In the early hours of January 3, 2026, the United States launched its most dramatic military intervention in Latin America in decades. Overnight airstrikes across Caracas, paired with a special forces operation, resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his removal from the country.
President Donald Trump said Washington would “run” Venezuela during a transitional period, citing security concerns and criminal charges against the Venezuelan leadership. The operation has already sent shockwaves across the region, strained international law, and raised urgent questions about the future of Venezuela and the global order.
Timeline and Immediate Impact
The operation began shortly after 02:01 local time, when U.S. special forces stormed Maduro’s residence following a power blackout that disabled parts of the capital. U.S. officials said Delta Force, aided by intelligence from within the Venezuelan government, carried out the raid.
At the same time, U.S. aircraft launched large-scale strikes on key military and infrastructure targets, including La Carlota Air Base, Fuerte Tiuna, port facilities at La Guaira, telecommunications towers, and regional airports. More than 150 aircraft were reportedly involved, with the strikes providing cover for the extraction.
Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores were taken to a U.S. naval vessel before being transferred to New York, where they now face charges including narco-terrorism, drug-trafficking conspiracy, and weapons offenses. Venezuelan authorities said members of Maduro’s security team, soldiers, and civilians were killed, though no independent casualty figures have been confirmed. U.S. officials said no American personnel were killed.
Inside Venezuela, the political outcome remains uncertain. Vice President Delcy Rodríguez was sworn in as interim president by the Supreme Court, rejecting U.S. claims that Washington would directly administer the country. While Trump said Rodríguez had privately signaled a willingness to cooperate, she publicly insisted Venezuela would not become “a colony of an empire.” The country now faces political instability, damaged infrastructure, fear of further strikes, and the risk of fragmentation within the ruling apparatus.
The regional fallout was immediate. Colombia deployed security forces along its border in anticipation of refugee flows, while neighboring governments warned that the intervention could destabilize northern South America.
Global and Regional Response
The international reaction was swift but uneven. Across Latin America, condemnation dominated. Leaders in Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Cuba, and Nicaragua denounced the strikes as acts of aggression and violations of sovereignty. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva warned that the operation crossed an “unacceptable line” and threatened the region’s long-standing aspiration to remain a zone of peace. Mexico said the attack constituted a breach of the UN Charter.
Venezuela’s allies echoed those concerns. Russia called the operation an “unacceptable assault” on Venezuelan sovereignty, China said it was “deeply shocked” by Washington’s use of force, and Iran labeled the strikes a flagrant violation of international law. None, however, moved beyond diplomatic condemnation.
At the United Nations, Venezuela requested an emergency Security Council meeting. Secretary-General António Guterres said he was “deeply alarmed” and warned that international law appeared not to have been respected, though any meaningful response remains constrained by geopolitical divisions.
Europe’s response was more cautious. EU leaders reiterated support for a “peaceful and democratic transition” in Venezuela but avoided direct criticism of Washington. In contrast, The Guardian, in a sharply worded editorial, argued that the seizure of a foreign head of state without UN authorization or congressional approval marked a dangerous escalation and a further erosion of international norms.
What Comes Next?
What follows is deeply uncertain. President Trump has not ruled out further military action, saying he is “not afraid of boots on the ground.” He has also pledged to deploy U.S. oil companies to rebuild infrastructure and extract resources, framing the move as both economic recovery for Venezuela and reimbursement for U.S. intervention. Critics argue this reinforces suspicions that control of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves—rather than democracy promotion or counter-narcotics—lies at the heart of the operation.
Venezuela itself faces a legitimacy vacuum. Washington has dismissed prominent opposition figures, including María Corina Machado, while signaling a willingness to work pragmatically with elements of the existing regime. That approach risks entrenching instability rather than resolving it. Inside the country, hardline factions may resist any externally imposed transition, raising the prospect of prolonged unrest or insurgency.
Beyond Venezuela, the implications are broader. The unilateral capture of a sitting president without UN approval weakens already strained international norms and sends a warning signal to rivals and allies alike. Whether this episode proves an isolated shock or the start of a new era of open power politics will depend on how the international community—and the United States itself—responds in the weeks ahead.
What is clear is that the consequences of the strikes will extend far beyond Caracas, reshaping regional security, global diplomacy, and the credibility of international law itself.
Beyond Venezuela, the implications are profound. The unilateral capture of a sitting president without UN authorization or congressional approval marks a decisive break from the norms that have long constrained the use of force. Whatever the crimes of Nicolás Maduro or the failures of his rule, the method of his removal matters. By acting outside international frameworks, Washington has weakened the very legal order it has historically claimed to defend, inviting other powers to do the same when it suits their interests.
Whether this intervention becomes a one-off shock or the opening move in a broader era of coercive regime change now depends on what follows. If the United States doubles down—militarily, economically, or rhetorically—it risks turning Venezuela into a test case for a world where power replaces law as the final arbiter. The strikes on Caracas may have removed a leader, but they have also exposed a deeper crisis: not just over who governs Venezuela, but over whether international rules still hold when they become inconvenient.
Sources
1. NPR’s International Desk. “U.S. strikes on Venezuela spark alarm across Latin America and beyond.” NPR, January 3, 2026.
2. World Update. “Live updates: U.S. captures Maduro and his wife after striking Venezuela.” Associated Press, January 3, 2026.
3. Rhoden-Paul, André and Moench, Mallory. “Who is in charge of Venezuela and what happens next?” BBC, 4 January, 2026.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crmlz7r0zrxo
4. Editorial Opinion. “The Guardian view on the US seizure of Maduro: Trump has turned the world’s superpower into a rogue state.” The Guardian, 4 January, 2026.
5. Anatoly, Kurmanaev; Nicas, Jack; Wong, Edward; and Schmitt, Eric. “Venezuela’s New Leader Softens Tone as Trump Threatens Colombia.” The New York Times, 4 January, 2026.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/04/world/trump-us-venezuela-maduro