On January 3, 2026, 1:21 a.m. PT, President Donald Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social, “The United States of America has successfully carried out a large scale strike against Venezuela and its leader, President Nicolás Maduro, who has been, along with his wife, captured and flown out of the Country.”
Truth Social. @realDonaldTrump on U.S. Action On Venezuelan Leader President Nicolás Maduro. January 3, 2026.
Unlike any event in modern history, the attack on Venezuela was prepared months in advance by a multitude of U.S. forces, including branches of the military. On the night of the raid, an American cyberattack cut power to the Venezuelan capital of Caracas. Using the cover of darkness, more than 150 military aircraft descended into the city, where special forces extracted President Maduro in the span of two hours.
In the end, Maduro was flown to the USS Iwo Jima and afterwards flown to New York, where he remains incarcerated. American personnel sustained 7 injuries, all nonfatal, while varying reports estimate the Venezuelan death toll to be between 75 and upwards of 100. For the United States and the Trump Administration, the January 3 attack was a strategic success.
With any major political operation, however, comes fierce debate over a multitude of factors. Why did America attack Venezuela? Was it right to seize a foreign nation’s leader? Were America’s actions even legal? What can be readily expected from this conflict?
At his Mar-a-Lago press conference on the morning of January 3rd, President Trump established two key incentives for the strike on Caracas.
First, the Trump administration has pinned Venezuela as a significant contributor to the former’s drug trafficking crisis.
During his second presidential term, Trump ordered the closure of the Mexican-American border and ordered the mass deportation of illegal immigrants and gangs. Notably, he labelled Tren de Aragua, a notorious Venezuelan gang, as a foreign terrorist organization.
In March of 2025, the Trump administration would accuse Maduro specifically of being complicit in Venezuelan drug trafficking, claiming he was the leader of the Cartel de los Soles.
Throughout the fall and winter of 2025, leading up to the strike, American warships were deployed to the Caribbean to counter illegal drug trafficking from Venezuela, destroying over 30 drug boats.
By December, Trump had made threats against Venezuela of a full-on assault in response to ongoing cartel activity. A CIA drone, the same month, would destroy a port facility thought to have been used by Tren de Aragua.
Bearing this timeline in mind, many have argued that Trump’s actions were primarily in defense of Americans from a foreign threat.
Second, the Trump administration targeted Venezuela for its significant oil reserves and exports.
Beating out even Saudi Arabia, Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves, totaling about 300 billion barrels. The sheer quantity of this commodity has been an outspoken interest of the President, who discussed it directly in his press conference.
“We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country, and we are ready to stage a second and much larger attack if we need to do so,” Trump declared.
On January 7, 2026, American forces seized two oil tankers in the Caribbean and the northern Atlantic. Dubbed as stateless “dark fleet vessels,” these boats were alleged to have been carrying or intended to carry Venezuelan oil.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended this act, stating on X, “The United States continues to enforce the blockade against all dark fleet vessels illegally transporting Venezuelan oil to finance illicit activity, stealing from the Venezuelan people.”
X. @PeteHegseth On U.S. Efforts To Block Venezuela. January 7, 2026.
Many have used this viewpoint to argue that America’s involvement in Venezuela has been for more selfish intentions.
Objectively, both incentives stand true as of now. While the Trump administration’s war on illegal immigration and drug trafficking makes the first reason credible, the president’s own admission to the goals of using Venezuelan oil makes the second reason irrefutable as well.
In contrast to similar political debates, the subject of Venezuela has divided Americans somewhat evenly.
A recent poll found that 36% of American adults support the seizure and trial of Maduro, while 39% are against it. 34% of American adults support a temporary American occupation of Venezuela, 41% are against it and 39% of American adults support Trump’s handling of Venezuela, while 46% are against it.
YouGov Poll on American Opinion on U.S. Military Overthrow of Nicolás Maduro. Carl Bialik and Taylor Orth. January 5, 2026.
Notably, the poll reported that American adults across the political spectrum saw an increase in belief that U.S. military intervention helps targeted nations.
Explaining the tight divide amongst Americans concerns an argument that isn’t entirely double-sided. One of the most vocal points backing Trump is Maduro’s dictatorship in Venezuela, which was filled with corruption throughout his presidency.
