United States

In less than 24 hours, the US bombed Venezuela, brazenly abducted President Nicolas Maduro and his wife from their compound in Caracas and whisked them to a detention centre in New York. Here’s how regime change unfolded overnight.

This film explores how the Spanish empire built its global dominance by fusing military conquest, religious conversion and imperial wealth.

At the heart of the Spanish expansion was the close alliance between crown, church and conquest. Military campaigns were inseparable from missionary efforts as conversion to Christianity became both a justification for empire and a tool of control. Faith and force advanced together, reshaping societies across the Americas.

Through the conquests of the Aztec and Incan empires, the documentary shows how Spanish power was established through violence, alliances and religious authority. The mission system spread across the Americas, reorganising Indigenous life around churches, labour regimes and colonial administration. Conversion promised salvation but enforced obedience and cultural destruction.

The film also examines the economic foundations of Spanish imperial power. Vast quantities of gold and silver were extracted from the Americas alongside the exploitation of Indigenous and enslaved labour. These resources fuelled European economies, financed global trade and helped integrate the Americas into an emerging world system built on extraction and inequality.

By tracing how faith, conquest and wealth operated together, the documentary reveals how Spanish colonialism shaped global capitalism, religious power and imperial governance. It shows how the legacies of conquest, forced conversion and resource extraction continue to influence social inequality, cultural identity and economic structures in the modern world and how current global superpowers like the United States and China adopt this model to their benefit. It also draws on the parallels between the erasure of cultural artefacts then and today’s “algorithmic colonisation”.

Venezuelan officials say US air strikes killed at least 40 people, destroyed parts of the capital and violated their national sovereignty with the abduction of President Nicolas Maduro. Venezuelans are divided between fear of ongoing US intervention and celebrating his removal.

The image of abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro bound and blindfolded aboard the USS Iwo Jima posted by Donald Trump prompted shock and condemnation.

The United States intervention in Venezuela to abduct President Nicolás Maduro is not law enforcement extended beyond its borders. It is international vandalism, plain and unadorned.

Power has displaced law, preference has replaced principle and force has been presented as virtue. This is not the defence of the international order. It is its quiet execution. When a state kidnaps the law to justify kidnapping a leader, it does not uphold order. It advertises contempt for it.

The forcible seizure of a sitting head of state by the US has no foothold in international law. None. It is not self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. It was not authorised by the UN Security Council. International law is many things, but it is not a roving moral warrant for great powers to perform regime change by abduction.

The claim that alleged human rights violations or trafficking in narcotics justifies the removal of a foreign head of state is particularly corrosive. There is no such rule. Not in treaty law. Not in custom law. Not in any serious jurisprudence.

Human rights law binds states to standards of conduct. It does not license unilateral military seizures by self-appointed global sheriffs. If that were the rule, the world would be in a permanent state of sanctioned chaos.

Indeed, if the US were serious about this purported principle, consistency would compel action far closer to home. By the logic now advanced, there would be a far stronger legal and moral case to seize Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, given the extensive documentation of mass civilian harm and credible allegations of genocide arising from Israel’s conduct in Gaza.

Yet no such logic is entertained. The reason is obvious. This is not law. It is power selecting its targets.

Regime change is not an aberration in American foreign policy. It is a habit with a long paper trail, from Iran in 1953 to Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973 and Iraq in 2003.

But the kidnapping of a sitting president marks a new low. This is precisely the conduct the post-1945 legal order was designed to prohibit. The ban on the use of force is not a technicality. It is the central nervous system of international law. To violate it without authorisation is to announce that rules bind only the weak.

The US understands this perfectly. It is acting anyway and in doing so is conducting the autopsy of the UN Charter system itself.

The rot does not stop there. Washington has repeatedly violated its obligations under the UN Charter and the UN Headquarters Agreement. It has denied entry to officials it disfavours. Preventing the Palestinian president from addressing the UN General Assembly in person last year was not a diplomatic faux pas. It was a treaty breach by the host state of the world’s principal multilateral institution.

The message was unmistakable. Access to the international system and adherence to the UN Charter is conditional on American approval.

The UN was designed to constrain power, not flatter it. Today, it increasingly fails to constrain serious international law violations. Paralysed by vetoes, bullied by its host and ignored by those most capable of violating its charter, the UN has drifted from the supposed guardian of legality to a stage prop for its erosion.

At some point, denial becomes self-deception. The system has failed in its core promise. Not because international law is naive but because its most powerful beneficiary has decided it is optional.

It is, therefore, time to say the unsayable: The UN should be permanently relocated away from a host state that treats treaty obligations as inconveniences. And the international community must begin a serious, sober conversation about an alternative global structure whose authority is not hostage to one capital, one veto or one currency – or a system whose powers supersede the UN precisely because the UN has been hollowed out from within.

Law cannot survive as a slogan. Either it restrains those who wield the most force, or it is merely rhetoric deployed against those who do not. What the US has done in Venezuela is not a defence of order. It is a confirmation that international order has been replaced by preference. And preferences, unlike law, recognise no limits.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

In a move that stunned the world, the United States bombed Venezuela and toppled President Nicolas Maduro amid condemnation and plaudits.

In a news conference on Saturday at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, President Donald Trump praised the operation to seize Maduro as one of the “most stunning, effective and powerful displays of American military might and competence in American history”.

It was the riskiest and most high-profile military operation sanctioned by Washington since the US Navy’s SEAL team killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in a safe house in Pakistan’s Abbottabad in 2011.

News of the 63-year-old Maduro being abducted took over the global news cycle.

After months of escalation and threats over Maduro’s alleged involvement in shipping drugs to the US, the Trump administration had increased pressure on Caracas with a military build-up in the Caribbean and a series of deadly missile attacks on alleged drug-running boats that had killed more than 100 people and whose legality has been heavily questioned by the United Nations and legal experts.

The US had also previously offered a $50m reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest.

