Maduro

GUATIRE, Venezuela — The United States and Venezuelan governments said Friday that they were exploring the possibility of restoring diplomatic relations between the two countries, and that a delegation from the Trump administration arrived in the South American nation Friday.

The small team of U.S. diplomats and diplomatic security officials traveled to Venezuela to make a preliminary assessment about the potential reopening of the U.S. Embassy in Caracas, the State Department said in a statement.

Venezuela’s government on Friday acknowledged that U.S. diplomats had traveled to the country and announced that it will send a delegation to Washington, but it did not say when.

In a statement, Delcy Rodríguez’s government said it “has decided to initiate an exploratory process of a diplomatic nature with the Government of the United States of America, aimed at the re-establishment of diplomatic missions in both countries.”

President Trump has placed pressure on Rodriguez and other former Maduro loyalists now in power to advance his vision for the future of the nation — a major aspect of which would be reinvigorating the role of U.S. oil companies in a country with the worlds’ largest proven reserves of crude oil.

The U.S. and Venezuela cut off ties in 2019, after the first Trump administration said opposition leader Juan Guaidó was the rightful president of Venezuela, spiking tensions. Despite the assertions, Maduro maintained his firm grip on power.

The Trump administration shuttered the embassy in Caracas and moved diplomats to nearby Bogotá, Colombia. U.S. officials have traveled to Caracas a handful of times since then. The latest visit came last February when Trump’s envoy for special missions, Richard Grenell met with Maduro. The visit resulted in six detained Americans being freed by the government.

Garcia Cano and Lee write for the Associated Press. Lee reported from Washington. AP reporter Megan Janetsky contributed to this report from Mexico City.

CARACAS, Venezuela — At the White House, President Trump vows American intervention in Venezuela will pour billions of dollars into the country’s infrastructure, revive its once-thriving oil industry and eventually deliver a new age of prosperity to the Latin American nation.

Here at a sprawling street market in the capital, though, utility worker Ana Calderón simply wishes she could afford the ingredients to make a pot of soup.

“Food is incredibly expensive,” says Calderón, noting rapidly rising prices that have celery selling for twice as much as just a few weeks ago and two pounds of meat going for more than $10, or 25 times the country’s monthly minimum wage. “Everything is so expensive.”

Venezuelans digesting news of the United States’ brazen capture of former President Nicolás Maduro are hearing grandiose promises of future economic prowess even as they live through the crippling economic realities of today.

“They know that the outlook has significantly changed but they don’t see it yet on the ground. What they’re seeing is repression. They’re seeing a lot of confusion,” says Luisa Palacios, a Venezuelan-born economist and former oil executive who is a research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. “People are hopeful and expecting that things are going to change but that doesn’t mean that things are going to change right now.”

Whatever hope exists over the possibility of U.S. involvement improving Venezuela’s economy is paired with the crushing daily truths most here live. People typically work two, three or more jobs just to survive, and still cupboards and refrigerators are nearly bare. Children go to bed early to avoid the pang of hunger; parents choose between filling a prescription and buying groceries. An estimated eight in 10 people live in poverty.

It has led millions to flee the country for elsewhere.

Those who remain are concentrated in Venezuela’s cities, including its capital, Caracas, where the street market in the Catia neighborhood once was so busy that shoppers bumped into one another and dodged oncoming traffic. But as prices have climbed in recent days, locals have increasingly stayed away from the market stalls, reducing the chaos to a relative hush.

Neila Roa, carrying her 5-month-old baby, sells packs of cigarettes to passersby, having to monitor daily fluctuations in currency to adjust the price.

“Inflation and more inflation and devaluation,” Roa says. “It’s out of control.”

Roa could not believe the news of Maduro’s capture. Now, she wonders what will come of it. She thinks it would take “a miracle” to fix Venezuela’s economy.

“What we don’t know is whether the change is for better or for worse,” she says. “We’re in a state of uncertainty. We have to see how good it can be, and how much it can contribute to our lives.”

Trump has said the U.S. will distribute some of the proceeds from the sale of Venezuelan oil back to its population. But that commitment so far largely appears to be focused on America’s interests in extracting more oil from Venezuela, selling more U.S.-made goods to the country and repairing the electricity grid.

The White House is hosting a meeting Friday with U.S. oil company executives to discuss Venezuela, which the Trump administration has been pressuring to open its vast-but-struggling oil industry more widely to American investment and know-how. In an interview with the New York Times, Trump acknowledged that reviving the country’s oil industry would take years.

“The oil will take a while,” he said.

Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves. The country’s economy depends on them.

Maduro’s predecessor, the fiery Hugo Chávez, elected in 1998, expanded social services, including housing and education, thanks to the country’s oil bonanza, which generated revenues estimated at some $981 billion between 1999 and 2011 as crude prices soared. But corruption, a decline in oil production and economic policies led to a crisis that became evident in 2012.

Chávez appointed Maduro as his successor before dying of cancer in 2013. The country’s political, social and economic crisis, entangled with plummeting oil production and prices, marked the entirety of Maduro’s presidency. Millions were pushed into poverty. The middle class virtually disappeared. And more than 7.7 million people left their homeland.

Albert Williams, an economist at Nova Southeastern University, says returning the energy sector to its heyday would have a dramatic spillover effect in a country in which oil is the dominant industry, sparking the opening of restaurants, stores and other businesses. What’s unknown, he says, is whether such a revitalization happens, how long it would take and how a government built by Maduro will adjust to the change in power.

“That’s the billion-dollar question,” Williams says. “But if you improve the oil industry, you improve the country.”

The International Monetary Fund estimates Venezuela’s inflation rate is a staggering 682%, the highest of any country for which it has data. That has sent the cost of food beyond what many can afford.

Many public sector workers survive on roughly $160 per month, while the average private sector employee earned about $237 last year. Venezuela’s monthly minimum wage of 130 bolivars, or $0.40, has not increased since 2022, putting it well below the United Nations’ measure of extreme poverty of $2.15 a day.

The currency crisis led Maduro to declare an “economic emergency” in April.

Usha Haley, a Wichita State University economist who studies emerging markets, says for those hurting the most, there is no immediate sign of change.

“Short-term, most Venezuelans will probably not feel any economic relief,” she says. “A single oil sale will not fix the country’s rampant inflation and currency collapse. Jobs, prices and exchange rates will probably not shift quickly.”

In a country that has seen as much strife as Venezuela has in recent years, locals are accustomed to doing what they have to in order to get through the day, so much so that many utter the same expression

“Resolver,” they say in Spanish, or “figure it out,” shorthand for the jury-rigged nature of life here, in which every transaction, from boarding a bus to buying a child’s medicine, involves a delicate calculation.

Here at the market, the smell of fish, fresh onions and car exhaust combine. Calderon, making her way through, faces freshly skyrocketing prices, saying “the difference is huge,” as the country’s official currency has rapidly declined against its unofficial one, the U.S. dollar.

Unable to afford all the ingredients for her soup, she left with a bunch of celery but no meat.

Cano and Sedensky write for the Associated Press. Sedensky reported from New York. AP writer Josh Boak in Washington contributed to this report.

In explaining the U.S. incursion into Venezuela to capture President Nicolás Maduro, President Trump accused Maduro and his wife of conducting a “campaign of deadly narco-terrorism against the United States and its citizens,” and Maduro of being “the kingpin of a vast criminal network responsible for trafficking colossal amounts of deadly and illicit drugs into the United States.”

“Hundreds of thousands — over the years — of Americans died because of him,” Trump said hours after U.S. special forces dragged Maduro from his bedroom during a raid that killed more than 50 Venezuelan and Cuban military and security forces.

