On January 3, 2026, the United States executed a military operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in Caracas. This operation, termed Operation Absolute Resolve, involved over 150 aircraft and was characterized by the U.S. government as a significant display of military power, with no American casualties reported. President Donald Trump stated that the U.S. would temporarily govern Venezuela and control its oil reserves, a claim that has raised concerns regarding the legality and implications of such actions.

The operation has drawn widespread criticism for its apparent violation of international law, with political leaders and commentators globally expressing alarm. While Maduro's regime has faced considerable unpopularity, the method of his removal has been described as setting a troubling precedent for international conduct. Analysts had previously speculated about potential U.S. military actions against Venezuela, but the direct abduction of a foreign leader was not anticipated. Many experts warned that a forceful regime change could lead to instability and further repression in Venezuela, given the presence of armed groups that might resist such changes.

International responses to the U.S. operation have been mixed. Some leaders acknowledged the illegitimacy of Maduro's presidency while emphasizing the need for adherence to international law. The United Nations expressed concern over the escalation of military actions, highlighting the potential for dangerous precedents that could encourage similar operations by other nations. The UK government, represented by Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister Darren Jones, indicated that the U.S. actions would be evaluated for compliance with international law, emphasizing the importance of a peaceful transition that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people.

Domestically, reactions have varied. While many Republican leaders praised the military action, some, including Rep. Thomas Massie, expressed skepticism about the legality and efficacy of such interventions, referencing historical precedents in Cuba, Libya, Iraq, and Syria. Democratic lawmakers, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, condemned the invasion, warning that it could lead to significant repercussions for the U.S. and its citizens. Ocasio-Cortez further criticized the operation as a distraction from pressing domestic issues.

The U.S. government has indicated plans to maintain control over Venezuela following the operation, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio clarifying that the U.S. would enforce an existing oil blockade on Venezuela. This blockade targets sanctioned oil tankers and is intended to leverage policy changes in the country. However, the implications of such military actions for the stability of Venezuela and the potential empowerment of non-state armed groups remain a point of contention.

Protests erupted in response to the military intervention, with demonstrators in cities like Chicago and Washington, D.C., expressing concerns over the recurrence of military interventions and questioning the motivations behind the U.S. actions. Protesters characterized the military operation as an act of imperialism that lacked Congressional approval, emphasizing that such actions were not sanctioned by the American electorate.

The situation in Venezuela remains complex, with powerful factions within the government still in place, raising questions about the future governance of the country and the potential for increased violence and instability. Critics of the U.S. approach have raised concerns about the implications of exerting control over Venezuela, suggesting that it may be perceived as neocolonialism. The lack of a clear plan for governance in Venezuela post-Maduro has also been noted, with ongoing discussions about the best path forward for U.S. involvement in the country's political future.