Last month’s termination of Chevron’s license to operate in Venezuela marks a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy. It also has grave implications for U.S. interests in South America.

The decision, which effectively forces Chevron — responsible for nearly 30% of Venezuela’s oil revenue — to cease operations within 30 days, moves U.S. policy back toward ill-fated interventionism.

Rubio’s adventurism arguably undercuts American dominance of the Western Hemisphere.

At first glance, this shift may appear to be a classic recalibration within the Trump administration. Insider reports suggest, however, that it was driven by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a leading neoconservative, who has seized a moment of political leverage to advance a hard-line stance on Venezuela.

A hard-line shift

With much of Washington’s focus on Ukraine, Rubio worked with Cuban-American lawmakers from Florida, including Republican Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart, Carlos Giménez, and Maria Elvira Salazar, to pressure the administration into taking a more aggressive position against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Rubio has long sought the removal of Maduro — whose leftist politics he detests — but his current approach poses a serious threat to U.S. national security.

This move is based on the assumption that by cutting off American engagement with Venezuela’s oil sector, Maduro will be weakened, potentially leading to his ouster.

But history suggests that this kind of economic pressure, typical of neoconservative thinking, has not — that is, never — yielded the desired results.

A similar “maximum pressure” strategy on Venezuela during Trump’s first term did not lead to regime change. Instead, it exacerbated instability in the region and contributed to the surge of migration at the southern U.S. border.

This was hardly an outcome that had conservatives jumping for joy.

Economic consequences

Beyond border security, Rubio’s decision could have severe economic consequences. U.S. oil refiners, particularly along the Gulf Coast, rely on Venezuela’s heavy crude to operate properly and keep pump prices as low as possible for working Americans.

Consequently, restricting access to this supply will likely increase fuel costs for American consumers — something that contradicts the president’s commitment to boosting U.S. energy production to supercharge our flagging economy.

The immediate market response has been telling, with oil prices rising more than 2% following last month's announcement. A neoconservative State Department, therefore, looks set to hit Americans where it hurts.

Strengthening our adversaries

Rubio’s adventurism also arguably undercuts American dominance of the Western Hemisphere.

Rather than halting Venezuelan oil production, hamstringing Chevron leaves Maduro’s government with little choice but to deepen ties with China and Russia. These antagonists are more than ready to fill the gap left by Western firms and American technology.

The U.S. had been making progress in reducing Venezuela’s reliance on Beijing, but this policy reversal could undo all that — strengthening adversaries at America’s expense.

This is not to say that engagement with Venezuela should come without conditions, but a more measured approach would have preserved American leverage rather than ceding ground to geopolitical competitors.

A pivot from MAGA

For example, President Trump last month outlined the framework of a U.S.-Venezuela détente: ramping up crude oil imports in exchange for Venezuela’s agreement to accept the return of its nationals who are in the United States illegally.

This would be a boon for the MAGA movement, strengthening energy and border security in one policy shot.

But Rubio has other ideas. His influence in shaping this turn away from Venezuela is evident. But the broader question remains: Will America return to the failed policies of the past, or will it stick to the optimistic realism of the Trump-Vance ticket?

The right answer, for me at least, is clear as day.