But while the military was conducting operations in the Caribbean, US intelligence had been gathering information about Maduro, his eating habits, and special forces covertly rehearsed a plan to remove him from power forcibly.

Here’s everything we know about how Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were “captured”.

How was Maduro abducted?

The operation, named “Absolute Resolve”, was carefully rehearsed for months, according to General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who spoke at Trump’s news conference.

Trump also told Fox News that US forces had practised their extraction of Maduro on a replica building.

“They actually built a house which was identical to the one they went into with all the same, all that steel all over the place,” Trump said.

At 11:46pm local time on Friday (03:46 GMT on Saturday), Trump gave the green light.

On Friday night, Caine said, “the weather broke just enough, clearing a path that only the most skilled aviators in the world could move through”, with about 150 aircraft involved in the operation, taking off from 20 different airbases across the Western Hemisphere.

As part of the operation, US forces disabled Venezuela’s air defence systems, with Trump saying the “lights of Caracas were largely turned off due to a certain expertise that we have”, without elaborating.

Several deafening explosions rang out across the capital, with Pete Hegseth, the defence secretary, describing it as part of a “massive joint military and law enforcement raid” that lasted less than 30 minutes.

US helicopters then touched down at Maduro’s compound in the capital at 2:01am (06:01 GMT) on Saturday, with the president and his wife then taken into custody.

There has been no readout on whether there was an exchange of fire, in a chaotic scramble, or if they were taken without a struggle.

At 4:29am (08:29 GMT), just two and a half hours later, Maduro was put on board a US aircraft carrier, en route to New York. Trump later posted a photograph of the Venezuelan leader on his Truth Social social media platform, blindfolded, wearing a grey tracksuit.

After departing the USS Iwo Jima, US forces escorted Maduro on a flight, touching down in New York’s Stewart Air National Guard Base at about 4:30pm (21:30 GMT).

How many people were killed in the US strikes on Venezuela?

The US strikes hit Caracas as well as the states of Miranda, Aragua and La Guaira, according to the Venezuelan government.

To Linda Unamumo, a public worker, the US attacks caused an explosion that was so strong it destroyed the roof of her house.

“Even up until a little while ago, I was still crying … I was crying because I was so scared … I had to leave my house with my daughter, with my family, and go to another house, a neighbour’s house. It was really traumatic. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone, really,” she told the AFP news agency.

While official casualty counts have yet to be released, an official told The New York Times newspaper on condition of anonymity that at least 40 people had been killed in the attacks.

According to Trump, a few US members were injured in the operation, but he believed no one was killed.

What’s next for Venezuela?

During his news conference on Saturday, Trump announced that the US would “run” the country until a new leader was chosen.

“We’re going to make sure that country is run properly. We’re not doing this in vain,” he said. “This is a very dangerous attack. This is an attack that could have gone very, very badly.”

The president did not rule out deploying US troops in the country and said he was “not afraid of boots on the ground if we have to”.

Trump also, somewhat surprisingly, ruled out working with opposition figure and Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado, who had dedicated her prize, which he so wanted to win himself, to the US president.

“She doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country,” he said.

The Constitutional Chamber of Venezuela’s Supreme Court ordered Vice President Delcy Rodriguez to serve as acting president following the US’s abduction of Maduro.

The court ruled that Rodriguez will assume “the office of President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in order to guarantee administrative continuity and the comprehensive defence of the Nation”.

The court also said it would work to “determine the applicable legal framework to guarantee the continuity of the State, the administration of government, and the defense of sovereignty in the face of the forced absence of the President of the Republic”.

Trump had said earlier on Saturday that the US would not occupy Venezuela, provided Rodriguez “does what we want”.

China has called on the United States to immediately release Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro after Washington carried out massive military strikes on the capital, Caracas, as well as other regions, and abducted the leader.

Beijing on Sunday insisted the safety of Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores be a priority, and called on the US to “stop toppling the government of Venezuela”, calling the attack a “clear violation of international law“.

It was the second statement issued by China since Saturday, after US President Donald Trump said Washington had taken Maduro and his wife and flown them out of the country.

On Saturday, Beijing slammed the US for “hegemonic acts” and “blatant use of force” against Venezuela and its president, urging Washington to abide by the United Nations charter.

China is closely watching developments in Venezuela, according to Andy Mok, a senior research fellow at the Center for China and Globalisation.

Mok told Al Jazeera that a Chinese delegation had met Venezuelan officials just hours before the US action, adding that Beijing was not surprised by Washington’s move, given the scale of US strategic and economic interests in the region.

What did stand out, he said, was how the operation was carried out, as it may “represent the long-term US strategy in the region”.

China is Venezuela’s largest buyer of oil, Mok added, although the country accounts for only 4-5 percent of its total oil imports. Beyond energy, he said, China has growing trade and investment interests across Latin America, meaning Beijing is paying close attention to political shifts in the region.

Mok warned that if a future US administration were to revive a Monroe Doctrine-style policy, it could increase tensions with China, as Latin America is a “pillar of China’s Global South strategy”.

Still, China is likely to limit its response to the events in Venezuela to diplomatic protest rather than hard power, according to China-based analyst Shaun Rein.

“I think China has issued a very strong condemnation of the United States, and they’re working with other Latin American and Caribbean countries to say this isn’t right,” Rein, founder of the China Market Research Group, told Al Jazeera.

Rein said Beijing is deeply alarmed but constrained, and its options are limited.

“There’s not a lot of things that China can do. Frankly, it doesn’t have the military power. It only has two military bases outside of China, while America has 800,” Rein noted, stressing that, “historically, China is not warlike”.

“China is just going to make proclamations criticising the United States’ actions, but they’re not going to push back with military action, and they’re probably not going to push back with economic sanctions.”

Global condemnations, celebrations

World reaction has poured in since the US military action in Venezuela, with opinion firmly split over the intervention.

