US Operation in Venezuela: Maduro’s Arrest, Legal Risks, and Implications for the Global Order
The beginning of 2026 was marked by an event that sharply shifted the boundaries of what is considered acceptable in global politics. The United States carried out a force operation on Venezuelan territory, resulting in the detention of the country’s de facto leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife. Without a declaration of war. Without a mandate from international institutions. Without the consent of the US Congress.
This is not merely another episode of confrontation with an authoritarian regime. It is about a new model of using force, one that attempts to combine military effect with legal minimization of responsibility. And this is precisely what makes the situation fundamentally new.
What actually happened
On the night of January 3, a series of explosions and power outages were recorded in Caracas. After that, the US president publicly announced the completion of the operation and confirmed that Maduro and his wife had been captured and taken out of Venezuela. Washington’s official rhetoric was built around two key theses:
- the operation was limited and targeted;
- its goal was the detention of a person whom American justice considers a criminal, not the start of a war.
Thus, the United States immediately attempted to fix the framework: not a military invasion, but a law enforcement action with military escort.
Why Venezuela had long been in the risk zone
Relations between the US and Venezuela did not deteriorate overnight. A former energy partner gradually turned into a source of systemic threats: from drug trafficking and corruption to cooperation with Washington’s geopolitical adversaries.
Under Maduro’s rule, the Venezuelan state effectively lost independent institutions. The judicial system, security forces, and the economy fell under the control of a narrow circle of individuals. At the same time, the country became an important hub of international drug trafficking, directly affecting US interests.
It was on this basis that American prosecutors several years ago brought criminal charges against Maduro, including narco-terrorism and conspiracy with transnational criminal networks. From Washington’s point of view, he long ago ceased to be a “president” and became an object of criminal prosecution.
Time for Action examined where the key legal collision lies
The main problem with this operation is not its outcome, but the legal logic that the United States is trying to entrench. The American position rests on two arguments:
- the US does not recognize Maduro as the legitimate head of state, and therefore does not consider him to enjoy full head-of-state immunity;
- the charges concern crimes that, according to prosecutors, had a direct impact on US territory.
Critics emphasize that even with an indictment in place, the forceful capture of a de facto leader of another country creates a dangerous precedent, one that other states could later use to justify their own actions. That is why the reaction of international institutions was restrained, but sharp in substance. Both the UN and the EU stressed that norms of international law cannot be set aside even in the fight against dictatorships.
The domestic front in the US: no consensus
The operation in Venezuela exposed another problem: within the US itself there is no unity on the permissibility of such actions. Part of Congress, including members of both parties, questioned:
- the absence of authorization to use military force;
- the attempt to frame the operation as law enforcement rather than military;
- the risk of dragging the US into a new prolonged crisis.
Public opinion is also cautious. Most Americans support the use of the military only in the event of a direct threat to national security. The idea of regime change by force does not enjoy broad support, especially after the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan. This explains why the administration insists on the version that the “operation is completed” and avoids rhetoric about further intervention.
Post List
Does Maduro’s detention mean the end of the regime
No. And this is precisely the most dangerous aspect.
Over the years, Venezuela’s system of power has transformed into a networked structure, where political, military, and criminal components are tightly intertwined. Removing one figure does not guarantee the dismantling of the entire system. There is a real risk of:
- consolidation of forces around new figures;
- escalation of internal struggle;
- the country sliding into a phase of managed instability rather than democratic transition.
Even in Washington, officials avoid talking about the “end of the regime”. The administration clearly understands that if Venezuela descends into chaos, responsibility will partially fall on the US.
The detention of Nicolás Maduro became a demonstration of force, but not a solution to the problem. It is a targeted strike that shattered the illusion of dictators’ invulnerability, but at the same time blurred the boundaries of international law.
The world has entered a zone where:
- dictatorships can no longer be confident in their own immunity;
- democracies are not ready to pay the price of a full-scale war;
- forceful actions are increasingly disguised as law enforcement operations.
For Donald Trump, this is a risky move without insurance. If the operation does not lead to quick and positive changes, or if Venezuela slides into chaos, responsibility for this precedent will become not abstract, but political.
This is not the finale of Venezuela’s story. This is the beginning of a new, far more dangerous phase of global politics.
About the Author
Related posts:
Before a War Begins: Why the Baltic Region Is Now the Most Dangerous Place in Europe 
Operation “Rising Lion”. What Israel’s strike on Iran means and where it may lead 
How the EU Plans to Restrict Russian Diplomats’ Movement and What It Means for European Security 
Extension of Martial Law, New Legislation, and the Anti-Corruption Crisis: What This Means for Ukraine
