U.S. strikes Venezuela and captures Maduro; Trump says "we're going to run the country" for now

The United States launched a military operation against Venezuela in the early hours of January 3, culminating in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. President Donald Trump described the action as a “large scale strike” carried out by U.S. forces and framed it as an effort to enforce longstanding federal charges against Maduro related to drug trafficking and connections with designated criminal organisations.

According to U.S. officials, Maduro and his wife were taken into custody and flown to New York, where they are expected to face federal prosecution. The operation involved elite U.S. military units, including Delta Force, in a carefully planned action designed to minimise wider conflict and to apprehend the Venezuelan leader without significant harm to civilians or U.S. personnel.

President Trump said in public remarks that the United States would “run Venezuela” temporarily while overseeing a transition period and restoring stability. He characterised the intervention as necessary to “run it properly” and suggested that U.S. involvement might extend to rebuilding Venezuela’s oil industry, stating that American companies could invest in and revive production once operations stabilised.

The military action represents a rare and bold assertion of U.S. power in the Western Hemisphere. Maduro had been under U.S. indictment since 2020 on charges alleging his role in a long-running scheme to import large quantities of cocaine into the United States, enriching himself, his family, and members of the Venezuelan political and military elite. Those charges provided, in the U.S. view, the legal basis for enforcement, though the use of military force on foreign soil for this purpose has drawn scrutiny.

International and domestic reactions were swift. Venezuelan officials condemned the capture as an illegal “kidnapping” and violation of national sovereignty, with the vice president asserting that Maduro remains the legitimate head of state. China’s foreign ministry called for Maduro’s immediate release and described the U.S. action as a breach of international law. United Nations representatives expressed concern about the escalation and urged restraint.

In the United States, lawmakers and commentators offered mixed assessments. Some saw the operation as decisive action against a leader accused of criminal conduct, while others raised constitutional and legal questions about military intervention without clear legislative authorisation. One member of Congress emphasised that the United States should focus on its own governance rather than “running” another country, highlighting broader debate over executive authority in foreign policy.

On the ground in Venezuela, images and reports indicate that U.S. strikes damaged key military facilities in Caracas, including at Fuerte Tiuna, which is one of the country’s largest defence complexes. Venezuelan forces reportedly engaged during the operation, and the rapidity of the raid suggests significant advance planning and the element of surprise played central roles. Following the capture, Maduro and his wife were transported via a U.S. warship before being flown to New York, where they were processed into federal custody, including at a high‑security detention centre.

The operation followed months of stepped‑up U.S. military presence in the Caribbean, including the deployment of an aircraft carrier and other warships, as well as repeated strikes on maritime vessels the U.S. government said were transporting illicit drugs. The United States had also tightened economic pressure on Venezuela and seized oil tankers it said were violating sanctions.

President Trump’s comments about temporary governance and future U.S. involvement in Venezuela’s affairs mark a significant shift in rhetoric from previous administrations. While he described the intervention as conducted without loss of American lives and emphasised the law enforcement rationale, his remarks about running the country and engaging in its energy sector touched on questions of sovereignty and long‑term U.S. presence.

The legal status of the operation is subject to debate. Under international law, the use of military force in another sovereign state is generally restricted to cases of self‑defense or with explicit international authorisation. The Trump administration’s argument rests on U.S. indictments and national security interests, but critics contend those do not, on their own, satisfy established international legal criteria.

Venezuelan political structures now face a period of uncertainty. Maduro’s vice president has been named interim president by the Venezuelan supreme court, but acceptance of that change varies, and the legitimacy of transitional authority is contested domestically and abroad. Within Venezuelan diaspora communities and internationally, reactions range from celebration among some who opposed Maduro’s government to protests and condemnation among supporters who view the U.S. action as an illegitimate intervention.

The event has drawn historical comparisons to past U.S. interventions in the region, though its unique legal and operational dimensions make its legacy uncertain. What follows in Venezuela—whether a durable transition, renewed political conflict, or protracted instability—will shape assessments of the operation’s prudence and consequences.