He's apparently following the Zimbabwe model.
He's emboldened. To my knowledge, there was not a squeak about this in the mainstream US press, and the British government doesn't seem too concerned. He got away with it once, so why not try it again - and again, and again...
The thing that limits the size of large "unproductive" land holdings in the US is "property tax".
But if the owner is making his property taxes, unproductive is good, its a protected space for the natural wildlife.
Venezuela's urban poor don't want to live in the boondocks, and don't have the financing or knowhow to make ag land productive. Since the land was taken from someone by the government in the first place, your title to the land becomes strictly a polite fiction that has value only while the current administration holds power, and only as long as you don't attract any attention to yourself as a member of the opposition.
Mexico has used land reform similarly, handing out land to members of the ruling party, who were required to show up for party meetings and such in return for being "allowed" to hold title.
If your ownership is dependent on the good graces of the current ruling party, you are not inclined to take public positions on anything that might invite trouble. That means your land isn't really your land, and it means you aren't a free man.