Experts in regional narcotics trafficking said Trump was clearly trying to justify the U.S. deposing a sitting head of state by arguing that Maduro was not just a corrupt foreign leader harming his own country but also a major player in the sweeping epidemic of overdoses that has devastated American communities.

They also said they are highly suspicious of those claims, which were offered up with little evidence and run counter to years of independent research into regional drug trafficking patterns. Countries such as Mexico and Colombia play much larger roles, and fentanyl — not the cocaine Maduro is charged with trafficking — causes the vast majority of American deaths, the research shows.

Maduro’s indictment spells out some overt criminal acts allegedly committed by him, including selling diplomatic passwords to known drug traffickers so they could avoid military and law enforcement scrutiny in Venezuela.

Attorney General Pam Bondi arrives at the U.S. Capitol on Monday to brief top lawmakers after President Trump directed U.S. forces to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

(Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press)

It alleges other crimes in broad strokes, such as Maduro and his wife allegedly ordering “kidnappings, beatings, and murders” against people who “undermined their drug trafficking operation.”

However, Trump’s claims about the scope and impact of Maduro’s alleged actions go far beyond what the indictment details, experts said.

“It’s very hard to respond to the level of bulls— that is being promoted by this administration, because there’s no evidence given whatsoever, and it goes against what we think we know as specialists,” said Paul Gootenberg, a professor emeritus of history and sociology at Stony Brook University who has long studied the cocaine trade. “All of it goes against what we think we know.”

“President Trump’s claim that hundreds of thousands of Americans have died due to drug trafficking linked to Maduro is inaccurate,” said Philip Berry, a former United Kingdom counter-narcotics official and a visiting senior lecturer at the Centre for Defence Studies at King’s College London.

“[F]entanyl, not cocaine, has been responsible for most drug-related deaths in the U.S. over the past decade,” he said.

Jorja Leap, a social welfare professor and executive director of the UCLA Social Justice Research Partnership who has spent years interviewing gang members and drug dealers in the L.A. region, said Trump’s hyper-focus on Maduro, Venezuela and the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as driving forces within the U.S. drug trade not only belies reality but also belittles the work of researchers who know better.

“Aside from making it a political issue, this is disrespecting the work of researchers, social activists, community organizers and law enforcement who have worked on this problem on the ground and understand every aspect of it,” Leap said. “This is political theater.”

Venezuela’s role

The U.S. State Department’s 2024 International Narcotics Strategy Report called Venezuela “a major transit country for cocaine shipments via aerial, terrestrial, and maritime routes,” with most of the drugs originating in Colombia and passing through other Central American countries or Caribbean islands on their way to the U.S.

Federal officers stand guard outside the Metropolitan Detention Center.

(Leonardo Munoz / AFP via Getty Images)

However, the same report said recent estimates put the volume of cocaine trafficked through Venezuela at about 200 to 250 metric tons per year, or “roughly 10 to 13 percent of estimated global production.” According to the United Nations 2025 World Drug Report, most cocaine from Colombia is instead trafficked “along the Pacific Coast northward,” including through Ecuador.

The same report and others make clear Venezuela does not play a substantial role in fentanyl production or trafficking.

The State Department’s 2024 report said Mexico was “the sole significant source of illicit fentanyl … significantly affecting” the U.S., and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s 2025 National Drug Threat Assessment said Mexican organizations “dominate fentanyl transportation into and through the United States.”

The Trump administration suggested Venezuela has played a larger role in cocaine production and transport in recent years under Maduro, who they allege has partnered with major trafficking organizations in Venezuela, Colombia and Mexico.

Maduro pleaded not guilty at an arraignment in Manhattan federal court this week, saying he was “kidnapped” by the U.S.

While many experts and other political observers acknowledge Maduro’s corruption and believe he has profited from drug trafficking, they question the Trump administration’s characterization of his actions as a “narco-terrorist” assault on the U.S.

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), the Trump ally turned foe who this week stepped down from her House seat, condemned the raid as more about controlling Venezuela’s oil than dismantling the drug trade, in part by noting that far greater volumes of much deadlier drugs arrive to the U.S. from Mexico.

“If it was about drugs killing Americans, they would be bombing Mexican cartels,” Greene posted.

The Trump administration pushed back against such arguments, even as Trump has threatened other nations in the region.

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administrator Terry Cole said on Fox News that “at a low estimate,” 100 tons of cocaine have been produced and shipped to the U.S. by groups working with Maduro.

Expert input

Gootenberg said there’s no doubt that some Colombian cocaine crosses the border into Venezuela, but that much of it goes onward to Europe and growing markets in Brazil and Asia, and there’s no evidence large amounts reach the U.S.

“The whole thing is a fiction, and I do believe they know that,” he said of the Trump administration.

Berry said Venezuela is “a transit country for cocaine” but “a relatively minor player in the international drug trade” overall, with only a “small portion” of the cocaine that passes through it reaching the U.S.

Both also questioned the Trump administration labeling Maduro’s government a “narco-terrorism” regime. Gootenberg said the term arose decades ago to describe governments whose national revenues were substantially connected to drug proceeds, such as Bolivia in the 1980s, but it was always a “propagandistic idea” and had gone “defunct” as modern governments, including Venezuela’s, diversified their economies.

The Trump administration’s move to revive the term comes as no surprise given “the way they pick up atavistic labels that they think will be useful, like ‘Make America Great Again,’” Gootenberg said. But “there’s no there there.”

Berry said use of the term “narco-terrorism” has oversimplified the “diverse and context-specific connections” between the drug industry and global terrorism, and as a result “led to the conflation of counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism efforts, frequently resulting in hyper-militarised and ineffective policy responses.”

Gootenberg said Maduro was a corrupt authoritarian who stole an election and certainly had knowledge of drug trafficking through his country, but the notion he’d somehow become a “mastermind” with leverage over transnational drug organizations is far-fetched.

Several experts said they doubted his capture would have a sizable effect on the U.S. drug trade.

“Negligible. Marginal. Whatever word you want to use to indicate the most minor of impacts,” said Leap, of UCLA.

The Sinaloa Cartel — one of Maduro’s alleged partners, according to his indictment — is a major player in Southern California’s drug trade, with the Mexican Mafia serving as middleman between the cartel and local drug gangs, Leap said. But “if anyone tries to connect this to what is happening now in Venezuela, they do not understand the nature of drug distribution, street gangs, the Mexican Mafia, everything that goes on in Southern California. There is no connection.”

Berry said in the wake of Maduro’s capture, “numerous state and nonstate actors involved in the illegal narcotics trade remain unaffected.”

On Saturday, United States military forces carried out a dramatic strike in Venezuela that resulted in the capture and forcible removal of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. They were flown to New York and are now in federal custody. Maduro appeared in federal court on drug and weapons charges and pleaded not guilty. Several governments, international legal experts and United Nations officials have described the military operation as an illegal “kidnapping” and a breach of international law. The UN secretary-general warned that it sets a “dangerous precedent”, undermining foundational norms of sovereignty under the UN Charter.

Yet, as Washington justifies its operation primarily with rhetoric about oil and narcotics, a deeper inspection reveals another dynamic: This was first and foremost an ideological battle, shaped by domestic political incentives in the US – in particular the strategic influence of Florida’s electorate and its political elite.

Oil is not the prime motive

The mainstream narrative frames Venezuela’s enormous oil reserves – officially among the largest proven in the world at roughly 298 billion to 303 billion barrels – as the core strategic prize. But a closer, evidence-based analysis shows the immediate economic rationale to be weak.

