In the early hours of January 3, 2026, the United States launched a large-scale military intervention in Venezuela, a move the U.S. administration called Operation Absolute Resolve. The assault involved air and ground strikes on Venezuelan targets — including key military facilities around Caracas — executed by U.S. Special Operations forces, Army units, Marine Corps elements, the Air Force, Central Intelligence Agency assets, and law enforcement personnel acting in concert. The ostensible goal was to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his inner circle, whom the U.S. government has long accused of overseeing a narco-state deeply involved in international drug trafficking and narco-terrorism. President Donald Trump publicly announced that Venezuelan leader Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, had been captured during the operation and taken into U.S. custody. According to U.S. officials, Maduro and Flores were subsequently flown to New York where they face federal narcotics and narco-terrorism charges in the Southern District of New York, to which they have pleaded not guilty.

Operation Absolute Resolve began before dawn, with explosions and low-flying aircraft heard over Caracas and surrounding areas as U.S. forces struck multiple strategic targets. According to reports, more than 150 aircraft from U.S. naval, marine, and air components provided air cover, while special units such as Delta Force conducted the ground raid. Helicopters descended on a fortified compound where Maduro and his wife were believed to be sheltering, and after exchanges of fire, the two were taken into custody and evacuated. After being moved to the amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima stationed off Venezuela’s coast, they were quickly transported to the continental United States for processing and prosecution. Venezuelan officials, however, denounced the attack as an unlawful act of aggression and framed Maduro’s removal as a “kidnapping.”

The Trump administration framed the intervention as a law-enforcement effort closely tied to longstanding indictments against Maduro and his associates for drug trafficking and terrorism. These charges date back to a 2020 federal indictment accusing Maduro of using Venezuela as a transshipment route for cocaine and collaborating with international terrorist groups, among other allegations. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and other officials have defended the operation as constitutional and necessary to curb the influence of drug cartels affecting U.S. security. They maintain that Maduro’s arrest was justified under these indictments and argue that the military role was supportive of a broader law-enforcement mission. Both Maduro and Flores entered not-guilty pleas in federal court in Manhattan, and legal debates continue over claims of head-of-state immunity versus the U.S. position that Maduro is no longer a legitimate leader.

The unilateral nature of the U.S. military intervention has triggered widespread international criticism. At an emergency United Nations Security Council meeting, numerous countries condemned the U.S. action as a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and a “crime of aggression.” Nations such as Brazil, China, Russia, Cuba, and South Africa have decried the operation as contrary to international law, emphasising that the attack lacked U.N. Security Council authorization or any clear self-defense justification. Legal experts and international affairs think tanks have echoed these concerns, noting that the use of military force for law enforcement — especially on foreign soil without consent — sets contentious precedents. While the U.S. insists it acted lawfully and within its interests, the lack of broad international support has left the global response sharply divided.

Within Venezuela the political landscape shifted rapidly following Maduro’s capture. Venezuelan institutions loyal to Maduro moved to assert continuity of governance. Vice President Delcy Rodríguez was sworn in as interim president by Venezuela’s Supreme Court in Caracas, aiming to demonstrate that the Venezuelan state remained operational and independent of U.S. control. Maduro’s supporters decried the U.S. action and have mobilized statements and legal measures to assert sovereignty and seek the return of Maduro and his wife. Tensions remain high domestically as Maduro loyalists push back against what they describe as a foreign occupation and a violation of constitutional norms. Meanwhile, the U.S. administration has indicated its intention to oversee a transitional period, with potential involvement from U.S. and allied entities in stabilizing the Venezuelan economy, including its critical oil sector.

The U.S. intervention in Venezuela represents a significant escalation in Western Hemisphere geopolitics, echoing historical interventions such as the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama that resulted in the capture of Manuel Noriega. The operation has implications for U.S.–Latin America relations, regional security, and international norms governing military action. While the Trump administration speaks of combating drug trafficking and restoring democratic norms, critics argue that the strike undermines international law and could destabilize the region further. Questions remain about Venezuela’s future governance, the legal fate of Maduro and other defendants, and the potential for further U.S. involvement or retaliation by allied states. The situation continues to unfold, with global attention focused on diplomatic responses, legal proceedings, and the long-term effects on Venezuelan society and regional geopolitics.