Left-leaning regional leaders, including those of Brazil, Colombia, Chile and Mexico, have largely denounced Maduro’s ouster, while countries with right-wing governments, from Argentina to Ecuador, have largely welcomed it.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Sunday said he backed a “peaceful, democratic transition” of power in Venezuela, but urged that international law be respected.

His government was “monitoring developments”, he said in a statement.

South Korea also responded on Sunday, calling for a de-escalation of tensions.

“Our government urges all involved parties to make utmost efforts toward easing regional tensions. We hope for a quick stabilisation of the situation via dialogue, ensuring democracy is restored, and the will of the Venezuelan people is honoured,” its Ministry of Foreign Affairs said.

Venezuela has been increasingly isolated, particularly after Maduro’s contested election in 2024.

China and Russia, however, continue to maintain strong economic and strategic ties, and alliances have grown with Iran over their shared opposition to US policy.

Protesters have rallied worldwide after Donald Trump announced the US would ‘run’ Venezuela following the abduction of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife. Demonstrators from Paris to Sao Paulo are denouncing what they call US aggression and imperialism.

Harlan Ullman, a senior advisor at Atlantic Council talks about Donald Trump’s plan to take over Venezuela and the significant issues that need to be considered.

Within hours of a massive operation of regime change in Venezuela, United States President Donald Trump revelled in his “success”. He posted a photo of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in handcuffs and then addressed the American public.

He praised the military for launching “one of the most stunning, effective and powerful displays of American military might” in US history, allegedly rendering Venezuelan forces “powerless”. He announced that Maduro and his wife would be indicted in New York for “narcoterrorism” and claimed – without evidence – that US operations have reduced maritime drug trafficking by 97 percent.

Trump went further, declaring that the US would “run the country” until an unspecified transition could be arranged, while openly threatening a “second and much larger attack”. Crucially, he framed these claims within a broader assertion of US “domination over the Western Hemisphere”, explicitly invoking the 1823 Monroe Doctrine.

The US military intervention in Venezuela represents something far more dangerous than a single act of aggression. It is the latest manifestation of a centuries-old pattern of US interference that has left Latin America scarred. The regime change operation in Caracas is a clear sign the Trump administration is embracing this old policy of interventionism with renewed fervour. And that bodes ill for the region.

That this attack targeted Maduro’s repressive and corrupt government, which was responsible for the immense suffering of many Venezuelans, makes the situation no less catastrophic. Washington’s long history of supporting brutal dictatorships across the region strips away any pretence of moral authority. Trump himself can hardly claim any moral high ground given that he is himself embroiled in a major political scandal due to his close ties with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and has maintained unconditional support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

The Trump administration’s attack on Venezuela solidifies a catastrophic pattern of violations of international law. If the US can unilaterally launch military strikes against sovereign nations at a whim, then the entire framework of international law becomes meaningless. This tells every nation that might and power trump legality and sovereignty.

For Latin America specifically, the implications are chilling. To understand why this attack reverberates so painfully across the region, one must take a quick look at its history. The US has orchestrated or supported coups and military dictatorships throughout the region with disturbing regularity.

In Guatemala in 1954, the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Jacobo Arbenz. In Chile in 1973, the US backed the coup that brought Augusto Pinochet to power and ushered in an era of unchecked political violence. In 1983, the US invaded and occupied the island of Grenada to overthrow its socialist government. In Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and throughout Central America, Washington provided training, funding and political cover for military regimes that tortured dissidents and murdered civilians.

The new question now is, if the US carried out regime change in Venezuela so easily, who is next? Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro, who has been at odds with the Trump administration, was quick to react – and is right to be concerned, as in December, Trump threatened an intervention, saying “he’ll be next“. Others in the region are also nervous.

Beyond the looming threat of US intervention, Latin America now also faces the potential regional instability that a regime change in Caracas is likely to create. The political crisis under Maduro had already spilled beyond its borders into neighbouring Colombia and Brazil, where Venezuelans fled poverty and repression. One can only imagine the ripple effect the US-enacted regime change will have.

There are probably many Venezuelans who are celebrating Maduro’s ouster. However, the US intervention directly undermines the political opposition in Venezuela. It would allow the regime, which appears to retain power, to paint all opposition as foreign agents, eroding its legitimacy.

The Venezuelan people deserve democracy, but they have to achieve it themselves with international support, not to have it imposed at gunpoint by a foreign power with a documented history of caring more about resources and geopolitical dominance than human rights.

Latin Americans deserve better than to choose between homegrown authoritarianism and imported violence. What they need is not American bombs but genuine respect for self-determination.

The US has no moral authority to attack Venezuela, regardless of Maduro’s authoritarian nature. Both can be true: Maduro is a dictator who caused immense harm to his people, and US military intervention is an illegal act of aggression that will not resolve the crisis of democracy in Venezuela.

The region’s future must be determined by people themselves, free from the shadow of empire.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

United States President Donald Trump has said that Washington will “run” Venezuela until a political transition can take place, hours after US forces bombed the South American country and “captured” its president, Nicolas Maduro.

Speaking during a news conference on Saturday, Trump said the US would “run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition”.

“We don’t want to be involved with having somebody else get in, and we have the same situation that we had for the last long period of years,” he said.

The Trump administration launched attacks on Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, and seized Maduro and his wife in the early hours of Saturday.

A plane carrying the Venezuelan leader landed in New York state on Saturday evening, according to US media.

Footage broadcast by CNN, Fox News and MS Now showed US officials escorting a person they identified as Maduro off a plane at the Stewart international airport, about 97 kilometres (60 miles) northwest of New York City.

Maduro’s capture took place after a months-long US pressure campaign against his government, which included US seizures of oil tankers off the Venezuelan coast, as well as deadly attacks on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean. The attacks were widely denounced as extrajudicial killings.

