Explainer: Why U.S. Attacked Venezuela and What It Means
In the wake of the January 3 operation, Venezuela declared a national emergency, demanding proof of life for President Maduro.
By : Online Desk
Update: 2026-01-03 13:15 GMT
On January 3, 2026, the United States launched a significant military operation against Venezuela, announcing the reported capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. The move represents one of the most serious confrontations between the two countries in decades and has triggered widespread international concern.
Relations between Washington and Caracas have been tense for years. The United States has refused to recognise Maduro as Venezuela’s legitimate leader, accusing his government of authoritarianism, election irregularities, corruption, and human rights abuses. These accusations have been consistently rejected by Venezuelan authorities, who describe U.S. actions as interference in their sovereignty.
A central justification cited by the U.S. for its actions is the allegation that senior Venezuelan officials are involved in international drug trafficking through networks often referred to as the Cartel of the Suns. Maduro’s government has repeatedly denied these claims, calling them politically motivated.
Another argument put forward by U.S. officials links instability in Venezuela to increased migration across the Americas, including to the U.S. southern border. While experts debate the direct connection, migration has featured prominently in the administration’s broader security narrative.
During the January 3 operation, multiple explosions were reported in Caracas and other parts of Venezuela. President Trump stated that the strikes were part of a coordinated effort involving military and law enforcement agencies, resulting in the capture of Maduro and his wife. Details of where they are being held, and under what legal authority, remain unclear.
The Venezuelan government condemned the strikes, declared a national emergency, and demanded proof of life for Maduro. Officials accused the U.S. of violating international law and endangering civilians.
International reactions have been mixed. Several countries expressed alarm over the use of force and called for de-escalation and respect for sovereignty, while others adopted a cautious stance, urging diplomatic solutions.
Within the United States, the operation has sparked debate over its legality, with lawmakers questioning whether the strikes required congressional approval under the Constitution.
As of now, independent verification of Maduro’s capture remains limited, and the situation continues to evolve. The operation signals a major shift in U.S. policy toward Venezuela and could have lasting consequences for regional politics, global diplomacy, and international norms governing the use of force.