A surprise U.S. military operation in Venezuela, culminating in President Donald Trump’s announcement that Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife have been captured and flown out of the country, has jolted the international system and revived long‑standing debates over Washington’s record of intervention in Latin America. Governments, legal experts, and international organizations are warning of a flagrant violation of sovereignty and international law, even as some reiterate that Maduro himself lacks democratic legitimacy.
Night raid and a president in U.S. custody
Around 2:00 am in Caracas (0600 GMT), powerful explosions shook the Venezuelan capital and surrounding areas, accompanied by the sound of attack helicopters, according to journalists on the ground. The strikes reportedly hit a major military base, an airbase, and other sites, and continued for nearly an hour.
Roughly two hours after the operation began, Trump posted on Truth Social that “the United States of America has successfully carried out a large‑scale strike against Venezuela and its leader, President Nicolas Maduro, who has been, along with his wife, captured and flown out of the country.”
U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi said on X that Maduro and his wife would face “the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts” on drug‑trafficking and terrorism charges, signaling that Washington intends to treat a sitting foreign president much like a transnational criminal suspect.
In Caracas, the Venezuelan authorities denounced what they called an “extremely serious military aggression” and requested an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, speaking by phone to Venezuelan television, said she did not know the whereabouts of Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, demanding that Washington provide “proof of life” for the man who has ruled Venezuela for the past 12 years. Maduro’s 2024 re‑election was widely dismissed by much of the international community as fraudulent, but he remains the de facto head of state recognized at the United Nations.
A “peace president” at war on multiple fronts
The Venezuelan raid comes less than a year after Donald Trump returned to office vowing to be a “peace president” and claiming he deserved a Nobel Peace Prize for supposedly ending multiple wars — a claim heavily disputed by experts. Since then, however, his administration has embraced the use of force on several fronts.
On Christmas Day, the U.S. military launched an airstrike in Nigeria, which Trump said targeted jihadists who had attacked Christians. Hours before ordering the operation in Venezuela, he warned of possible U.S. intervention in yet another region, saying U.S. forces were “locked and loaded” if Iran’s clerical leadership killed protesters in the streets.
In his second inaugural address on January 20 of last year, Trump had declared: “My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier.” Not long afterward, in a symbolic move that alarmed many observers, he rebranded the Department of Defense as the “Department of War,” reinforcing perceptions of a more openly hard‑line doctrine.
Global reactions: Condemnation, caution, and calls for restraint
Responses from capitals around the world came swiftly, revealing a sharp divide between those who contest Maduro’s legitimacy yet reject military intervention, and those who frame the operation as a grave assault on a sovereign state.
In Brussels, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said the bloc had “repeatedly pointed out that Mr Maduro lacks legitimacy” and has long advocated a “peaceful transition of power” in Venezuela. But she emphasized that “the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected in all circumstances” and urged “maximum restraint” from all parties.
Across Latin America, Chilean President Gabriel Boric condemned U.S. military moves in Venezuela and reiterated his country’s commitment to fundamental norms of international law, foremost among them the prohibition on the use of force. Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro went further, denouncing what he called a “criminal attack” on Caracas and rejecting any unilateral military action “that would worsen the situation or endanger civilians.” He called for an emergency Security Council session and appealed to all sides to step back from escalation.
Cuban President Miguel Díaz‑Canel used unusually strong language, decrying the U.S. strike as a “criminal attack” and asserting that a “peaceful region is coming under brutal assault.” He accused Washington of practicing “state terrorism against the Venezuelan people and the American continent.” In Bolivia, President Rodrigo Paz condemned the U.S. bombardment of Caracas as a “brutal imperialist aggression” that violates Venezuela’s sovereignty, declaring his “full solidarity” with the Venezuelan people and insisting that “Venezuela is not alone.”
In Europe, Germany’s Foreign Ministry said it was following developments in Venezuela with “grave concern,” noting that a dedicated crisis team would meet to discuss the situation. Italy’s Foreign Ministry likewise stated that Rome was “closely monitoring” events and remained on alert regarding the safety of Italian nationals in Venezuela. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez signaled Madrid’s readiness to play a “constructive and positive role” in securing a peaceful, negotiated solution and urged all actors to abide by international law and the core principles of the UN Charter.
In London, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer stressed that the United Kingdom had “no involvement” in the U.S. strikes. “I want to know the facts first. I want to speak to President Trump. And I want to speak to our allies,” he told British broadcasters, adding: “I can say with complete clarity that we were not a party to this… And I have always said and I believe we must all stand by international law.”
Moscow: An “unacceptable” violation of sovereignty
Russia, a key backer of Caracas, reacted sharply. The Foreign Ministry voiced “deep concern” over reports that Maduro and his wife had been “forcibly removed” from the country during what Moscow called “aggressive actions” by the United States. “We call for an immediate clarification of the situation,” the ministry said in a statement, warning that such acts, “if they did indeed take place, represent an unacceptable violation of the sovereignty of an independent state — respect for which is a fundamental principle of international law.”
