kidnapping

Venezuela’s Defence Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez has denounced the United States’ move to abduct leader Nicolas Maduro as a “cowardly kidnapping”, adding that some of the president’s bodyguards were killed “in cold blood”, as well as military personnel and civilians on the Venezuelan side.

In his televised statement on Sunday, Padrino Lopez also endorsed a Supreme Court ruling that appointed Vice President Delcy Rodriguez — who also serves as oil minister — as acting president for 90 days.

US President Donald Trump threatened that Rodriguez will pay a “very big price” if she doesn’t cooperate with Washington. “If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro,” Trump told The Atlantic in a telephone interview.

US forces attacked Caracas in the early hours of Saturday, bombing military targets and spiriting away Maduro and his wife to face federal narco-trafficking charges in New York. The Venezuelan president was escorted off a plane at Stewart Air National Guard Base in New York state and taken to a Brooklyn jail.

He is due to make his first appearance on Monday in Manhattan’s federal court.

US to use oil blockade to leverage change in Venezuela

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday suggested that Washington would not take a day-to-day role in governing Venezuela other than enforcing an existing “oil quarantine”, using that leverage to press policy changes in the country.

Rubio’s statements seemed designed to temper concerns, a day after Trump announced the US would “run” the oil-rich nation. The Trump administration’s actions drew unease from parts of his own Republican Party coalition, including an “America First” base that is opposed to foreign interventions, as well as from observers who recalled past nation-building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rubio dismissed such criticism, saying that Trump’s intent had been misunderstood by a “foreign policy establishment” that was fixated on the Middle East.

Al Jazeera’s Phil Lavelle, reporting from Doral, Florida in the US, said Trump had been elected on an “America First” policy centred around no engagement in foreign wars or sending US service personnel into danger.

“Now we’ve got this situation where he said, less than 24 hours ago, ‘We’re not afraid of putting boots on the ground,’” Lavelle said.

Protests took place in cities across the US against Trump’s military action in Venezuela. Hundreds gathered in the rain in downtown Los Angeles, carrying signs saying “Stop bombing Venezuela now!” and “No blood for oil”.

“I stand against US imperialism altogether. They want oil … They want to help the corporate billionaires. Bombing is just their means to building power like that, of taking control. So again, I’m against it,” said one protester named Niven.

Trump on Saturday delivered a speech in which he made little mention of the so-called “war on drugs” – which for months had been his main justification for bombing Venezuelan ship and assets – but argued that Venezuela had “stolen” oil from the US and that it would now be taken back.

The United Nations special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, Ben Saul, said the US actions in Venezuela were illegal, calling on Trump to be investigated and impeached. “Every Venezuelan life lost is a violation of the right to life. President Trump should be impeached and investigated for the alleged killings,” he said in a social media post.

The UN Security Council (UNSC) was set to meet on Monday to discuss the situation in Venezuela. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he was “deeply alarmed” by the US strikes, which a spokesperson said could “constitute a dangerous precedent”.

Uncertainty in Venezuela after Maduro’s abduction

Some Venezuelans in Caracas have welcomed the US’s seizure of Maduro, but others said the action could worsen conflict in the country, with protests denouncing the US taking place.

“There should be a positive change for all Venezuelans, because it has been 28 years of government, and now is the time for transition in this country,” said Ronald Gaulee, a motorcycle rider in Caracas.

Merchant Juan Carlos Rincon was more cautious. “The truth is that there is a lot of manipulation behind all this,” he told the Reuters news agency. “We want to be at peace, move forward, and for Venezuela to have, like any other country, the right to choose its own destiny and its own leaders.”

Baker Franklin Jimenez said he would heed the government’s call to defend the country. “If they took him away, I think they shouldn’t have done so, because this will create an even worse conflict than the one we have now,” he said. “And as for the bombings and all that, we have to go out, we all have to go out into the streets to defend our homeland, to defend ourselves.”

Some Venezuelans decided to flee the country amid the uncertainty, crossing the Venezuela-Colombia border to reach the Colombian town of Cucuta. Karina Rey described a “tense situation” in the Venezuelan city of San Cristobal, just across the border.

“There are long lines, and people are very paranoid, or on edge, over food. Supermarkets are closing,” Rey told Al Jazeera. “The lines are very long just to stock up on food, because we don’t know what will happen in the coming weeks. We’re waiting to see what happens.”

