Venezuela’s government strongly denounced the strikes as a violation of sovereignty, with Vice President Delcy Rodríguez declaring Maduro the legitimate president and demanding proof that he and Flores were alive.
Rodríguez also asserted her constitutional role under Venezuelan law, though her status remains contested amid communication breakdowns.
Global Responses
Reactions from outside the region were deeply divided:
Russia, Iran, Cuba, and other allied states condemned the U.S. operation as a breach of international law and a violation of Venezuela’s territorial integrity.
These nations accused the United States of unwarranted military aggression.
Many Latin American governments and regional leaders criticized the strikes as an infringement on sovereignty and warned that such actions could destabilize the region.
Colombia’s president described the operation as an assault on regional sovereignty, while others called for adherence to international legal norms.
European Union leaders and the United Nations called for restraint and emphasized that any transition in Venezuela must respect international law and the U.N. Charter. A UN Security Council meeting was scheduled to discuss the crisis.
Some nations opposed to Maduro’s government nonetheless expressed concern that a foreign military assault could worsen humanitarian conditions or provoke further escalation.
Legal and Diplomatic Implications
The U.S. military action represents a significant legal and diplomatic escalation — both for U.S.–Venezuela relations and for broader international norms concerning sovereignty and the use of force.
Under international law, the use of military force against a sovereign state without explicit authorization from the United Nations Security Council or the host government challenges widely accepted legal frameworks, including the U.N. Charter.
Legal scholars and diplomats have already raised questions about whether the operation is compatible with those standards, especially given that narcotics trafficking charges alone do not typically provide a statutory basis for unilateral military intervention.
Within the United States, lawmakers and constitutional experts are debating whether adequate congressional authorization was obtained for the military action.
The U.S. Constitution assigns to Congress the power to authorize war and extended use of force, and some analysts have suggested that this requirement should apply to the Venezuelan operation.
Human and Structural Impact in Venezuela
Independent verification of on‑the‑ground casualties and infrastructure damage remains limited. Early reports suggest that U.S. strikes caused significant destruction to military installations in Caracas, contributing to disruptions in power and public services.
Satellite imagery analyzed by defense analysts shows substantial damage to parts of the Fuerte Tiuna complex, though civilian casualty numbers are not yet independently confirmed.
The Venezuelan government declared a state of external disturbance in response to the strikes, and there are indications that national defense plans were activated.
Amid the crisis, Venezuelan citizens have faced heightened uncertainty, including mixed messages from authorities and concerns about safety.
The U.S. Embassy has issued advisories for American citizens in Venezuela to shelter in place or depart when possible.
Current Status and What Comes Next
Legal Proceedings
Maduro and Flores are reported to be in U.S. custody and in New York, where the federal indictment awaits them in the Southern District of New York.
Prosecutors are preparing to move forward with trial proceedings under U.S. law.
Venezuelan Governance
Inside Venezuela, the leadership situation remains contested. While Rodríguez has claimed presidential authority under the constitution, her claim is disputed by many Venezuelans and international observers who view the U.S. operation as invalid without due process.
International Diplomacy
The United Nations Security Council is poised to address the matter formally, with several members urging de‑escalation and adherence to international law.
Diplomatic pressure continues to build on both sides.
Conclusion: A Defining Moment with Global Consequences
The January 3, 2026 operation in Venezuela marks one of the most significant foreign military actions involving the United States in decades.
With a sitting president taken into custody by foreign forces and brought to U.S. jurisdiction, the event raises complex questions of international law, sovereignty, and geopolitical strategy.
The charges against Nicolás Maduro — rooted in long‑standing U.S. indictments alleging narco‑terrorism and drug trafficking — have now shifted from diplomatic efforts to criminal prosecution.
As legal procedures unfold and global reactions continue to evolve, the crisis will likely influence relations across the Western Hemisphere and shape discourse on the legality and limits of cross‑border military interventions.
What remains clear is that the repercussions of this operation will be felt for years, both in Venezuela and in international diplomacy.