Moscow condemned what it termed an “armed U.S. act of aggression” against Venezuela, backed the convening of a Security Council meeting on the crisis, and underlined Venezuela’s right to determine its own political future “without external military interference.” Russian officials also signaled their willingness to support dialogue among Venezuelan stakeholders in an effort to prevent a slide into wider chaos.
From the Monroe Doctrine to the “backyard” mentality
The latest U.S. move in Venezuela has reignited debate over a two‑century history of American involvement in Latin America, shaped early on by the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which effectively declared the Western Hemisphere a sphere of U.S. influence. Over time, Washington treated the region as its “backyard,” invoking threats to U.S. security, regional stability, and democracy as recurring justifications.
A study by the University of Oxford published in March 2019 estimated that U.S. interventions in Latin America since 1800 number in the thousands, ranging from outright military occupation and direct regime change to covert operations, economic pressure, and political manipulation.
In the early twentieth century, President Theodore Roosevelt revived and expanded the Monroe Doctrine through what became known as the Roosevelt Corollary in 1904. The new doctrine went beyond mere opposition to European encroachment, granting Washington the self‑appointed right to intervene in the affairs of Western Hemisphere states deemed “too weak” or “misgoverned.” The result was a wave of U.S. occupations and protectorates in places like Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba.
The Cold War: Coups, proxy wars, and “anti‑communism”
The Cold War dramatically intensified U.S. activism in the region. Under the banner of containing communism and pre‑empting so‑called “future threats,” Washington backed or orchestrated numerous coups and counterrevolutionary efforts.
An investigative report by Harvard University’s Revista magazine (2005) identified at least 41 cases between 1898 and 1994 in which the United States successfully helped change regimes in Latin America, including 17 instances of direct involvement by U.S. military forces, intelligence services, or U.S.-linked local actors. Many of these interventions left deep scars: authoritarian rule, human rights abuses, protracted civil conflicts, and long‑term economic hardship.
In Guatemala in 1954, the CIA engineered the overthrow of President Jacobo Árbenz, democratically elected in 1950, after he introduced land and economic reforms that threatened the interests of U.S. fruit giant United Fruit. Declassified documents show that millions of dollars were allocated to train and arm rebels, run a psychological warfare campaign, and pressure local elites. The coup plunged Guatemala into a 36‑year civil war that cost around 200,000 lives.
In Nicaragua during the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan cut economic aid and accused the Sandinista government of backing insurgents in El Salvador. Washington then built up the “Contras,” a covert force operating from neighboring Honduras, providing training, arms, and hundreds of millions of dollars in funding — including money later linked to sabotage operations and the mining of Nicaraguan ports. The conflict left tens of thousands dead and devastated the economy.
In Panama in 1989, President George H. W. Bush ordered “Operation Just Cause,” deploying more than 26,000 U.S. troops to oust General Manuel Noriega, once a close U.S. ally, who was now accused of drug trafficking, money laundering, and failing to guarantee security around the Panama Canal. Noriega was captured and flown to the United States for trial, while a U.S.-friendly government took over, securing U.S. strategic and economic interests.
In Haiti in 2004, President Jean‑Bertrand Aristide, twice democratically elected, said he was effectively “kidnapped” by the United States and France after years of economic sanctions and the freezing of international aid that weakened his government. He was flown out of the country on a U.S. aircraft to the Central African Republic, in what he and many analysts described as a modern form of forced regime change.
Indirect coups and the rise of “soft” intervention
Beyond overt military interventions, Washington has repeatedly used indirect tools to help topple or reshape governments: funding opposition forces, mobilizing media campaigns, and applying economic pressure.
In the Dominican Republic, dictator Rafael Trujillo had long enjoyed U.S. support because of his staunch anti‑communism, despite a brutal record of repression. As domestic unrest grew, President Dwight Eisenhower in 1960 approved covert assistance to Dominican dissidents. The CIA supplied weapons and ammunition to conspirators who assassinated Trujillo in 1961, triggering a period of instability and a succession of provisional governments.
In Brazil in 1964, the U.S. government supported a military coup that removed President João Goulart. Under “Operation Brother Sam,” Washington provided logistical support, fuel, and arms to the Brazilian armed forces, which then ruled the country under a repressive military dictatorship for more than two decades.
In Argentina, declassified U.S. documents released in 2021 by the National Security Archive revealed multiple contacts between coup plotters and U.S. officials ahead of the 1976 military takeover led by General Jorge Videla. Although the U.S. stopped short of openly endorsing the coup, it was quick to recognize the junta, despite warnings about likely human rights abuses. During the ensuing “Dirty War,” between 15,000 and 30,000 people were killed or disappeared.