US crude imports from Venezuela, once significant, have dwindled to about 220,000 barrels per day (bpd) as of 2024, representing less than 4 percent of US crude imports. By contrast, imports from Canada dominate, accounting for roughly 60 to 63 percent of US crude import needs, and US production of light crude has risen sharply, reducing dependence on foreign sources. This shift undermines claims that Venezuelan oil alone is a strategic imperative.

Why does Venezuelan crude matter at all? The answer lies in its composition. Venezuelan oil is heavy and sour, the type that many US Gulf Coast refineries were designed to process. This, however, reflects refinery configuration rather than any compelling immediate strategic case. Furthermore, Venezuelan oil infrastructure has deteriorated over years of underinvestment with output falling from about 3.5 million bpd to roughly 1 million bpd by 2025, and a meaningful revival would require many years of sustained and consistent investment. Markets reacted only modestly to the capture of Maduro with global oil prices remaining relatively stable, suggesting that oil was not the main driver of the operation.

Not drugs either: Pretext vs reality

US officials have cited drug trafficking and “narcoterrorism” as part of the justification for the intervention. Maduro and other senior Venezuelan officials are indicted in the US on charges linked to alleged cocaine trafficking, and these accusations have been reiterated in court. However, research by international agencies and independent analysts suggests that, while Venezuelan territory is used as a transit route, it is not a major source of the drugs entering the US, which are overwhelmingly produced and trafficked through Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. This gap between the scale of the drug trade and the rationale invoked has led many analysts to view the narcotics argument as a pretext rather than a primary driver of the operation.

Florida, ideology and domestic political incentives

A more persuasive rationale emerges when the domestic political incentives shaping US foreign policy are examined, particularly the role of Florida’s electorate and elite networks. With 31 electoral votes, Florida remains a pivotal state in presidential elections, where narrow margins mean even modest shifts among key constituencies can determine national outcomes.

This political reality is reinforced by Florida’s large and politically mobilised Latino communities. Cuban American voters have long prioritised anti-communist foreign policy positions while Venezuelan American communities, many of whom settled in the state over the past decade, have expressed strong opposition to authoritarian leftist governance in Caracas. Political scientists note that these constituencies constitute a significant voting bloc in closely contested elections, giving political elites strong incentives to adopt hardline positions against leftist regimes that resonate with these voters.

At the centre of this dynamic stands Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state and a Florida native whose political biography is deeply rooted in opposition to leftist governments in Latin America. Rubio’s family fled communist Cuba, and he has consistently championed confrontational policies towards socialist and authoritarian regimes in the region. Reports suggest that, during negotiations, Maduro offered concessions on oil and economic matters that could have been commercially beneficial, but advisers aligned with Florida’s political interests reportedly pushed for a harder line, prioritising ideological confrontation over economic pragmatism.

Florida’s political ecosystem also includes influential donor networks that have historically supported hawkish foreign policy positions, including well-organised pro-Israel constituencies with leverage at state and national levels. In recent months, high-profile visits by Israeli leaders to Florida and sustained engagement with US political figures have reinforced ideological alignments that frame regimes perceived as hostile to Israel or aligned with its adversaries as challenges requiring decisive responses. The convergence of electoral incentives, ideological commitments and elite networks helps explain why US policy towards Venezuela has been shaped as much by domestic political drivers as by external strategic interests.

Lessons for the Middle East

The implications for Middle Eastern actors are profound.

First, international law appears weakened. The US capture of a sitting head of state without multilateral authorisation underscores a willingness to sidestep international legal norms when domestic political imperatives are prioritised. The ineffectiveness UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force absent Security Council approval or clear self-defence appears to have been discounted, eliciting global concern.

Second, the Middle East’s strategic relevance persists, albeit in an evolving context. While global energy markets are less dependent on Middle Eastern oil than in prior decades, other factors – capital flows, counterterrorism cooperation, strategic geography and enduring security partnerships – maintain the region’s importance. Intensifying US-China competition and Washington’s concern over closer China-Middle East ties will likely continue to anchor US engagement in the region. Israel, for its part, is expected to sustain robust lobbying efforts in Washington and European capitals to preserve its strategic relationships.

Yet the Venezuela episode illustrates that alliances predicated chiefly on energy security can be fragile and ideological and domestic political drivers can abruptly reshape foreign policy priorities. Middle Eastern states must, therefore, pursue a calibrated diplomatic strategy: engaging the US where interests converge while hedging against abrupt shifts driven by internal political calculations.

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

In this episode of the “Decline & Fall” podcast, Alexander Mckay and Kit Klarenberg look at the US empire’s abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the absurd criminal case and the legal challenges ahead.

Mckay and Klarenberg also place the attack on Venezuela within the bigger picture of the Trump administration’s foreign policy.

Source: Decline and Fall

Four observations on the Trump administration’s flagrant lawbreaking in abducting Venezuela’s president, Nicolas Maduro, from Caracas and bringing him to New York to “stand trial” on “narco-terrorism” and firearms charges:

1. It is a sign of quite how much of a rogue state the US has become that Washington isn’t even trying to come up with a plausible reason for kidnapping the Venezuelan president.

In invading Afghanistan, the US said it had to “smoke out” al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden from his mountain lair after the 9/11 attacks. In invading Iraq, the US said it was going to destroy Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction” that threatened Europe. In bombing Libya, the US claimed it was preventing Muammar Gaddafi’s troops from going on a Viagra-fuelled campaign of rape.

Each of these justifications was a transparent falsehood. The Taliban had offered to hand over bin Laden for trial. There were no WMD in Iraq. And the Viagra story was a work of unadulterated fiction.

But earlier US administrations at least had to pretend their actions were driven by humanitarian considerations and the need to maintain international order.

The charges against Maduro are so patently ridiculous you need to be a Trump fanboy, an old-school imperialist or deeply misinformed to buy any of them. No serious monitoring organisation thinks Venezuela is a major trafficker of drugs into the US, or that Maduro is personally responsible for drug-trafficking. Meanwhile, the firearm charges are so preposterous it’s difficult to understand what they even mean.

2. Unlike his predecessors, President Trump has been honest about what the US really wants: control of oil. This is an old-fashioned, colonial resource grab. So why are the media even pretending that there is some kind of “law enforcement” process going on in New York? A head of state has been abducted – that’s the story. Nothing else.

Instead we’re being subjected to ridiculous debates about whether Maduro is “a bad man”, or whether he mismanaged the Venezuelan economy. Sky News used an interview with Britain’s former Labour party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, to harangue him, demanding he condemn Maduro. Why? Precisely to deflect viewers’ attention from the actual story: that in invading Venezuela, the US committed what the Nuremberg trials after the Second World War judged to be the supreme international crime of aggression against another state. Where have you seen any establishment media outlet highlight this point in its coverage?

If Sky and other media are so worried about “bad men” running countries – so concerned that they think international law can be flouted – why are they not haranguing Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper over Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity? Doesn’t that make him a very “bad man”, far worse than anything Maduro is accused of? Why are they not demanding that Starmer and Cooper condemn him before they are allowed to talk about the Middle East?

When Russia invaded Ukraine, the western media did not weigh the justifications for Moscow’s invasion, or offer context, as they are now doing over the lawless attack on Venezuela. They responded with shock and outrage. They were not calm, judicious and analytical. They were indignant. They warned of “Russian expansionism”. They warned of Putin’s “megalomania”. They warned of the threat to international law. They emphasised the right of Ukraine to resist Russia. In many cases, they led the politicians in demanding a stronger response. None of that is visible in the coverage of Maduro’s abduction, or Trump’s lawbreaking.