Washington had accused the Venezuelan leader, who has been in power since 2013, of having ties to drug cartels. Maduro had rejected the claim, saying the US was working to depose him and take control of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.

During Saturday’s news conference, Trump said that “very large United States oil companies” would move into Venezuela to “fix the badly broken… oil infrastructure and start making money for the country”.

He added that his administration’s actions “will make the people of Venezuela rich, independent and safe”.

The Trump administration has defended Maduro’s “capture, saying the left-wing leader faced drug-related charges in the US.

These charges include “narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices against the United States”, US Attorney General Pam Bondi said.

“They will soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts,” she added in a post on X.

A Justice Department official told the Reuters news agency that Maduro is expected to make an initial appearance in Manhattan federal court on Monday.

‘Illegal abduction’

But legal experts, world leaders and Democratic Party lawmakers in the US have condemned the administration’s actions as a violation of international law.

“Attacking countries, in flagrant violation of international law, is the first step towards a world of violence, chaos, and instability, where the law of the strongest prevails over multilateralism,” Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva wrote on X.

Ben Saul, the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, slammed what he called Washington’s “illegal abduction” of Maduro. “I condemn the US’ illegal aggression against Venezuela,” Saul wrote on social media.

A spokesperson for UN chief Antonio Guterres said he was “deeply alarmed” by the situation, describing the US’s actions as setting “a dangerous precedent”.

“The Secretary-General continues to emphasize the importance of full respect – by all – of international law, including the UN Charter. He’s deeply concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected,” Guterres’s office said in a statement.

Earlier on Saturday, Venezuela’s defence minister released a defiant statement in response to the US attacks, urging people to remain united.

“We will not negotiate; we will not give up,” Vladimir Padrino Lopez said, stressing that Venezuela’s independence is not up for negotiation. “We must maintain calm and [be] united in order to prevail in these dire moments.”

Uncertainty prevails

It remains unclear how exactly the US plans to “run” Venezuela, and how long the purported transitional period will last.

During Saturday’s news conference, Trump said that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had spoken with Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez.

“She was sworn in as president just a little while ago,” Trump told reporters. “She had a long conversation with [Rubio], and she said, ‘We’ll do whatever you need’. I think she was quite gracious, but she really doesn’t have a choice.”

Rodriguez appeared to contradict that in a news conference in Caracas later in the day.

“We demand the immediate release of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife. The only president of Venezuela is President Nicolas Maduro,” she said.

“We are ready to defend Venezuela. We are ready to defend our natural resources, which should be for national development,” she added.

Al Jazeera’s Latin America editor Lucia Newman, reporting from Chile, said that, if Rodriguez is “on board” with the US plan for Venezuela, as Trump and Rubio have suggested, “she certainly didn’t sound like it” during her address.

“She sounded like her typical, fiery self, very much on the side of… Maduro, demanding that he be released and saying that Venezuela would not be a colony of the United States,” Newman said.

The events of the day have brought “a rollercoaster of emotions” to “Venezuelans both inside and outside of the country”, said Caracas-based journalist Sissi de Flaviis.

“When we first heard that Maduro was taken out of the country, there was a mix of reactions,” she said. “A lot of people couldn’t believe it. Other people were pretty much celebrating. Other people were kind of on standby, waiting.”

After Trump’s news conference announcing US plans to run Venezuela, “there’s been a shock”, de Flaviis added.

“People are a bit concerned about what this will actually mean for us, what this will mean for the government and who is going to lead us in the next few days, months and years.”

Meanwhile, Harlan Ullman, a former US naval officer, told Al Jazeera that “the notion of America taking over Venezuela is going to explode in our faces”.

“When Trump says, ‘We’re going to run the country’: We’re not capable of running America, how are we going to be able to run Venezuela?” Ullman said.

“I do not believe that we have a plan for dealing with Venezuela,” he added. “A country is extraordinarily complex. We lack the knowledge, understanding and all the logistics to do this.”

Since coming down the escalator in 2015 to announce his first presidential run, Donald Trump has presented himself as a break from the traditional hawkish foreign policy in the United States.

The US president has even criticised some of his political rivals as “warmongers” and “war hawks”.

But Trump’s move to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and announce that the US will “run” the Latin American country has drawn comparisons with the regime change wars that he built a political career rejecting.

Some critics from Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, who backed his message of focusing on the country’s own issues instead of conflicts abroad, are criticising Washington’s march to war with Venezuela.

Still, Trump’s grip on Republican politics appears to remain firm, with most legislators from the party praising Trump’s actions.

“To President Trump and his team, you should take great pride in setting in motion the liberation of Venezuela,” Senator Lindsey Graham wrote in a social media post.

“As I have often said, it is in America’s national security interest to deal with the drug caliphate in our backyard, the centrepiece of which is Venezuela.”

Graham’s reference to a “drug caliphate” seems to play on Islamophobic tropes and promote the push to liken the US attacks on alleged drug traffickers in Latin America to the so-called “war on terror”.

The US senator heaped praise on the winner of the FIFA Peace Prize – handed to Trump by the association’s chief, Gianni Infantino, in December – and called him “the GOAT of the American presidency”, which stands for “the greatest of all time”.

Muted criticism

While it was expected that Graham and other foreign policy hawks in Trump’s orbit would back the moves against Venezuela, even some of the Republican sceptics of foreign interventions cheered the abduction of Maduro.

Former Congressman Matt Gaetz, one of the most vocal critics of hawkish foreign policy on the right, poked fun at the “capture” of the Venezuelan president.

“Maduro is gonna hate CECOT,” he wrote on X, referring to the notorious prison in El Salvador where the Trump administration sent hundreds of suspected gang members without due process.

Libertarian Senator Rand Paul, who has been a leading voice in decrying Congress’s war-making power, only expressed muted disapproval of Trump’s failure to seek lawmakers’ authorisation for military action in Venezuela.

