The United States military operation in Venezuela, which resulted in the arrest of President Nicolás Maduro, is unlikely to have a relevant impact on the Brazilian presidential race in 2026. The assessment is from the consultancy 4intelligence, which analyzed the political developments of the offensive led by Donald Trump’s government and its possible repercussions on the domestic scene.
According to the consultancy, although the action represents a geopolitical milestone in Latin America, its electoral effects in Brazil tend to be specific and concentrated in the discursive field. The episode should accentuate the polarization between right and left, but not gather enough strength to become a central theme in defining the vote.
At the international level, the analysis points out that the American incursion reinforces the historical logic of the Monroe Doctrine and highlights Brazil’s loss of protagonism as a regional actor. Over the last few decades, different Brazilian governments — from Fernando Henrique Cardoso to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, including Dilma Rousseff, Michel Temer and Jair Bolsonaro — have tried to exert some degree of influence over the Chavista regime, without success. The US action, according to the consultancy, only crystallizes this diplomatic irrelevance.
Continues after advertising
4intelligence also assesses that the relationship between Lula and Trump tends to deteriorate. The Brazilian government’s public condemnation of the American intervention could return an environment of friction to the bilateral agenda, with the risk of trade tensions, sanctions or new episodes of rhetorical confrontation. For the consultancy, this movement does not represent an unprecedented rupture, but rather a return to a relationship marked by distrust and disagreements.
In the internal scenario, the episode feeds opposing narratives. Sectors on the right, including Bolsonaro groups, see the operation as a liberating action and have even speculated, rhetorically, about similar interventions in other countries.
The left reacted with strong criticism, classifying the offensive as illegal, a violation of regional sovereignty and a movement motivated by economic interests, especially linked to Venezuelan oil.
Despite this symbolic clash, the consultancy considers it unlikely that the issue will have a decisive weight in the election. The assessment is that the narrative critical of external intervention tends to find greater resonance with public opinion, especially given recent experiences of rejecting sanctions and tariffs imposed by the United States. On the other hand, speeches that suggest an American military presence on Brazilian soil are likely to face widespread resistance from the electorate.
For 4intelligence, the political effects of Venezuela’s invasion of Brazil should be diluted over time, remaining restricted to ideological debate and electoral rhetoric. Confirmation or not of this diagnosis, highlights the consultancy, will depend on the evolution of the international scenario and the next rounds of opinion polls.
