Why did the US strike Venezuela and Captured President Nicolas Maduro?

In the early hours of January 3, the United States carried out what President “Donald Trump” described as a “large-scale” military strike on Venezuela, followed by the dramatic claim that Venezuelan President “Nicolás Maduro” and his wife had been captured and flown out of the country. While Washington has offered few operational details and Caracas has not confirmed the capture, the episode marks the most direct US military action against Venezuela in decades — and raises fundamental questions about legality, regional stability, and America’s evolving use of force in the Western Hemisphere.

What unfolded in Caracas in the early hours

Explosions were reported across the Venezuelan capital “Caracas” around 2 am local time. Residents described low-flying aircraft, shaking buildings, and power outages in parts of the city. Smoke was seen rising from military installations, including the La Carlota airfield and the sprawling Fuerte Tiuna complex, both central to Venezuela’s defence infrastructure.

Soon after, President Trump announced on social media that US forces had conducted a coordinated operation with American law-enforcement agencies and had “captured” Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. The Venezuelan government, while condemning what it called “extremely serious military aggression,” said it had no confirmation of the president’s whereabouts and demanded proof of life.

Trump’s case against Maduro: drugs, migration and ‘national security’

At the heart of Washington’s justification is Trump’s long-standing portrayal of Maduro as a “narco-dictator.” US authorities have accused senior Venezuelan officials of enabling cocaine trafficking networks allegedly operating through the country, and of using state institutions to protect criminal flows.

Trump has also linked Venezuela to US domestic concerns, claiming — without publicly released evidence — that Caracas deliberately pushed prisoners and psychiatric patients toward the United States as part of irregular migration flows. These assertions fit into a broader Trump narrative that frames migration and narcotics as intertwined threats to US national security.

Although Venezuela is not a dominant source of drugs entering the US compared to other transit routes, the administration has argued that the issue is symbolic as well as strategic: demonstrating that alleged state-backed criminality will invite direct consequences.

Years of pressure before missiles and helicopters

Saturday’s strikes did not come out of the blue. US-Venezuela relations have been adversarial for years, but tensions intensified sharply during Trump’s second term. Sanctions, diplomatic isolation and indictments against Maduro escalated into overt military signalling.

In recent months, the US expanded naval deployments in the Caribbean, including the redeployment of the “USS Gerald R. Ford”, bringing thousands of American personnel within striking distance of Venezuelan territory. Washington also designated Venezuela a “foreign terrorist organisation” and imposed a de facto blockade on oil shipments tied to the Maduro government.

Targeted strikes on suspected drug-smuggling vessels and docking infrastructure preceded Trump’s warnings that “land strikes” were imminent — language that, in hindsight, foreshadowed a shift from containment to direct intervention.

Why Venezuela — and why now?

Several strategic calculations appear to converge. Venezuela sits atop the world’s largest proven oil reserves, a factor that has long shaped US interest despite years of sanctions. With global energy markets volatile and geopolitical competition sharpening, Washington may see leverage in reshaping Caracas’s political future.

Domestically, Trump has consistently used tough foreign policy moves to reinforce his image as a leader willing to act decisively against perceived threats. Framing the operation as a law-enforcement action — rather than a conventional invasion — allows the administration to argue it is enforcing US indictments rather than waging war.

Regionally, the operation sends a stark signal to other governments accused by Washington of harbouring criminal networks: sovereignty, the message suggests, will not shield leaders from unilateral US action.

The legal and diplomatic fault lines

The strike raises immediate questions under international law. Capturing a sitting head of state through military force on foreign soil — without UN authorisation or host-state consent — challenges core principles of sovereignty and non-intervention.

Latin American governments and global powers are likely to scrutinise whether Washington can justify its actions as self-defence or law enforcement, and what precedent this sets. For many in the region, memories of Cold War-era US interventions remain raw, and the episode risks reviving fears of a return to gunboat diplomacy.

What happens next for Venezuela and the region

Much depends on whether the US can substantiate its claim that Maduro is in custody. If confirmed, Venezuela could enter a period of acute political uncertainty, with the military, opposition groups and regional actors all jockeying for position.

If the claim proves inaccurate or contested, the credibility costs for Washington could be significant. Either way, the strikes have already altered the strategic landscape of the Caribbean and northern South America, signalling a willingness by the US to cross thresholds long considered politically taboo.

As the situation unfolds, the episode is likely to become a defining test of how far major powers can go in pursuing security objectives — and what that means for the future of international norms.