“Time will tell if regime change in Venezuela is successful without significant monetary or human cost,” he wrote in a lengthy statement that mostly argued against bringing “socialism” to the US.

“Best though, not to forget, that our founders limited the executive’s power to go to war without Congressional authorisation for a reason – to limit the horror of war and limit war to acts of defence. Let’s hope those precepts of peace are not forgotten in our justified relief that Maduro is gone and the Venezuelan people will have a second chance.”

Early on Saturday morning, Republican Senator Mike Lee questioned the legality of the attack. “I look forward to learning what, if anything, might constitutionally justify this action in the absence of a declaration of war or authorisation for the use of military force,” he wrote on X.

Lee later said that Secretary of State Marco Rubio told him that US troops were executing a legal arrest warrant against Maduro.

“This action likely falls within the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect US personnel from an actual or imminent attack,” the senator said.

Dissent

Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene was one of the few dissenting voices.

“Americans’ disgust with our own government’s never-ending military aggression and support of foreign wars is justified because we are forced to pay for it and both parties, Republicans and Democrats, always keep the Washington military machine funded and going,”  Greene wrote on X.

Greene, a former Trump ally who fell out with the US president and is leaving Congress next week, rejected the argument that Trump ordered Maduro’s “capture” because of the Venezuelan president’s alleged involvement in the drug trade.

She noted that Venezuela is not a major exporter of fentanyl, the leading cause of overdose deaths in the US.

She also underscored that, last month, Trump pardoned former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, a convicted drug trafficker who was serving a 45-year sentence in a US jail.

“Regime change, funding foreign wars, and American’s [sic] tax dollars being consistently funneled to foreign causes, foreigners both home and abroad, and foreign governments while Americans are consistently facing increasing cost of living, housing, healthcare, and learn about scams and fraud of their tax dollars is what has most Americans enraged,” Greene said.

Congressman Tomas Massie, another Republican, shared a speech he delivered in the House of Representatives earlier this month, warning that attacking Venezuela is about “oil and regime change”.

“Are we prepared to receive swarms of the 25 million Venezuelans, who will likely become refugees, and billions in American treasure that will be used to destroy and inevitably rebuild that nation? Do we want a miniature Afghanistan in the Western Hemisphere?” Massie said in the remarks.

“If that cost is acceptable to this Congress, then we should vote on it as a voice of the people and in accordance with our Constitution.”

While Massie and Greene are outliers in their party, Trump’s risky moves in Venezuela were a success in the short term: Maduro is in US custody at a minimal cost to Washington.

Similarly, few Republicans opposed the US war in Iraq when then-President George W Bush stood under the “mission accomplished” sign on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln after toppling Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, in 2003.

But there is now a near consensus across the political spectrum that the Iraq invasion was a geopolitical disaster.

The fog of war continues to hang over Venezuela, and it is unclear who is in charge of the country, or how Trump will “run” it.

The US president has not ruled out deploying “boots on the ground” to Venezuela, raising the prospect of a US occupation and the possibility of another Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan.

“Do we truly believe that Nicolas Maduro will be replaced by a modern-day George Washington? How did that work out in… Libya, Iraq or Syria?” Massie warned in his Congress speech.

“Previous presidents told us to go to war over WMDs, weapons of mass destruction, that did not exist. Now, it’s the same playbook, except we’re told that drugs are the WMDs.”

The United States has bombed Venezuela and toppled Nicolas Maduro, who was seized and taken to New York.

US President Donald Trump and his allies have defended the US attacks on Venezuela and the removal of President Nicolas Maduro from power amid widespread condemnation that the actions violate international law.

Trump told reporters on Saturday that Maduro was “captured” after US military strikes on the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, for carrying out a purported “campaign of deadly narco-terrorism against the United States”.

He said the US government would “run” the South American country during a political transition, promising the Venezuelan people that they would become “rich, independent and safe”.

But Claire Finkelstein, a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, has rejected the Trump administration’s arguments in defence of the attacks and removal of Maduro, as well as its plans to exert control over Venezuela.

“I don’t think there’s any basis under international law for the action that occurred overnight by the US government,” Finkelstein told Al Jazeera, describing the attacks as an “illegal use of force [and] a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty”.

“Maduro has personal jurisdiction rights, so not only is it a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty, but it’s a violation of his personal, international rights,” she said.

Numerous statutes of international law – including the UN Charter – prohibit states from attacking another country without provocation.

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations,” the UN Charter says.

The US actions came amid a months-long pressure campaign against Maduro, whom the Trump administration accused, without evidence, of being linked to drug traffickers.

Washington had carried out deadly strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean, seized vessels carrying oil off the Venezuelan coast, sanctioned members of Maduro’s family, and threatened to launch attacks on the country’s soil.

“Nicolas Maduro wasn’t just an illegitimate dictator, he also ran a vast drug-trafficking operation,” US Congressman Tom Cotton, a top Trump ally, wrote on social media on Saturday, welcoming the moves against the Venezuelan leader.

Before he was seized, Maduro had said he was open to dialogue with the US on drug trafficking. He also had accused the Trump administration of seeking to depose him and seize control of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.

‘No imminent threat’

Democratic Party lawmakers in the US had been demanding answers from the Trump administration about its aims in Venezuela, accusing the Republican president of seeking to unlawfully carry out acts of war without congressional oversight.

Under the US Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war.

But that authority has been weakened over the last several decades, with the US carrying out military strikes around the world during its so-called “war on terror” based on loosely-interpreted congressional authorisations.

On Saturday, Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, said that, despite the Trump administration’s claims, “there was no imminent threat to the United States” from Venezuela, “certainly not one that justified military action without congressional authorization”.

“These actions violate both US and international law and, by Trump’s own admission, this is not a limited operation,” Meeks said in a statement shared on social media.

This was echoed by the University of Pennsylvania’s Finkelstein, who said there was no “immediate threat” to the US that would justify the executive branch carrying out attacks without notifying Congress.

