The U.S. Captures Venezuela’s President: Imperialism Unmasked

 

On the early morning of January 3, 2026, the United States carried out an unprecedented military operation against Venezuela that culminated in the capture and removal of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, from Venezuelan soil. President Donald Trump proudly announced that U.S. forces had executed a “large-scale strike” and that Maduro was now in U.S. custody, soon to face federal charges in New York. The administration even declared its intention to temporarily run Venezuela while overseeing a “transition” of power. This moment isn’t just a geopolitical headline — it’s a stark illustration of unrestrained U.S. imperial authority in the 21st century. Reuters+1

What Happened

The assault began in the dead of night with aircraft and explosions over Caracas and other parts of Venezuela. U.S. special operations forces reportedly carried out a coordinated assault — dubbed “Operation Absolute Resolve” — involving air strikes and elite ground units targeting Maduro’s fortified residence in Caracas. Within hours, Maduro and Flores were seized and transported out of the country, ultimately ending up in federal custody in New York. Wikipedia+1

Trump framed the operation as both a law-enforcement action and a necessary step toward political change in Venezuela. The Department of Justice unsealed indictments charging Maduro and his inner circle with narcoterrorism, drug trafficking, and weapons offenses. But those legal justifications, proffered as grounds for invading another sovereign state, don’t hold up under any serious reading of international law. AP News+1

Imperialism, Not Justice

Even some U.S. legal experts have pointed out the incoherence in the Biden-Trump playbook here. You can’t credibly claim to be conducting a police operation while also saying you intend to govern a foreign country. Drug trafficking — extremely serious as it is — does not authorize cross-border military force under international norms. International law only tolerates the use of force in cases of self-defense or with explicit U.N. Security Council authorization — neither of which applies here. www.ndtv.com

But legality hasn’t stopped U.S. policy before. The U.S. has a long history of intervening in the Global South under the banners of “justice” or “security,” only to protect strategic or economic interests. In this case, Trump’s rhetoric about reclaiming Venezuela’s vast oil infrastructure — and even explicitly inviting U.S. oil companies back into the country — highlights what’s really at stake: control over resources and regional dominance. TIME

The Myth of Benevolence

In his press appearances, Trump has insisted that the U.S. will help shepherd a “judicious” transition in Venezuela, promising that its oil industry will be rebuilt and that governance will be stabilized. But that narrative conveniently ignores both Venezuela’s sovereignty and the historical record. U.S. interventions — from Chile to Panama, from Iraq to Afghanistan — have left a trail of instability, suffering, and broken promises. The idea that the U.S. knows best how Venezuela should be run undercuts Venezuelan agency and continues a long legacy of paternalistic foreign policy. New York Post

What some U.S. politicians have framed as a “victory” has triggered widespread alarm across Latin America. Domestically in Venezuela, officials loyal to Maduro called for calm and demanded proof of life for the president, denouncing the U.S. operation as an attack on national sovereignty. Many Venezuelan civilians reportedly fled streets amid explosions and confusion as electric grids flickered and panic spread. EFE Noticias

Who Decides Venezuela’s Future?

The constitutional void created by Maduro’s removal is already a flashpoint. According to Venezuela’s own laws, the vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, would assume leadership if the presidency becomes vacant. Washington claims it has been in contact with Rodríguez — asserting she has agreed to do “what the U.S. asks” — but this assertion is both dubious and deeply troubling from a sovereignty standpoint. Wikipedia

Meanwhile, Venezuelan opposition figures recognized by the U.S. have celebrated Maduro’s capture, calling it the beginning of a new era. But that celebration masks a broader truth: even if Maduro’s regime was authoritarian and corrupt, the method of his removal — foreign military force — undermines any claim to democratic legitimacy. Outsiders shouldn’t get to pick governments anywhere. True self-determination comes from within, not from the deck of a U.S. warship or the steps of a federal courthouse in Manhattan.

What This Means for the Left

For leftists and radicals, this moment should be a call to sharpen our critique of imperial power, not cheer a dictator’s downfall because it suits our politics. Maduro’s government was deeply flawed and oppressive in many ways — we should not romanticize that. But liberation can’t be outsourced to the Pentagon or CIA proxies. U.S. interventionism has historically worsened the suffering it claims to alleviate, and this episode in Venezuela looks like just the latest chapter. The Australian

This isn’t law enforcement. This is power politics.

The Ripple Effects

In Latin America, this operation is likely to send shockwaves. Governments and movements that have long pushed back against U.S. dominance will see this as a clear statement: no corner of the hemisphere is off limits to American force. Ordinary Venezuelans — already battered by years of crisis — face an uncertain future as foreign troops and corporations eye their resources.

On the U.S. side, this decision reveals the bipartisan consensus that foreign power projection is acceptable under the guise of “security.” The left must challenge that consensus and build momentum for a different foreign policy: one rooted in solidarity, respect for sovereignty, and accountability for past interventions.

In sum, what happened in Venezuela this week isn’t a historic triumph of justice. It’s a reminder that U.S. hegemony still operates through violence, extraction, and the dubious framing of moral imperatives over the rights of peoples to chart their own destinies.