By: Wampa Emmanuel
On January 3, 2026, the United States military launched a bold and controversial operation against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, a move that would rapidly reshape hemispheric relations and ignite global debate over sovereignty, international law, and the future of U.S. foreign policy. Code-named Operation Absolute Resolve, the action involved coordinated airstrikes and special forces targeting key installations around Caracas, culminating in the capture and forced transfer of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife to New York, where they now face federal charges related to alleged drug trafficking and weapons offenses. The operation marked the most dramatic U.S. intervention in Latin America in decades and has left policymakers, international jurists, and ordinary citizens worldwide grappling with its implications.
From the outset, the Trump administration framed the intervention as a necessary step in combating what it labeled “narco-terrorism” and defending U.S. national security interests. President Donald Trump declared that the United States was now “in charge” of Venezuela and would oversee its governance during a transitional period brought about by the removal of Maduro. Trump later predicted that Washington would administer Venezuela “for at least a year, I would say much longer,” with a focus on rebuilding Venezuela’s oil industry and integrating its vast petroleum resources into the global market to benefit both the U.S. economy and Venezuelan citizens.
However, these assertions have been met with deep concern from within the United States and abroad. On January 8, 2026, the U.S. Senate advanced a War Powers Resolution aimed at constraining the president’s ability to conduct further military operations in Venezuela without explicit congressional authorization. The resolution passed with bipartisan support, a rare rebuke of presidential foreign policy reflecting widespread unease among lawmakers about the absence of oversight in the lead-up to the strikes. Critics argued that the operation violated constitutional norms and the separation of powers by bypassing Congress, which holds the authority to declare war under Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
Globally, reactions to the U.S. action were swift and deeply polarized. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres expressed serious concerns about the stability of Venezuela and the legality of the intervention, urging all actors to pursue peaceful dialogue and a return to democratic processes. Governments across Latin America, Europe, and Asia registered formal protests, with many denouncing the intervention as a breach of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against another state’s territorial integrity without Security Council authorization. Russia and China, longstanding allies of Venezuela, condemned the actions as hegemonic aggression and violations of international law, while countries like Mexico and Brazil warned that the intervention could destabilize the entire region.
A central issue in the international debate has been the legality of removing a sitting head of state without that state’s consent. Legal scholars have overwhelmingly noted that under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, the use of force against a sovereign nation is unlawful unless conducted in self-defense or authorized by the UN Security Council. Neither condition appears to have been met in this case. Critics, including experts at the Washington Office on Latin America and senior academics in international law, have called the operation an unjustified act of aggression, arguing that it undermines the established rules-based international order and risks setting a dangerous precedent for future extraterritorial interventions.
Inside Venezuela, the political situation is fraught with uncertainty. Following Maduro’s capture, his vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, was proclaimed acting president, though the legitimacy of her authority is contested both within Venezuela and abroad. Despite the removal of Maduro from the political landscape, local power structures including influential figures such as Diosdado Cabello and the notorious (pro-government militias) retain significant influence and could shape the trajectory of Venezuelan politics in unpredictable ways. Analysts warn that factionalism, social fragmentation, and the absence of a unified political transition framework might prolong instability, potentially leading to internal resistance or even violent insurgency.
The broader geopolitical ramifications of the U.S. strategy are equally significant. Many foreign policy experts view the operation as a revival of the Monroe Doctrine in its most assertive form, signaling a U.S. intention to reassert hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. Proponents argue that Venezuelan democracy and human rights must be defended, and that Maduro’s government, accused of years of authoritarianism and electoral manipulation, lacked legitimacy. Opponents counter that unilateral regime change severely damages international norms and could accelerate an era of great-power competition, with adversaries like Russia and China gaining leverage by positioning themselves as defenders of state sovereignty against U.S. interventionism.
Economic considerations have also played a prominent role in shaping policy discussions. Venezuela possesses the largest proven oil reserves in the world, and its energy sector has long been a focal point of both U.S. strategic interest and global market dynamics. Under the interim arrangements, the United States has sought to export millions of barrels of Venezuelan crude, with plans to involve major U.S. oil companies in rehabilitating infrastructure severely degraded by years of underinvestment and mismanagement. While this approach promises potential economic gains, it also raises questions about resource sovereignty and the ethics of leveraging economic assets in the context of military intervention.
At home, public opinion on the intervention is sharply divided. Within the U.S., major protests have erupted in cities across the country, with demonstrators condemning the government’s actions as imperialistic and illegal. Some segments of the population see the removal of Maduro as a positive development for Venezuelan citizens suffering under authoritarian rule, while others fear that the United States has crossed a dangerous threshold, eroding longstanding principles against unilateral military incursions. The specter of future conflicts, possibly extending beyond Venezuela’s borders has sparked debate over the future direction of American foreign policy and its implications for U.S. global leadership.
In the broader regional context, Latin American nations have reacted with a mixture of condemnation, concern, and cautious diplomacy. Traditional U.S. allies in the region have called for respect for sovereignty and peaceful resolution, while governments ideologically aligned with Maduro have denounced the actions as neocolonial aggression. The Organization of American States (OAS) and regional blocs have called emergency sessions to address the crisis, though deep divisions within these forums reflect the broader polarization of global politics.
As events continue to unfold, several key questions remain unresolved: What will Venezuela’s political order look like once U.S. oversight ends? How will international legal institutions respond to perceived violations of the UN Charter? And what precedent does this set for future conflicts in an increasingly multipolar world? The answers to these questions will shape not only the fate of Venezuela but also the future of international norms governing sovereignty, intervention, and the rule of law.
Discussion about this post