“It was an act of war against Venezuela, and we did not have the kind of self-defence justification that would normally justify bypassing Congress,” she told Al Jazeera.

“Even if you believe the US is at grave danger because of drug trafficking, there isn’t the kind of imminence there that would justify the president moving unilaterally and not turning to Congress and trying to get them on board.”

Finkelstein also rejected Trump’s plans for the US to “run” Venezuela as “incredibly illegal”.

“States have sovereignty rights, and you cannot just invade them and take them over,” she said.

“Even if Maduro were to fall of his own accord and we had not brought that about, we don’t have the right to go in and start running their government,” Finkelstein said.

“Democracy is premised on the idea that the people are sovereign and the people choose their own leaders, and that’s something we should be promoting in Latin and South America, not trying to undermine.”

US President Donald Trump says the US “successfully captured” Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro and his wife “in the dead of night” and they will “face American justice” for alleged narcoterrorism. Trump said the US will run Venezuela until there is a “safe… and judicious” transition of power.

WASHINGTON — An audacious overnight raid by elite U.S. forces that seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from his bedroom in Caracas plunged the country into turmoil on Saturday, prompting international concern about Venezuela’s future and President Trump’s decision to take control of a sovereign nation.

Trump justified the stunning attack by accusing Maduro of sending “monsters” into the United States from Venezuelan prisons and claiming his involvement in the drug trade. But Trump focused more on Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, accusing the Venezuelan government of stealing U.S. oil infrastructure in the country decades prior and vowing that, under new U.S. government control, output would increase going forward.

The president spoke little about democracy in Venezuela, dismissing a potential role for its longstanding democratic opposition in running the country in the immediate aftermath of the operation. Instead, Trump said his team was in touch with Maduro’s hand-picked vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, whom he called “very gracious” and said was “essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to Make Venezuela Great Again.”

“We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” Trump said. “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.”

“We’re not afraid of boots on the ground,” he added.

President Trump, alongside Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, speaks to the media on Saturday following U.S. military actions in Venezuela.

(Jim Watson / AFP via Getty Images)

The president did not offer a timeline for how long a transition would take, or which Venezuelan factions he would support to assume leadership.

Maria Corina Machado, a leader of the Venezuelan opposition and a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, said Saturday that she and her team were prepared to assume control of Venezuela.

“The hour of freedom has arrived,” she wrote on social media. “We are prepared to assert our mandate and take power.”

But in a surprising statement, Trump told reporters on Saturday that he did not believe Machado had the “respect” needed to run the country.

Trump instead focused on how the United States intends to run Venezuela in the immediate aftermath, saying American oil companies are ready to descend on the oil-rich country and begin “taking out tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground.”

“That wealth is going to the people of Venezuela and people from outside of Venezuela that used to be in Venezuela, and it goes to the United States of America, in the form of reimbursement for the damages caused to us by that country,” Trump said.

The operation began with explosions throughout Caracas, as more than 150 U.S. aircraft, including F-35 fighter jets, B-1 bombers and remotely piloted drones, cleared away Venezuelan air defenses to make way for the interdiction team, which included U.S. law enforcement officers. Electricity was cut throughout much of the city as the assault unfolded, Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters.

A Delta Force unit penetrated Maduro’s heavily fortified compound at 2:01 a.m. local time, capturing him and his wife as they attempted to escape into a safe room, U.S. officials said. Only one helicopter in the U.S. fleet was hit by Venezuelan fire, but was able to continue flying through the mission. No U.S. personnel were killed, Caine said.

Trump, who had ordered the CIA to begin monitoring Maduro’s movements months ago, watched as the operation unfolded from a room at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, “literally like I was watching a television show,” the president said in an interview with Fox News on Saturday morning.

From there, Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were taken to the USS Iwo Jima, stationed in the Caribbean alongside a third of the U.S. naval fleet, before the ship set course for New York, where Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said Maduro will face “the full wrath of American justice” over his alleged ties to illicit drug trafficking.

“If you would’ve seen the speed, the violence,” Trump told Fox. “Amazing job.”

In Caracas on Saturday, the mood was tense. Long lines formed at supermarkets and pharmacies as shoppers, fearful of uncertainty, stocked up on essentials.

Maduro’s supporters gathered throughout the city, many bearing arms, but seemed unsure of what to do next. Across Latin America, reaction to the U.S. operation was mixed. Right-leaning allies of Trump including Argentina’s Javier Milei and Ecuador’s Daniel Noboa backed the U.S. attack, while leftists broadly condemned it.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro criticized an “aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and Latin America” and said he was ordering the deployment of the Colombian armed forces along his nation’s 1,300-mile-long border with Venezuela.

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said that the U.S. “crossed an unacceptable line” and compared the action to remove Maduro to “the darkest moments of [U.S.] interference in Latin America and the Caribbean.”

Trump, meanwhile, boasted that the U.S. operation in Venezuela would help reassert U.S. dominance in Latin America.

“American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again,” he said. “We are reasserting American power in a very powerful way in our home region.”

US President Donald Trump says ‘a team’ from the US will be running Venezuela for now, but he would not specify who is on the team. He was speaking at a news conference with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

Jake Paul’s defeat by Anthony Joshua in their heavyweight bout in December has seen American boxer lose his WBA ranking.

Jake Paul has slipped out of the WBA cruiserweight rankings after the YouTuber-turned-boxer was soundly beaten by former world heavyweight champion Anthony Joshua last month.

Paul’s jaw was broken in two places and the American needed surgery to repair the damage after Joshua’s sixth-round knockout victory in a heavyweight bout in Miami.

The event had drawn criticism ahead of the bout due to the disparity in the sheer size and experience of the boxers, while Paul spent much of the fight dancing around the ring rather than engaging Joshua.

Paul (12-2, 7 KOs) had entered the WBA’s cruiserweight rankings at No 14 in July shortly after he beat 39-year-old Julio Cesar Chavez Jr by unanimous decision in Anaheim, California.