Al Jazeera’s Alessandro Rampietti, reporting from Cucuta, said many Venezuelans there initially felt jubilant after Maduro was ousted. “But that quickly shifted to uncertainty,” he said.

“Several people said they expected the United States to immediately bring opposition leader Maria Corina Machado back into the country, along with Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, who many Venezuelans believe won the last presidential election,” Rampietti continued.

“Instead, with much of the existing leadership still in place and with Vice President Delcy Rodriguez appointed as interim leader, there is growing fear about what could happen next.”

Tiziano Breda, a senior analyst at the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, said what happens next hinges on the response of Venezuela’s government and armed forces.

“So far, they’ve avoided direct confrontation with US forces, but deployments on the streets point to efforts to contain unrest,” he said. “A smooth transition remains unlikely, and the risk of resistance from pro-regime armed groups – including elements within the military and Colombian rebel networks active in the country – remains high.”

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.

Caracas, January 3, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan popular movements and international solidarity organizations have taken to the streets to condemn a US military attack against the country and the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro.

Following the bombings and special operations raid in the early hours of January 3, pro-government collectives began to concentrate in Caracas near Miraflores Presidential Palace. Demonstrations were likewise registered in many other Venezuelan cities.

“Long live a free and revolutionary Venezuela,” grassroots leader Mariela Machado told press in the Caracas demonstration. “International institutions must stop being accomplices and take a stance because our people are being massacred.”

She went on to state that “the US government is not the world’s police” and demanded the safe return of the Venezuelan President.

Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello and Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López published statements in the early morning hours, urging the international community to take a stance against the US actions and calling for popular mobilization.

International solidarity organizations also set up emergency rallies in dozens of cities, including London, New York and several Latin American capitals.

US forces began the attack at 2 am local time with missiles fired against a number of Venezuela military installations in the capital and surrounding areas. Social media users broadcast fires and large columns of smoke emerging from Fuerte Tiuna, the main military installation in Caracas.

The port in La Guaira, an airbase in Higuerote, Miranda State, and a radar facility in El Hatillo, Eastern Caracas, were among the targets reportedly struck. Venezuelan authorities have not disclosed information concerning damages and casualties.

A few hours after the first bombings, US President Donald Trump announced that a special operations raid had kidnapped Maduro and first lady Cilia Flores and that the two were “flown out of the country.” The pair was reportedly taken aboard the USS Iwo Jima warship.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that Maduro and Flores were indicted in a New York District Court on charges including “narco-terrorism conspiracy.” In recent years, US officials have repeatedly accused Maduro and other Venezuelan high-ranking officials of “flooding” the US with drugs. However, they have not presented any court-tested evidence, while UN and DEA reports have shown Venezuela to be a marginal player in global drug trafficking.

In a Saturday press conference, Trump stated that the US will “run” Venezuela until there are conditions for a “safe, proper and judicious transition.” He added that Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other officials will be charged with “running the country.”

The US president reiterated claims to Venezuelan oil resources and threatened that Venezuela would have to “reimburse” the US for oil nationalizations and damages from alleged drug trafficking. Trump went on to say that Rubio had held talks with Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, alleging that she had been sworn in and had vowed to accept US dictates.

Trump dismissed the idea of María Corina Machado taking power in the South American nation, affirming that the far-right leader lacks on-the-ground support. 

Washington’s military attack and special operations raid followed months of buildup and escalating regime-change threats against Caracas. US forces have amassed the largest military deployment in decades in the Caribbean Sea while also conducting dozens of bombings against small boats accused of narcotics trafficking.

The military operation drew widespread international condemnation from Latin America and elsewhere.

“The US bombings and Maduro’s capture are unacceptable,” Brazilian President Lula da Silva wrote on social media. “These actions are an affront to Venezuelan sovereignty and set an extremely dangerous precedent for the international community.”

Colombian, Mexican and Cuban leaders were among those to strongly reject US actions and demand respect for international law.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reportedly held a phone conversation with Vice President Rodríguez, reiterating Moscow’s support for the Venezuelan government and a call for dialogue.

For its part, the Chinese foreign ministry issued a statement “fiercely condemning the use of force against a sovereign nation.” Beijing urged Washington to cease its violations of international law and respect other countries’ sovereignty.

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil held multiple phone conversations with counterparts from different countries who expressed their condemnation of the US attacks as violations of international law.

Caracas has likewise requested an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council. Two prior meetings called by Venezuela saw China, Russia and other countries criticize the US’ military actions but ultimately no resolutions were put forward.