3. The left is often censured for being slow to denounce non-western powers like China or Russia, or being too wary of military action against them. This is to misunderstand the left’s position. It opposes a unipolar world precisely because that inevitably leads to the kind of destabilising gangsterism just demonstrated by Trump’s attack on Venezuela. It creates a feudal system of one lord, many serfs – but on the global stage.

That is exactly what we see happening now as Trump and Marco Rubio, his secretary of state, mouth off about which country – Colombia, Cuba, Greenland, Mexico – is going to be attacked next. It is exactly why every European leader, from Keir Starmer to EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, sucks up to Trump, however monstrous his latest act. It is exactly why the United Nations secretary general, Antonio Guterres, speaks so limply about the general importance of “the rule of law” rather than articulating a clear denunciation of the crimes the US has just committed.

Hard as it is for westerners to acknowledge, we don’t need a stronger West, we need a weaker one.

But harder still, westerners need to understand that the very concept of “the West” is an illusion. For decades, Europe has been simply hanging on to the coat-tails of a US military behemoth, in the hope that it would protect us. But in a world of diminishing resources, the US is showing quite how ready it is to turn on anyone, including its supposed allies, for a bigger share of global wealth. Just ask Greenland and Denmark.

European states’ true interests lie, not in prostrating themselves before a global overlord, but in a multipolar world, where coalitions of interests need to be forged, where compromises must be reached, not diktats imposed. That requires a foreign policy of transparency and compassion, not conceit and arrogance. Without such a change, in an era of burgeoning nuclear tripwires and growing climate chaos, we are all finished.

4. Washington’s goal is to make Venezuela once again a haven for private US capital. If the new acting president, Delcy Rodriguez, refuses, then Trump has made it clear Venezuela will be kept as an economic basket-case, through continuing sanctions and a US naval blockade, until someone else can be installed who will do US bidding.

Venezuela’s crime – one for which it has been punished for decades – is trying to offer a different economic and social model to America’s rampant, planet-destroying, neoliberal capitalism. The deepest fear of the West’s political and media class is that western publics, subjected to permanent austerity as billionaires grow ever richer off the back of ordinary people’s immiseration, may rise up if they see a different system that looks after its citizens rather than its wealth elite.

Venezuela, with its huge oil reserves, could be precisely such a model – had it not been long strangled by US-imposed sanctions. A quarter of a century ago, Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez, launched a socialist-style “Bolivarian revolution” of popular democracy, economic independence, equitable distribution of revenues, and an end to political corruption. It reduced extreme poverty by more than 70 per cent, halved unemployment, quadrupled the number of people receiving a state pension and schooled the population to reach literacy rates of 100 per cent. Venezuela became the most equal society in Latin America – one reason why millions still turn out to defend Maduro.

Chavez did so by taking the country’s natural resources – its oil and metal ores – out of the hands of a tiny domestic elite that had ruined the country by extracting the national wealth and mostly hoarding or investing it abroad, often in the US. He nationalised major industries, from oil and steel to electricity. Those are the very industries that Maria Corina Machado, the Venezuelan opposition leader feted by the West, wants returned to the parasitic families, like her own, that once ran them privately.

Seeing the way Venezuela has been treated for the past two decades or more should make it clear why European leaders – obedient at all costs to Washington and the corporate elites that rule the West – are so reluctant to even consider nationalising their own public industries, however popular such policies are with electorates.

Britain’s Keir Starmer, who only won the Labour leadership election by promising to nationalise major utilities, ditched his pledge the moment he was elected. None of the traditional main UK parties is offering to renationalise water, rail, energy and mail services, even though surveys regularly show at least three-quarters of the British public support such a move.

The fact is that a unipolar world leaves all of us prey to a rapacious, destructive, US corporate capitalism, which, bit by bit, is destroying our world. The issue isn’t whether Maduro was a good or bad leader of Venezuela – the matter the western establishment media wants us concentrating on. It is how do we put the US back in the box before it is too late for humanity.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

Source: Jonathan Cook Substack

CARACAS, Venezuela — Venezuela’s opposition supporters have long hoped for the day when Nicolás Maduro is no longer in power — a dream that was fulfilled when the U.S. military whisked the authoritarian leader away. But while Maduro is in jail in New York on drug trafficking charges, the leaders of his repressive administration remain in charge.

The nation’s opposition — backed by consecutive Republican and Democratic administrations in the U.S. — for years vowed to immediately replace Maduro with one of their own and restore democracy to the oil-rich country. But President Trump delivered them a heavy blow by allowing Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, to assume control.

Meanwhile, most opposition leaders, including Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado, are in exile or prison.

“They were clearly unimpressed by the sort of ethereal magical realism of the opposition, about how if they just gave Maduro a push, it would just be this instant move toward democracy,” David Smilde, a Tulane University professor who has studied Venezuela for three decades, said of the Trump administration.

The U.S. seized Maduro and first lady Cilia Flores in a military operation Saturday, removing them both from their home on a military base in Venezuela’s capital, Caracas. Hours later, Trump said the U.S. would “run” Venezuela and expressed skepticism that Machado could ever be its leader.

“She doesn’t have the support within, or the respect within, the country,” Trump told reporters. “She’s a very nice woman, but she doesn’t have the respect.”

Ironically, Machado’s unending praise for the American president, including dedicating her Nobel Peace Prize to Trump and her backing of U.S. campaigns to deport Venezuelan migrants and attack alleged drug traffickers in international waters, has lost her some support at home.

The rightful winner of Venezuela’s presidential election

Machado rose to become Maduro’s strongest opponent in recent years, but his government barred her from running for office to prevent her from challenging — and likely beating — him in the 2024 presidential election. She chose retired ambassador Edmundo González Urrutia to represent her on the ballot.

Officials loyal to the ruling party declared Maduro the winner mere hours after the polls closed, but Machado’s well-organized campaign stunned the nation by collecting detailed tally sheets showing González had defeated Maduro by a 2-to-1 margin.

The U.S. and other nations recognized González as the legitimate winner.

However, Venezuelans identify Machado, not González, as the winner, and the charismatic opposition leader has remained the voice of the campaign, pushing for international support and insisting her movement will replace Maduro.

In her first televised interview since Maduro’s capture, Machado effusively praised Trump and failed to acknowledge his snub of her opposition movement in the latest transition of power.

“I spoke with President Trump on Oct. 10, the same day the prize was announced, not since then,” she told Fox News on Monday. “What he has done as I said is historic, and it’s a huge step toward a democratic transition.”

Hopes for a new election

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday seemed to walk back Trump’s assertion that the U.S. would “run” Venezuela. In interviews, Rubio insisted that Washington will use control of Venezuela’s oil industry to force policy changes, and called its current government illegitimate. The country is home to the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves.

Neither Trump nor Rodríguez have said when, or if, elections might take place in Venezuela.

Venezuela’s constitution requires an election within 30 days whenever a president becomes “permanently unavailable” to serve. Reasons listed include death, resignation, removal from office or “abandonment” of duties as declared by the National Assembly. That electoral timeline was rigorously followed when Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez, died of cancer in 2013.

On Tuesday, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a close Trump ally who traveled with the president on Air Force One on Sunday, said he believes an election will happen but did not specify when or how.

“We’re going to build the country up – infrastructure wise – crescendoing with an election that will be free,” the South Carolina Republican told reporters.

But Maduro loyalists in the high court Saturday, citing another provision of the constitution, declared Maduro’s absence “temporary” meaning there is no election requirement. Instead, the vice president — which is not an elected position — takes over for up to 90 days, with a provision to extend to six months if approved by the National Assembly, which is controlled by the ruling party.