Further evidence of corruption has led numerous nations globally to not recognize Maduro as a legitimate leader of his country.
Besides election fraud, numerous human rights violations were committed by Maduro’s administration during 2024 alone. These included the unjust arrest and torture of political dissenters, inhumane treatment of prisoners, a lack of accountability for criminal members of the law, poor infrastructure, inaccessible healthcare and food, widespread poverty and more. During his time in office, Maduro witnessed nearly 8 million Venezuelans flee his nation.
The poor reputation of Maduro has therefore made his capture a cause for celebration amongst Venezuelans. Though his regime continues to persecute political dissenters, many are glad the former president has been removed from office.
Those critiquing Maduro’s removal, however, are largely eyeing an entirely different subject. To them, the events in Venezuela mark another chapter in a history of alleged American imperialism in the form of interventionism.
The U.S. has undoubtedly had a history of interventions in Latin America. From as early as 1847, when American forces seized control of the Mexican territory that makes up modern states like Texas and Arizona, to as late as 1989, when President Bush Sr. ordered the invasion of Panama to remove its then-dictator.
While these incidents alone can’t substantiate claims of imperialism in Latin America, many have also highlighted the Monroe Doctrine of 1823.
Written by President James Monroe, the document enunciated America’s political ambitions in the American continents while simultaneously barring European nations from interfering.
Today, this document has been observed as a cornerstone of American imperialism, symbolising America’s claims over the Western hemisphere and interference in Latin American politics, which has repeatedly occurred throughout history.
The Department of State would assert in a post on X, “This is OUR Hemisphere, and President Trump will not allow our security to be threatened.”
X. @StateDept On U.S. Intervention. January 5, 2026.
President Trump himself referred to the Monroe Doctrine, joking that the “Monroe Doctrine is a big deal, but we’ve superseded it by a lot, by a real lot. They now call it the ‘Donroe Doctrine.’”
With this historical precedent in mind, critics have expressed concerns that continual political interference in Latin America, especially the capture of Venezuela’s president, furthers an American imperialist agenda.
The Watchdog discussed this political discourse with Bellevue College’s Political Science Professor Clifford Cawthon.
Cardinally, Professor Cawthon argued that the points made about the Venezuela conflict weren’t inherently contradictory, but could exist in the same space.
“Two things can be true at once. Democracy is important, and Venezuela should be able to choose who governs them, but they can’t effectively do that at the barrel of a gun. That the actions of the U.S. will not lead to stability, and as we’ve plainly seen, a Venezuelan government can’t operate under a Venezuelan tyrant or under the heel of American neo-imperialism,” Cawthon stated.
Aside from the moral discussion of Trump’s strike on Caracas, many are curious as to whether his actions were even legal.
The UN has already condemned the event as unlawful, stating, “These actions represent a grave, manifest and deliberate violation of the most fundamental principles of international law, set a dangerous precedent and risk destabilising the entire region and the world.”
But seeking clarification on legality can be done easily on the national level. At the heart of the debate amongst American lawmakers is the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
The War Powers Resolution was a response to the Vietnam War. During the conflict, unchecked presidential powers allowed several military operations to bypass congressional approval, drawing America into battles it hadn’t ever voted on. Subsequently, the Resolution orders sitting presidents to seek congressional approval for a declaration of war.
The exception to this major rule is in a short-term crisis, during which the president may take military action without congressional approval, so long as Congress is notified beforehand.
The Venezuelan crisis falls into the category of a short-term crisis, during which President Trump deemed a threat to his nation, being drug trafficking, and bypassed Congress’s approval to strike Venezuela. Unfortunately, the entire operation was kept a secret from Congress until Maduro had been captured, contradicting the War Powers Resolution and making the strike illegal under domestic law.
The only real question left to ask is of the future. What will happen to Maduro? Will the Trump administration be penalized for its legal incursions? Will Maduro’s regime cave to American demands? Will the Venezuelan people enjoy political prosperity?
In short, it is impossible to know. With the capture of Maduro being as unprecedented as it is, there is no certainty of what is to come in the future. What is guaranteed, however, is further discussion of American foreign policy, its legality and its impact on the greater world.