He was at No 15 entering the bout against Joshua. Bosnia’s Edin Puhalo has taken Paul’s place in the top 15, having recorded his 29th career win in December.

The WBA ranking announcement and changes were for the period ending December 31.

United States President Donald Trump announced on Saturday morning that his country’s forces had bombed Venezuela and captured the South American nation’s president, Nicolas Maduro, and First Lady Cilia Flores in a dramatic overnight military attack that followed months of rising tensions.

Venezuela’s government said that the US had struck three states apart from the capital, Caracas, while neighbouring Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro released a longer list of places that he said had been hit.

The operation has few, if any, parallels in modern history. The US has previously captured foreign leaders, including Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Panama’s Manuel Noriega, but after invading those countries in declared wars.

Here is what we know about the US attacks and the lead-up to this escalation:

How did the attack unfold?

At least seven explosions were reported from Caracas, a city of more than three million people, at about 2am local time (06:00 GMT), as residents said they heard low-flying aircraft. Lucia Newman, Al Jazeera’s Latin America editor, reported that at least one of the explosions appeared to come from near Fort Tiuna, the main military base in the Venezuelan capital.

Earlier, the US Federal Aviation Administration had issued instructions to American commercial airlines to stay clear of Venezuelan airspace.

Within minutes of the explosions, Maduro declared a state of emergency, as his government named the US as responsible for the attacks, saying that it had struck Caracas as well as the neighbouring states of Miranda, Aragua and La Guaira.

The US embassy in Bogota, Colombia, referred to the reports of the explosions and asked American citizens to stay out of Venezuela, in a statement. But the diplomatic mission did not confirm US involvement in the attacks. That came more than three hours after the bombings, from Trump.

What did Trump say?

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump said, a little after 09:00 GMT that the US had “successfully carried out a large scale strike against Venezuela and its leader, President Nicolas Maduro, who has been, along with his wife, captured and flown out of the Country”.

Venezuela has not yet confirmed that Maduro was taken by US troops — but it also has not denied the claim.

Trump said that the attack had been carried out in conjunction with US law enforcement, but did not specify who led the operation.

Trump announced that there would be a news conference at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida at 11am local time (16:00 GMT) on Friday, where more details would be revealed.

Where did the US attack in Venezuela?

While neither the US nor Venezuelan authorities have pinpointed locations that were struck, Colombia’s Petro, in a social media post, listed a series of places in Venezuela that he said had been hit.

They include:

• La Carlota airbase was disabled and bombed.
• Cuartel de la Montana in Catia was disabled and bombed.
• The Federal Legislative Palace in Caracas was bombed.
• Fuerte Tiuna, Venezuela’s main military complex, was bombed.
• An airport in El Hatillo was attacked.
• F-16 Base No 3 in Barquisimeto was bombed.
• A private airport in Charallave, near Caracas, was bombed and disabled.
• Miraflores, the presidential palace in Caracas, was attacked.
• Large parts of Caracas, including Santa Monica, Fuerte Tiuna, Los Teques, 23 de Enero and the southern areas of the capital, were left without electricity.
• Attacks were reported in central Caracas.
• A military helicopter base in Higuerote was disabled and bombed.

What led to these US attacks on Venezuela?

Trump has, in recent months, accused Maduro of driving narcotics smuggling into the US, and has claimed that the Venezuelan president is behind the Tren de Aragua gang that Washington has proscribed as a foreign terrorist organisation.

But his own intelligence agencies have said that there is no evidence that Maduro is linked to Tren de Aragua, and US data shows that Venezuela is not a major source of contraband narcotics entering the country.

Starting in September, the US military launched a series of strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea that it claimed were carrying narcotics. More than 100 people have been killed in at least 30 such boat bombings, but the Trump administration is yet to present any public evidence that there were drugs on board, that the vessels were travelling to the US, or that the people on the boats belonged to banned organisations, as the US has claimed.

Meanwhile, the US began its largest military deployment in the Caribbean Sea in at least several decades, spearheaded by the USS Gerald Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier.

In December, the US hijacked two ships carrying Venezuelan oil, and has since imposed sanctions on multiple companies and their tankers, accusing them of trying to circumvent already stringent American sanctions against Venezuela’s oil industry.

Then, last week, the US struck what Trump described as a “dock” in Venezuela where he claimed drugs were loaded onto boats.

Could all this be about oil?

Trump has so far framed his pressure and military action against Venezuela and in the Caribbean Sea as driven by a desire to stop the flow of dangerous drugs into the US.

But he has increasingly also sought Maduro’s departure from power, despite a phone call in early December that the Venezuelan president described as “cordial”.

And in recent weeks, some senior aides of the US president have been more open about Venezuela’s oil: the country’s vast reserves of crude, unmatched in the world, amounted to an estimated 303 billion barrels (Bbbl) as of 2023.

On December 17, Trump’s top adviser Stephen Miller claimed that the US had “created the oil industry in Venezuela” and that the South American country’s oil should therefore belong to the US.

But though US companies were the earliest to drill for oil in Venezuela in the early 1900s, international law is clear: sovereign states — in this case Venezuela — own the natural resources within their territories under the principle of Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources (PSNR).

Venezuela nationalised its oil industry in 1976. Since 1999, when socialist President Hugo Chavez, Maduro’s mentor and predecessor, came to power, Venezuela has been locked in a tense relationship with the US.

Still, one major US oil company, Chevron, continues to operate in the country.

The Venezuelan opposition, led by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Corina Machado, has publicly called for the US to intervene against Maduro, and has pointed to the oil reserves that American firms could tap more easily with a new dispensation in power in Caracas.

Oil has long been Venezuela’s biggest export, but US sanctions since 2008 have crippled formal sales and the country today earns only a fraction of what it once did.

How has Venezuela’s government reacted?