Challenges lie ahead for the opposition

In its ruling, Venezuela’s Supreme Court made no mention of the 180-day limit, leading to speculation that Rodríguez could try to cling to power as she seeks to unite ruling party factions and shield it from what would certainly be a stiff electoral challenge.

Machado on Monday criticized Rodríguez as “one the main architects of torture, persecution, corruption, narco-trafficking … certainly not an individual that can be trusted by international investors.”

Even if an election takes place, Machado and González would first have to find a way back into Venezuela.

González has been in exile in Spain since September 2024 and Machado left Venezuela last month when she appeared in public for the first time in 11 months to receive her Nobel Prize in Norway.

Ronal Rodríguez, a researcher at the Venezuela Observatory in Colombia’s Universidad del Rosario, said the Trump administration’s decision to work with Rodríguez could harm the nation’s “democratic spirit.”

“What the opposition did in the 2024 election was to unite with a desire to transform the situation in Venezuela through democratic means, and that is embodied by María Corina Machado and, obviously, Edmundo González Urrutia,” he said. “To disregard that is to belittle, almost to humiliate, Venezuelans.”

Cano writes for the Associated Press.

By all accounts so far, the planning and preparations for the operation to capture Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro mirrored, to a degree, that of the raid that led to the death of Al Qaeda founder Osama Bin Laden. However, one asset that featured prominently in the Bin Laden mission looks to have been notably absent in the force that descended on Caracas over the weekend: stealthy Black Hawk helicopters. There are clear reasons why this was not the case, but it also prompts questions about the current status of those helicopters and possible successor platforms.

Videos shot from the ground during the mission to capture Maduro, as well as his wife, dubbed Operation Absolute Resolve, show typical special operations MH-60 Black Hawks and MH-47 Chinooks belonging to the U.S. Army’s 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR), better known as the Night Stalkers. Some of the MH-60s were in a unique armed configuration, called the Direct Action Penetrator (DAP), which you can read more about here.

The 160th SOAR’s publicly acknowledged helicopter fleets also include AH-6 and MH-6 Little Birds, which do not appear to have been present during the operation. There has been no confirmation of any other helicopters taking part directly in the operation to snatch Maduro this past weekend.

Stealth Hawk Status

The stealthy Black Hawks used during the Bin Laden raid belong to an adjacent highly classified realm of special operations aviation, with units that have been known by various names over the years, like the Flight Concepts Division (FCD) and now the Aviation Technology Office (ATO). The origins of the ‘Stealth Hawk’ concept itself trace back to the 1970s.

Back in 2020, TWZ published what still looks to be the only known picture of a Black Hawk variant in a stealthy configuration, or at least mocked up to reflect one. We will come back to all of this later on.

The current status of the U.S. military’s Stealth Hawk fleet is unknown. The two examples employed during the Bin Laden raid have been described as effectively experimental, exotic in their outward appearance, and as having been pulled out of storage at Area 51 for that operation.

In his 2015 book on the secretive U.S. Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), Relentless Strike, author Sean Naylor wrote:

“The stealth Black Hawk gained almost mythical status, like a unicorn. ‘I remember first hearing about it … in 2000 to 2001,’ said a Delta source. The program quickly gained traction. ‘I remember in 2004 hearing that it was a line item in the budget,’ he said. Knowledge of the special access program was on a strictly need-to-know basis, and hardly anyone needed to know. Shortly thereafter the 160th regimental leadership came looking to 1st Battalion—the core unit of Task Force Brown—for two crews to go down to Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, and start training on the new helicopters. In the end, one crew went after a couple of pilots volunteered. ‘I never saw them again,’ said a 160th source. ‘They’d be permanently assigned out there.’ The program became more formalized. The aircraft were based at Nellis [actually Area 51], but 160th crews trained on them at some of the military’s other vast landholdings in the Southwest: Area 51; China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station in California; and Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona. U.S. Special Operations Command planned to create a fleet of four and make them the centerpiece of a new covered aviation unit in Nevada. By 2011 Special Operations Command had canceled that plan, but the first two stealth helicopters still existed and certain 1st Battalion crews would rotate down to Nellis to train on them.”

TWZ cannot independently confirm the content in Naylor’s book.

Past reports had said the unique features of the versions employed in 2011 made them challenging to fly, to begin with, and that the decision to use them at all was made reluctantly based on other operational considerations. There are claims that then-President Barack Obama was unaware that they even existed before the mission planning was well underway. One of the helicopters was lost during the mission, and it is thought that only two existed prior to it.

Rob O’Neill reveals the story of secret helicopters that even the President didn’t know about

A much improved iteration of the Stealth Hawk concept, sometimes called Ghost Hawks (not to be confused with the Air Force’s unrelated HH-60Us that are also sometimes referred to by that name) or ‘Jedi Rides,’ is said to have emerged after the Bin Laden raid. How many total variations may have been developed is not known.

The extent to which Stealth Hawks of any type have been employed operationally in the past is another unknown. In Relentless Strike, Naylor wrote that newer versions of these helicopters had been used during a failed attempt to rescue American and other hostages from ISIS in Syria in 2014.

Last year, The New York Times reported that unspecified “stealth rotary aircraft” were part of a quick reaction force embarked on U.S. Navy ships positioned somewhere in the vicinity of North Korea during a botched clandestine mission in that country in 2019. The story does not explicitly refer to them as Black Hawk variants or otherwise describe them. None of the backup forces were employed in the end, according to the Times‘ report, which remains very much unconfirmed overall.

There is also the reality that a helicopter matching this description has never been seen. If they existed in any sort of quantities, there would be a decent chance that they would be spotted, even in grainy videos, at some point, as they would need to train with operators. It’s possible that a small handful of more advanced Stealth Hawk types are operational, but are tightly contained to highly secure locales and training areas in order to remain hidden.

Whether or not stealth Black Hawks still exist in U.S. inventory, the underlying requirement for a rotary-wing aircraft able to get in and out of confined and otherwise complex locations, and do so with as low a possibility of detection as possible, would not have gone away, especially for supporting covert and clandestine special operations. TWZ has also previously delved in great detail into what is publicly known about U.S. military efforts to develop larger, stealthy, short and/or vertical takeoff and landing capable transport aircraft to support these same kinds of operations.

The Helicopters Of Absolute Resolve

The full force package used in Absolute Resolve included a large array of crewed and uncrewed fixed-wing aircraft, with a heavy emphasis on stealthy types, as well as naval assets off the coast. Other helicopters were used to support the mission, but we only know of the 160th SOAR MH-60s and MH-47s taking part in missions inside Venezuelan airspace. Approximately 200 special operators, led by the Army’s Delta Force, made up the ground component of the operation.

“As the night began, the helicopters took off with the extraction force, which included law enforcement officers, and began their flight into Venezuela at 100 feet above the water,” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan “Razin” Caine had said during a press conference on Saturday. “Those forces were protected by aircraft from the United States Marines, the United States Navy, the United States Air Force, and the Air National Guard. The force included F-22s, F-35s, F[/A]-18s, EA-18s, E-2s, B-1 bombers, and other support aircraft, as well as numerous remotely piloted drones.”

The drone component of the force is known to have included at least one, and possibly two, stealthy RQ-170 Sentinels. Some of those secretive uncrewed aircraft are also understood to have surveilled Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in the lead-up to the raid in 2011, and to have been overhead while it occurred. This is just one of the parallels between that mission and Operation Absolute Resolve.

