Opposition leader Machado says she hasn’t spoken to Trump since attack as she vows to return to Venezuela

Venezuela remains in a state of deep uncertainty following the U.S. military operation that led to the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, an event that has reshaped the country’s political landscape and intensified international tensions. With Maduro now facing criminal charges in the United States, questions about legitimacy, authority, and the future direction of the country dominate discussions in Caracas, Washington, and capitals across the world.

Maduro’s removal from Venezuelan soil has created an immediate power vacuum. His allies moved quickly to project continuity, with senior figures in his government asserting that constitutional order remains intact and that state institutions continue to function. Venezuela’s military leadership, long considered a key pillar of Maduro’s rule, has so far avoided public fractures, pledging loyalty to existing structures while denouncing what it describes as foreign aggression. That stance has helped prevent immediate chaos, but it has not resolved the underlying question of who truly governs the country.

Within Venezuela, public reaction has been muted and cautious. There have been no mass celebrations in Caracas, despite years of economic hardship, political repression, and emigration under Maduro’s leadership. Many Venezuelans appear wary of what comes next. Memories of failed transitions, broken promises, and external interventions have tempered expectations. For ordinary citizens, the immediate concerns remain food, fuel, security, and basic services rather than abstract debates over international law or geopolitical strategy.

The opposition, long fragmented and weakened by repression and internal divisions, sees opportunity but also risk. Some opposition leaders have welcomed Maduro’s capture as the removal of a central obstacle to political change. Others have urged restraint, warning that a transition perceived as imposed from abroad could undermine domestic legitimacy. Calls for a negotiated path forward, involving Venezuelan institutions and international mediation, have grown louder, reflecting concern that instability could worsen if rival claims to authority harden.

International reaction has been sharply divided. Several Latin American governments have condemned the U.S. action, emphasizing the principle of national sovereignty and warning that the forced removal of a sitting head of state sets a dangerous precedent. Others, while critical of Maduro’s record, have expressed unease about the method used to remove him rather than the outcome itself. The episode has reopened long-standing regional sensitivities about U.S. intervention in the hemisphere, sensitivities shaped by historical experience as much as present-day politics.

At the United Nations, the operation has prompted urgent debate about the use of force and the boundaries of international law. Critics argue that capturing a foreign leader without the consent of the host nation or explicit international authorization undermines the rules-based order. U.S. officials, for their part, have framed the action as a narrowly targeted law enforcement operation against an individual accused of serious criminal activity. That distinction has not resolved the dispute, but it reflects the administration’s effort to limit the scope of its justification.

In Washington, uncertainty has been compounded by mixed signals about what comes next. Early statements suggesting that the United States would play a direct role in shaping Venezuela’s future were later softened, with senior officials emphasizing that there is no intention to govern the country or remain indefinitely. The lack of a clear, publicly articulated roadmap has fueled criticism from lawmakers in both parties, some of whom have called for greater transparency and congressional oversight.

The situation on the ground remains fragile. Security forces have increased their presence in major cities, and reports of intimidation and restrictions on dissent have raised concerns among human rights advocates. Journalists and civil society groups operate under heightened pressure, uncertain how long the current period of tension will last or how it will end. The risk of miscalculation — by security forces, political actors, or foreign powers — remains significant.

Economically, Venezuela’s outlook is equally uncertain. The country’s oil industry, long crippled by mismanagement and sanctions, sits at the center of speculation about future reconstruction. Some Venezuelans hope that a political reset could eventually unlock investment and stabilize the economy. Others fear that prolonged instability or contested authority will delay any recovery and deepen hardship in the short term.

For the United States, the operation has already had consequences beyond Venezuela’s borders. Relations with several regional partners have been strained, and questions about precedent now hang over future U.S. actions elsewhere. Supporters of the intervention argue that decisive action was necessary after years of diplomatic stalemate. Critics counter that even well-intentioned force can produce unintended outcomes if not matched with careful planning and broad international support.

As Venezuela enters this uncertain chapter, one reality stands out: removing a leader is not the same as resolving a crisis. The country’s problems — institutional decay, economic collapse, social fragmentation — were years in the making and will not be undone quickly. Whether this moment becomes the beginning of a genuine transition or another episode of instability will depend less on rhetoric and more on restraint, clarity, and the willingness of Venezuelans themselves to shape their future.

For now, the situation remains unresolved. Power is contested, alliances are fragile, and expectations are guarded. What happens next will test not only Venezuela’s resilience, but also the credibility of international norms and the judgment of those who chose to intervene.