvers – from bombing Venezuela, capturing its president from his official residence, and asserting control over its vast oil fields, to renewed Arctic geopolitical manoeuvring centred on Greenland, followed by the high-seas seizure of a Russian tanker – point to a bold, controversial recalibration of US power projection, that is sparking concern not just abroad, but at home as well.
Venezuela Bombarded
The chain of events began unfolding in Venezuela, a nation sitting atop the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves. After months of mounting tensions with Caracas, US forces in the late hours of January 2 (local time), mounted a sweeping operation that marked a significant escalation in Washington’s pressure campaign against Venezuela’s government – now led by interim authorities after the ousting of President Nicolás Maduro.
Trump’s Broader Strategic Playbook: Greenland and Beyond
The Venezuela oil move is only part of a broader US foreign policy that prioritises control over key resources and expanding US security reach. A notable and unusual element of that agenda is Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland.
Earlier this year Trump reignited discussions about whether the US should pursue control, either through purchase or other means, of the Arctic territory – a Danish semi-autonomous region rich in strategic mineral resources and increasingly important for its position in Arctic shipping routes.
While US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has stated that purchasing Greenland remains the preferred route – and that military options are a last resort – the very framing of the discussion has alarmed European allies.
The proposal shows a hard-nosed view of global power politics, where both energy resources and geographical assets matter more than international cooperation.
The Greenland conversation, once dismissed as unlikely, now sits alongside more active US foreign policy initiatives in the Caribbean and Atlantic – suggesting Trump’s willingness to challenge longstanding diplomatic norms to secure strategic advantages.
Russian-flagged Tanker Seized
The Venezuelan bombardment and the Greenland skirmishes were followed, on January 7, by US forces seizing a Russian-flagged oil tanker, the Marinera (formerly Bella 1), in the North Atlantic. This marked a dramatic chapter in what Washington describes as enforcement of sanctions and a blockade of illicit oil shipments tied to Venezuela.
The operation was not limited to that single vessel. US agencies controlled another vessel, the Sophia, near the Caribbean.
Both ships had been associated with efforts to move sanctioned crude from Venezuela – and, in at least one case, allegedly to evade US bans on such shipments.
The Trump administration has framed these seizures as part of a broader effort to keep sanctioned oil off the global market when it believes the profits could help fuel corruption, narco-terrorism or bolster regimes hostile to US interests.
Securing control over these resources also appears tied to Trump’s goal of expanding American energy dominance, with officials suggesting that proceeds from sales of Venezuelan oil will be managed by the US and directed toward American companies and interests.
These moves have been justified by Washington under the umbrellas of sanctions enforcement and national security, but they have touched a nerve internationally.
Russia condemned the seizure of the Marinera as “illegal” and an act of “piracy,” and demanded proper treatment of its crew, citing international maritime law.
Regional and Global Blowback
The seizure has complicated Washington’s relationship with other major powers.
Moscow, already at odds with the US over issues ranging from Ukraine to global energy dynamics, has taken a hard line against what it calls overreach in international waters.
Other countries have also criticised Washington’s actions for undermining norms of sovereign control over national resources.
In Latin America itself, reactions are sharply divided. While some governments align with US policy on sanctions and sanctions enforcement, others decry the aggressive tactics, warning that such operations could destabilise regional energy markets and fuel anti-American sentiment.
The Big Picture: Resources, Power and US Interests
Taken together, Trump’s actions point toward a foreign policy increasingly defined by direct control or influence over critical resources and strategic locations.
In Venezuela, that has meant pressuring – and now controlling – oil production and transport; in the Arctic, it is about securing a foothold near emerging shipping lanes and untapped mineral wealth; and on the high seas, it involves enforcing sanctions with military capability.
Supporters of Trump’s tactics argue they enhance US leverage against rival powers and protect American economic and security interests.
Critics counter that such actions erode trust in international law, risk military escalation, and could alienate both allies and neutral countries.
What is clear is that Trump’s approach – mixing sanctions enforcement with military action and strategic resource focus – represents a distinct shift from the status quo of American foreign policy in recent decades.
(With inputs from agencies)