“Elite U.S. troops, including the Army’s Delta Force, created an exact replica of Maduro’s safe house and practiced how they would enter the strongly fortified residence. The CIA had a small team on the ground starting in August who were able to provide insight into Maduro’s pattern of life that made grabbing him seamless, according to one source familiar with the matter,” according to a report from Reuters. “Two other sources [said] … the intelligence agency also had an asset close to Maduro who would monitor his movements and was poised to pinpoint his exact location as the operation unfolded.”

“Because of the intelligence gathered by the [CIA] team, the United States knew where Mr. Maduro moved, what he ate and even what pets he kept,” The New York Times separately reported. “That information was critical to the ensuing military operation, a pre-dawn raid Saturday by elite Army Delta Force commandos, the riskiest U.S. military operation of its kind since members of the Navy’s SEAL Team 6 killed Osama bin Laden in a safe house in Pakistan in 2011.”

Though largely absent during the operation to capture Maduro, we know that Venezuela’s air defenses were a major factor in the planning. TWZ had previously explored how the Venezuelan military’s air defense capabilities, while limited, could still present real threats.

“As the force began to approach Caracas, the Joint Air Component began dismantling and disabling the air defense systems in Venezuela, employing weapons to ensure the safe passage of the helicopters into the target area,” Gen. Caine had also said on Saturday. “The goal of our air component is, was, and always will be to protect the helicopters and the ground force and get them to the target and get them home.”

Broadly speaking, the extremely high-profile nature of Operation Absolute Resolve and risk calculus would certainly point to an environment where using a highly specialized asset like a Stealth Hawk, designed to be more survivable in higher-threat conditions, would be warranted. This is further underscored by the use of the RQ-170s, as well as stealthy F-22 and F-35 fighters, and EA-18G and EC-130H electronic warfare aircraft, as TWZ has previously noted.

At the same time, there are glaring reasons why the decision would have been made not to employ Stealth Hawks, or any other similar rotary wing platforms, if they even exist, during Operation Absolute Resolve.

For one, these would be extremely low-density assets with highly specialized capabilities. The U.S. government could easily be reluctant to expose them on any level, unless it is absolutely necessary. As already mentioned, the existence of operational stealthy Black Hawks only emerged after one of them went down, and not as a result of enemy fire, something that is always a potential risk. U.S. forces were not able to secure that crash site after the helicopter was partially demolished using explosives on the ground, and Pakistani authorities had custody of the wreckage for more than two weeks afterward. It was reported that China and possibly Russia got to examine the tail section and its radar-absorbent coating. This would have compromised the operational security around the design, at least to a degree.

CNN: Raid glitch reveals secret helicopter

Even more importantly, various specific aspects of Operation Absolute Resolve would have factored into the decision. It’s not surprising at all that larger MH-47s were included in the main body of a force used to bring 200 troops to the objective in Caracas. This is a remarkably large force to have to convey in an aerial assault into a tight area. MH-47s can carry many more operators than an MH-60. Even if the Stealth Hawks exist, there may not be enough of them to even come close to moving this number of troops, and a mixed force is out of the question. It’s all stealth or not, as one non-stealthy helicopter would give away the presence of the whole force just the same as ten of them.

The attack capabilities found on the 160th SOAR’s DAP-configured Black Hawks, which proved to be particularly valuable during Operation Absolute Resolve, would not be directly portable to a stealthy variation of the helicopter, either. The site Delta Force and others had to be delivered to was a full-on top military installation housing a man that the U.S. wanted in a fortress-like facility. It would be defended by regular troops and Maduro’s inner protective cadre, reportedly made up of specially trained Cuban operatives, dozens of whom were killed in the assault. So once again, unless Stealth Hawks could somehow provide the hard-hitting, fast-reacting support that a DAP could, they would be far more vulnerable on arrival than the helicopters that assaulted the Bin Laden residence. While his compound was not far from a major military academy, U.S. forces were not assaulting the military academy itself, nor was a top target for the U.S. housed at the academy during a military standoff. It also wasn’t a military base located in the capital of the country.

The Bin Laden mission focused on a non-military target that was not a point of interest in relation to Pakistan’s air defense network, the attention of which is centered on threats from India, not Afghanistan. That focus on the other direction helped the Stealth Hawks slip deep into the country from the west. Pakistan’s mountainous terrain also offered cover for the helicopters as they ingressed and egressed the area. This was not the case in the operation this past weekend, where Venezuela’s air defenses were heavily focused on threats emanating from the Caribbean across relatively open terrain. It’s still possible, if not likely, that the 160th made their initial assault in a roundabout way, from the south, sweeping behind the mountains that border Caracas in that direction, but they clearly flew over densely populated areas, at least on their way out.

In other words, the final destination in Caracas was a much tougher and more heavily defended objective in a country on high alert for a possible impending attack, and especially on the facility where Maduro slept.

The unique features found on Stealth Hawks could also add weight, and potentially create aerodynamic inefficiency, all of which could reduce their total payload capacity, too. Even during the Bin Laden raid, the accompanying backup quick reaction force rode in MH-47s.

If the 160th SOAR helicopter force required in-flight refueling, even as a contingency, for the Maduro snatch-and-grab mission, such a capability is likely lacking entirely on the Stealth Hawks, or at least it was on those used during the Bin Laden raid. Many MC-130J Commando II special operations tanker-transports were deployed for the operation, seemingly to refuel 160th SOAR, as well as other helicopters that were part of a contingency force.

Using stealthy types would have required more capability tradeoffs, as well. Night Stalker MH-60s are loaded down with sensors and defensive systems that protrude from their noses and other points along their fuselages. These systems, from electronic warfare capabilities to missile approach warning sensors to terrain following radar, give the helicopters every advantage — but stealth — to accomplish their mission. It is highly unlikely a Stealth Hawk would have anywhere near this same installation of capabilities, relying far more heavily on not being detected for survivability.

Top among these modifications, the 160th SOAR’s MH-60 and MH-47 helicopter fleets have openly received improvements to their already extensive self-protection suites in recent years. This includes new directional infrared countermeasures (DIRCM) systems, which have given the helicopters an important additional layer of defense, particularly against shoulder-fired heat-seeking surface-to-air missiles, also known as man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS). There is evidence that Venezuelan forces unsuccessfully employed MANPADS against the raiding force this weekend. The country was known to have thousands of these weapons, and stealth cannot hide from them.

Full video of the Igla missile being fired from Fuerte Tiuna and the response from US helicopters.

After the Igla is fired the launch position is repeatedly hit with both 30mm fire and rockets. #Venezuela pic.twitter.com/haxxyppg2Q

— CNW (@ConflictsW) January 5, 2026

WATCH: Another failed MANPADS/air-defense missile launch at U.S. helicopters over Caracas during Operation Absolute Resolve.

It confirms Venezuelan forces tried limited resistance, but surprise, poor visibility, and weak coordination made it ineffective. pic.twitter.com/45j0ATdSeG

— Clash Report (@clashreport) January 6, 2026

Then there is the matter of it having been a moon-lit night on Saturday in and around Caracas, albeit one that was also partially overcast. The weather conditions did still make it easier to spot the incoming helicopters visually, as evidenced by the video footage captured by bystanders on the ground. This, in turn, would have drastically reduced the expected utility of stealthy features. As a general point, it should be stressed that stealth does not equal invisibility. Also, all of the unique avionics that the MH-60 and MH-47 have for navigating at very low levels in any weather may not exist on a Stealth Hawk for the aforementioned reasons, resulting in far less flexibility when it comes to operating in any weather in a high-threat area. This is especially important if the mission is heavily dictated by real-time intelligence, which the mission into Venezuela clearly was.