While Venezuela has not confirmed Maduro’s capture, Vice President Delcy Rodrigues told state-owned VTV that the government had lost contact with Maduro and First Lady Flores and did not have clarity on their whereabouts.

She demanded that the US provide “proof of life” of Maduro and Flores, and added that Venezuela’s defences were activated.

Earlier, in a statement, the Venezuelan government said that it “rejects, repudiates and denounces” the attacks.

It said that the aggression threatens the stability of Latin America and the Caribbean, and places the lives of millions of people at risk. It accused the US of trying to impose a colonial war, and force a regime change — and said that these attempts would fail.

What happens to Maduro next?

In a statement posted on X, Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that Maduro and his wife have been indicted in the Southern District of New York.

Maduro has been charged with “Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy” among other charges, Bondi said. It was unclear if his wife is facing the same charges, but she referred to the Maduro couple as “alleged international narco traffickers.”

“They will soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts,” she added.

Mike Lee, a Republican senator from Utah, earlier posted on X that he had spoken to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who had told him that Maduro had been “arrested by US personnel to stand trial on criminal charges in the United States, and that the kinetic action we saw tonight was deployed to protect and defend those executing the arrest warrant.”

In 2020, US prosecutors had charged Maduro with running a cocaine-trafficking network.

But US officials remain silent on the illegality of Maduro’s capture and the attacks on Venezuela, which violate UN charter principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations.

Russia and Cuba, close Maduro allies, condemned the attack. Colombia, which neighbours Venezuela and has itself been in Trump’s crosshairs, said that it “rejects the aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and of Latin America” – even though Bogota itself does not recognise Maduro’s government.

Most other nations have been relatively muted in their response to the US aggression so far.

What’s next for Venezuela?

Constitutionally, Rodriguez, the vice president, is next in line to take charge if Maduro indeed has been plucked out of Venezuela by the US.

Other senior leaders seen as close to Maduro and influential within the Venezuelan hierarchy include Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, National Assembly President — and Delcy’s brother — Jorge Rodriguez, and military chief General Vladimir Padrino López.

But it is unclear whether the state apparatus that Chavez and Maduro carefully built over a quarter century will last without them.

“Maduro’s capture is a devastating moral blow for the political movement started by Hugo Chavez in 1999, which has devolved into a dictatorship since Nicolas Maduro took power,” Carlos Pina, a Venezuelan analyst based in Mexico, told Al Jazeera.

If the US does engineer — or has already engineered — a regime change, the opposition’s Machado could be a front-line candidate to take Venezuela’s top job, though it is unclear how popular that might be. In a November poll in Venezuela, 55 percent of participants were opposed to military intervention in their country, and an equal number were opposed to economic sanctions against Venezuela.

Trump might be mistaken if he thinks the US can stay out of the chaos that’s likely to follow in a post-Maduro Venezuela, suggests Christopher Sabatini, a senior research fellow for Latin America, the US and North America programme at Chatham House.

“Assuming even if there is regime change – of some sort, and it’s by no means clear even if it does happen that it will be democratic – the US’s military action will likely require sustained US engagement of some sort,” he said.

“Will the Trump White House have the stomach for that?”

At least 7 explosions have been heard in Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, followed by a low-flying aircraft, according to The Associated Press.

Letter to UN chief, UNSC comes after Trump says US will intervene if Tehran violently suppresses protests.

Iran’s United Nations ambassador Amir Saeed Iravani has written to the UN secretary-general and the president of the UN Security Council (UNSC), urging them to condemn “unlawful threats” towards Tehran from United States President Donald Trump amid ongoing protests in the country.

The letter sent on Friday came hours after Trump said the US was “locked and loaded and ready to go” if any more protesters were killed in the ongoing demonstrations in Iran over the cost of living.

Iravani called on UN chief Antonio Guterres and members of the UNSC to “unequivocally and firmly condemn” Trump’s “reckless and provocative statements”, describing them as a “serious violation” of the UN Charter and international law.

“Any attempt to incite, encourage or legitimise internal unrest as a pretext for external pressure or military intervention is a gross violation of the sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Iravani said in the letter, which was published in full by the IRNA state news agency.

The letter added that Iran’s government “reiterates its inherent right to defend its sovereignty” and that it will “exercise its rights in a decisive and proportionate manner”.

“The United States of America bears full responsibility for any consequences arising from these illegal threats and any subsequent escalation of tensions,” Iravani added.

IRNA reported earlier that protests continued across Iran on Friday, with people gathering in Qom, Marvdasht, Yasuj, Mashhad, and Hamedan as well as in the Tehran neighbourhoods of Tehranpars and Khak Sefid.

The protests have swept across the country after shopkeepers in Iran’s capital Tehran went on strike on Sunday over high prices and economic stagnation.

At least nine people had been killed and 44 arrested in the unrest. The deputy governor of Qom province on Friday said that another person had died after a grenade exploded in his hand, in what the governor said was an attempt to incite unrest.

In his post on Truth Social, Trump said that if Iran “violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue”.

Ali Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, shot back that US interference “is equivalent to chaos across the entire region and the destruction of American interests”.

Iran’s economic woes, including a collapsing currency and high inflation rates, follow years of severe drought in Tehran, a city with a population of some 10 million people, compounding multiple ongoing crises.

Iranian leaders have struck a surprisingly conciliatory tone in response, with President Masoud Pezeshkian saying the government is at “fault” for the situation and promising to find solutions. Observers have noted the response is markedly different from the harsh reaction to past protests in the country.

The United States bombed three Iranian nuclear sites in June this year during a 12-day escalation between Israel and Iran. Trump described the operation as a “very successful attack”.

Last week, during a news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump said the US will “knock the hell out” of Iran if it advances its nuclear programme or ballistic weapons programme.

The statement came amid an Israeli push to resume attacks on Iran.

Pezeshkian has pledged a “severe” response to any aggression.