In Chile, U.S. agencies covertly funded political parties and media outlets to prevent socialist candidate Salvador Allende from winning power in 1970 — efforts that ultimately failed. After Allende’s election and his move to nationalize key industries, including copper mining, Washington backed a 1973 coup led by General Augusto Pinochet, as later confirmed by a U.S. Senate investigation. Pinochet dissolved Congress, suspended the constitution, banned leftist parties, and presided over widespread torture, executions, and forced disappearances, with more than 40,000 victims officially documented.
Failed attempts: Cuba and Chávez
Not all U.S.-linked interventions have succeeded. In Cuba, after Fidel Castro’s 1959 revolution, the new government nationalized U.S. companies and turned to the Soviet Union for oil, prompting Washington to sever diplomatic ties. In 1961, the CIA organized a force of Cuban exiles that landed at the Bay of Pigs, aiming to topple Castro. The invasion ended in disaster, with many attackers killed or captured, strengthening Castro’s grip and pushing Cuba more firmly into the Soviet orbit.
In Venezuela itself, relations with Washington have been tense since Hugo Chávez came to power in 1998. Chávez nationalized the state oil company, sharply raised taxes on foreign oil firms — many of them American — and pursued close ties with socialist governments, notably Cuba. In 2002, a short‑lived coup briefly removed Chávez from office before mass protests and loyalist elements within the military restored him. Chávez accused the United States of direct involvement, citing contacts between U.S. military personnel and coup organizers, an allegation Washington denied but that many researchers consider at least partially credible.
Why Latin America? Interests, ideology, and domestic politics
Analysts generally identify three main pillars driving U.S. engagement in Latin America: protection of political influence, safeguarding regional stability in ways that favor U.S. national security, and securing economic interests — especially access to natural resources and markets. Economic motives, particularly oil, agriculture, and minerals, are often seen as the underlying driver, even when interventions are justified in the language of democracy promotion or security.
The Oxford study and other research add another layer: U.S. domestic politics. Internal memos have shown, for example, that President Lyndon Johnson’s 1965 decision to send troops to the Dominican Republic was shaped less by an immediate external threat than by fears of being portrayed by Republicans in Congress as “soft” on communism. Across different administrations, electoral calculations and partisan competition have repeatedly intersected with foreign policy in the hemisphere.
A legal minefield: Can one state abduct another’s leader?
If the reported capture and removal of Maduro are confirmed, they would mark one of the most legally contentious actions by a major power in recent decades. The UN Charter strictly limits the use of force to self‑defense or Security Council authorization. Washington has not claimed any imminent armed attack from Venezuela, nor has it cited a UN mandate.
Forcibly transferring a sitting head of state to face trial in another country pushes the boundaries of international law even further than previous precedents. Unlike cases where leaders were deposed by domestic uprisings and then handed over to international or foreign courts such as Slobodan Milošević in Serbia or Saddam Hussein in Iraq the United States appears to have bypassed both Venezuelan institutions and international tribunals.
International law scholars warn that normalizing such actions could erode the principle of sovereign equality, encourage reciprocal or proxy abductions, and undermine the UN’s collective security framework. Supporters of the U.S. approach counter that Maduro’s mandate is illegitimate, that he stands accused of crimes that transcend national borders, and that Venezuelans have long been denied avenues for domestic accountability.
Venezuela at a crossroads: Intervention meets internal crisis
The U.S. operation comes against the backdrop of a deep and protracted Venezuelan crisis. Years of economic mismanagement, corruption allegations, institutional decay, and heavy U.S. sanctions have combined to produce hyperinflation, shortages of basic goods, a collapse of public services, and one of the largest migration crises in the Western Hemisphere.
Analysts fear that the latest strikes and the sudden removal of Maduro could further fragment Venezuela’s political and military landscape, intensify power struggles within the ruling elite and the armed forces, and potentially trigger violence between rival factions on the ground — particularly if external actors line up behind competing claimants to power.
The UN on trial: What happens next?
With calls mounting for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, the multilateral system faces yet another severe stress test after years of deadlock over Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, and other crises. Council members will be forced to confront core issues: Is the forced seizure of a foreign head of state ever permissible without UN authorization? Can claims of illegitimacy or human rights violations justify unilateral military action?
The answers will shape not only Venezuela’s future but also the trajectory of international norms. If the Council fails to respond decisively, critics say, it will risk further marginalization, while great‑power politics and unilateralism fill the vacuum.
As Venezuela teeters on the edge of a new and uncertain chapter, many in Latin America argue that the heart of the matter goes beyond Maduro or Trump. It touches the foundations of the post‑1945 order: Are state sovereignty and non‑intervention still meaningful constraints, or are they increasingly contingent on the interests and calculations of powerful states? The coming days in Caracas and in New York may offer the first clues.