The need to employ the Stealth Hawks in the Bin Laden raid also notably reflects considerations that did not have to be taken into account during Operation Absolute Resolve. The mission to Abbottabad was launched without the cognizance or acquiescence of Pakistani authorities, but it was also not targeting that government directly. Pakistan’s air defenses and other military assets were very explicitly left untouched despite clear risks of a confrontation.

In contrast, the U.S. had prepared for dismantling Venezuela’s air defenses for months prior to the operation, and did just that in order to allow the helicopters to get in and out safely. If stealth helicopters were to have been used, the second the shooting starts at their destination, their risk of being taken down would go up exponentially without a major SEAD/DEAD effort, which would have also included targeted cyber and electronic warfare attacks. And such an effort executed preemptively would also give away the possibility of their presence. Once again, it was just a different type of target, and the circumstances surrounding the mission were very different both politically and tactically.

Altogether, there are far more reasons why Stealth Hawks or similar platforms were absent from Operation Absolute Resolve than not. And once again, this is all predicated on the idea that these kinds of aircraft even exist in relevant numbers at all, which we cannot say is a fact conclusively.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Washington, DC – United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio has not been shy about his desire to see the toppling of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

Infamously, the former Florida senator even posted a series of photos of slain deposed leaders, including a bloodied former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, as tensions with the US and Maduro’s government spiked in 2019.

But it wasn’t until the second administration of US President Donald Trump that Rubio’s vision of a hardline approach to Latin America and his longtime pressure campaign against leftist leaders was realised – culminating on Saturday with the illegal abduction of longtime Venezuelan leader Maduro.

Experts say Rubio has relied on an ability to capitalise on the overlapping interests of competing actors within the Trump administration to achieve this, even as his broader ideological goals, including the ousting of Cuba’s communist government, will likely remain constrained by the administration’s competing ambitions.

“It took a tremendous amount of political skill on his part to marginalise other voices in the administration and elsewhere who were saying: ‘This is not our conflict. This is not what we stand for. This is going to upset our base,’” Alejandro Velasco, an associate professor of history at New York University, told Al Jazeera.

Those agendas included US President Donald Trump’s preoccupation with opening Venezuela’s nationalised oil industry, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s desire for a more pugilistic military approach abroad, and adviser Stephen Miller’s fixation on migration and mass deportation.

“So that’s the way that Rubio was able to bring into line not quite competing, but really divergent agendas, all of them to focus on Venezuela as a way to advance a particular end,” Velasco said.

A hawk in ‘America First’

A traditionalist hawk who has regularly supported US military intervention in the name of spreading Western democracy and human rights abroad, Rubio initially appeared to be an awkward fit to be Trump’s top diplomat in his second term.

His selection followed a campaign season defined by Trump’s vow to end foreign wars, eschew US-backed regime change, and pursue a wider “America First” pivot.

But the actual shape of Trump’s foreign policy has borne little resemblance to that vision, with the administration adopting a so-called “Peace Through Strength” doctrine that observers say has resulted in more room for military adventurism. That has, to date, seen the Trump administration launch bombing campaigns against Yemen and Iran, strike armed groups in Nigeria and Somalia, and attack alleged drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean.

The approach of Trump 2.0 has more closely aligned with Rubio’s vision of Washington’s role abroad, which has long supported maximum-pressure sanctions campaigns and various forms of US intervention to topple governments.

The US secretary of state’s personal ideology traces to his South Florida roots, where his family settled in the 1960s after leaving Cuba three years before the rise of Fidel Castro, in what Velasco described as an “acerbically anti-communist” political environment.

“I think for him, it started as a question of finally making real the hopes and dreams of Cubans in Florida and elsewhere to return to their homeland under a capitalist government,” Velasco explained.

“It went from that to what this could represent, if we think about it more hemispherically – a bigger shift that would not only increase, but in fact ensure, US hegemony in the region for the 21st century.”

‘Vacuum was his to fill’

After tangling with Trump in the 2016 presidential election, in which the future president deridingly dubbed his opponent “Little Marco” while Rubio decried him as a “con man”, the pair forged a pragmatic working relationship.

Rubio eventually endorsed Trump ahead of the 2016 vote, helping to deliver Florida. In Trump’s first term, Rubio came to be seen as the president’s “shadow secretary” on Latin America, an atypical role that saw the lawmaker influence Trump’s eventual recognition of Juan Guaido as interim president in opposition to Maduro.

Analysts note Rubio’s approach to Venezuela has always been directly aimed at undermining the economic support it provides to Cuba, with the end goal of toppling the island’s 67-year-old Communist government. Following Maduro’s abduction on Saturday, Rubio quickly pivoted to the island nation, telling reporters: “If I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I’d be concerned”.

Still, in the early months of Trump’s second term, Rubio appeared largely sidelined, with the president instead favouring close friends and family members to spearhead marquee negotiations on ceasefires in Gaza and Ukraine.

During this time, Rubio was slowly amassing a sizeable portfolio. Beyond serving as secretary of state, Rubio became the acting administrator of the Trump-dismantled US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the acting archivist of the US National Archives. Most notably, he became the acting director of National Security, making him the first top US diplomat to also occupy the impactful White House role since Henry Kissinger.

Rubio eventually found himself in a White House power vacuum, according to Adam Isacson, the director of defence oversight at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA).

“Rubio’s somebody who understands Washington better than the Grenells and Witkoffs of the world,” Isacson told Al Jazeera, referring to Trump’s special envoys Richard Grenell and Steve Witkoff.

“At the same time, other powerful figures inside the White House, like Stephen Miller and [Director of the Office of Management and Budget] Russ Vought haven’t cared as much about foreign policy,” he said, “so the vacuum was his to fill.”

Meanwhile, Rubio showed his ability to be an “ideological weather vane”, pivoting regularly to stay in Trump’s good graces, Isacson said. The National Security Strategy released by the White House in December exemplified that approach.

The document, which is drafted by the National Security adviser with final approval from the president, offered little in tough language towards Russia, despite Rubio’s previous hard lines on the war in Ukraine. It supported the gutting of US foreign aid, despite Rubio’s years-long support for the system. It offered little of the human-rights language with which Rubio had earlier in his career styled himself as a champion.

It did, however, include a “Trump corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, which dovetailed with Rubio’s worldview by calling for the restoration of US “preeminence” over the Western Hemisphere.

A pyrrhic victory?

To be sure, the toppling of Maduro has so far proved a partial, if not pyrrhic victory for Rubio, far short of the comprehensive change he has long supported.

In a news conference immediately following Maduro’s abduction, Trump doused support for exiled opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, who has hewed close to Rubio’s vision for a future Venezuela. Several news agencies have since reported that US intelligence assessed that installing an opposition figure would lead to widespread chaos in the country.

Rubio has so far been the point man in dealing with Maduro’s former deputy and replacement, Delcy Rodriguez, who has been a staunch supporter of the Hugo Chavez-founded Chavismo movement that Rubio has long railed against. Elections remain a far-off prospect, with Trump emphasising working with the government to open the oil industry to the US.

The secretary of state has not been officially given a role connected to the country, but has earned the less-than-sincere title in some US media of “viceroy of Venezuela”.

On news shows, Rubio has been tasked with walking back Trump’s claim that the US would “run” the South American country, while selling the administration’s oft-contradicted message that the abduction of Maduro was a law enforcement action, not regime change, an act of war, or a bid for the country’s oil.

“I think he’s sort of lying through his teeth,” Lee Schlenker, a research associate at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Al Jazeera.

“Even he doesn’t seem to believe a lot of the sort of rhetorical and discursive pretexts that have been deployed about drugs, about narco-terrorism, about a law enforcement-only operation, about just sort of enforcing a Department of Justice indictment,” he said.

Having to work with Rodriguez, and reportedly, Venezuela’s security czar and Minister of Interior Diosdado Cabello, has been a “bucket of cold water on Rubio’s broader illusions”, Schlenker added, noting that Rubio’s end goal still remains “the end of the Chavista project”.

Rubio is also likely to face further reality checks when it comes to his expected attempts to pitch the overthrow of what he will likely argue is a weakened Cuba.

The island, without the economic resources of Venezuela and no known drug trade, is seen as far less appealing to Trump and many of his allies.

“Compared to Venezuela,” Schlenker said, “there are a lot more reasons why Trump would have less interest in going after Cuba.”

US President Donald Trump says no Americans, but some soldiers ‘on the other side’ were killed in the ‘complex’ military operation that abducted Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro.

Jan. 6 (UPI) — Switzerland has frozen any assets in the country owned by U.S.-detained Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and others associated with him to ensure that if they were stolen from the Venezuelan people, they can be rightly returned.

The asset freeze went immediately into effect when it was announced on Monday, but does not impact members of the current Venezuelan government, Switzerland’s Federal Council said in a statement.

The freeze is to prevent funds from leaving the country. In the case that future legal proceedings show that the assets were illicitly acquired, Switzerland said it will “endeavor to ensure that they benefit the Venezuelan people.”

“The Federal Council wants to ensure that any illicitly acquired assets cannot be transferred out of Switzerland in the current situation,” it said. “It has therefore decided, as a precautionary measure, to freeze any assets held in Switzerland by Mr. Maduro and others associated with him.”

Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were captured by the U.S. military in an early Saturday operation that involved air and ground assets in Caracas. Dozens of people were killed. There were no U.S. military casualties.

The authoritarian Venezuelan president has been indicted in the United States on narcotrafficking and other related drug charges. The operation has raised domestic and international legal questions over Maduro’s detention and has drawn condemnation, including from U.S. allies.

On Monday, Maduro and his wife pleaded not guilty to the charges, and Vice President Delcy Rodriguez was sworn in as the country’s new president.

Switzerland called for de-escalation, restraint and compliance with international law following the United States’ Saturday military operation and said it was “closely monitoring” the situation.

The new asset freeze is in addition to sanctions imposed against Venezuela under Switzerland’s Embargo Act in 2018. The new measure targets the assets of 37 individuals who were not previously blacklisted by sanctions, according to an ordinance on the action. Maduro’s wife and other relatives were named.

Switzerland said neither the reason for Maduro’s ousting nor whether it was legal plays a role in its decision to apply the asset freeze.

“The decisive factor is that a fall from power has occurred and that it is now possible that the country of origin will initiate legal proceedings in the future with regard to illicitly acquired assets,” the Federal Council said.

The freeze will remain in place for four years.

Caracas, January 5, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores have pleaded not guilty to charges of “narcoterrorism” after being arraigned on Monday.

During a short session in a New York court, Maduro told Judge Alvin Hellerstein that he was the president of Venezuela and had been “illegally captured” in his Caracas home.

The Venezuelan leader was kidnapped by US special operations forces in the early hours of January 3 following US bombings against military installations.

He was indicted on charges of “narcoterrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machineguns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machineguns and destructive devices against the United States.” Flores faces the same charges except narco-terrorism conspiracy.

Maduro is being represented by Barry Pollack, who previously defended Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Pollack did not request bail but questioned the legality of Maduro’s “military abduction” and stressed that the Venezuelan leader is “entitled to the privilege” of being treated like a head of state.

Flores’ attorney, Mark Donnelly, said that her client had sustained “significant injuries during her abduction” and requested that she receive medical attention.

The trial is set to resume with a hearing on March 17.

US officials have issued repeated “narcoterrorism” accusations against Maduro and other high-ranking Venezuelan leaders over the years. However, they have never produced court-tested evidence to sustain the claims. US prosecutors reportedly withdrew claims of Maduro leading the so-called “Cartel de los Soles” in their indictment. 

Drug trafficking reports over the years from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) have found Venezuela to play a marginal role in global narcotics trafficking.

China and Russia condemn US violations of international law

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) held an emergency session on Monday to address Washington’s military attacks and kidnapping of Maduro and Flores. The session ultimately produced no resolutions.

Russian UN Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya accused Washington of seeking to return the world to “an era of lawlessness.”

“We cannot allow the United States to proclaim itself as some kind of a supreme judge with the right to invade any country and hand down punishments with no regard for international law,” Nebenzya said.

Chinese representative Fu Cong accused the US of “trampling Venezuela’s sovereignty” and demanded that the Trump administration cease its “bullying and coercive practices.”

Both Moscow and Beijing labeled Maduro’s abduction a violation of the UN Charter and demanded the Venezuelan leader’s release. Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and several other nations joined the condemnation of the Trump administration’s military operations against Venezuela. 

For his part, Venezuelan UN Ambassador UN Samuel Moncada decried the “illegal and  illegitimate armed attack” against his country that had caused civilian casualties. Unofficial reports have tallied over 80 killed during the January 3 strikes.

In response, US representative Mike Waltz claimed that Washington was not at war with Venezuela and that the military operations constituted a “law enforcement” action.

Delcy Rodríguez sworn in as interim president

Monday likewise saw the Venezuelan National Assembly take office for a new five year term. 277 deputies, elected in the May 2025 elections, were sworn in. Jorge Rodrìguez was once more chosen by his peers to lead the legislative body. During his speech, he emphasized the importance of national unity in the present context.

Rodríguez stated that his main mission is to secure Maduro’s release and return to the South American nation. He likewise pointed out the absence of Cilia Flores, who was also elected to a new term as legislator.

The January 5 session concluded with the swearing in of Vice President Delcy Rodríguez as interim president following a Supreme Court ruling last Saturday.

“This is a historic commitment that I assume with the certainty that national unity and the people’s strength will guarantee our sovereignty,” she said. Rodríguez expressed “pain” over Maduro and Flores’ kidnapping but vowed to “work tirelessly” for peace.

In the wake of the January 3 attacks, US President Donald Trump has issued renewed threats against Caracas, demanding privileged access to oil resources.

In a Sunday cabinet meeting, Rodríguez urged respect for Venezuelan sovereignty and called on the US government to establish an “agenda of cooperation” with Caracas.

Condemnation comes as Nicolas Maduro appeared in a court in New York and pleaded not guilty to drug charges.

Denmark and Mexico, also threatened by US President Donald Trump, warn that the US violated international law.

Members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), including key US allies, have warned that the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife by US special forces could be a precedent-setting event for international law.

The 15-member bloc met for an emergency meeting on Monday in New York City, where the Venezuelan pair were also due to face drug trafficking charges in a US federal court.

Venezuela’s ambassador to the UN, Samuel Moncada, condemned the US operation as “an illegitimate armed attack lacking any legal justification”, in remarks echoed by Cuba, Colombia and permanent UNSC members Russia and China.

“[The US] imposes the application of its laws outside its own territory and far from its coasts, where it has no jurisdiction, using assaults and the appropriation of assets,” Cuba’s ambassador, Ernesto Soberon Guzman, said, adding that such measures negatively affected Cuba.

Russia’s ambassador, Vassily Nebenzia, said the US cannot “proclaim itself as some kind of a supreme judge, which alone bears the right to invade any country, to label culprits, to hand down and to enforce punishments irrespective of notions of international law, sovereignty and non-intervention”.

Notable critics at the emergency session included traditional US allies, Mexico and Denmark, both of whom Trump has separately threatened with military action over the past year.

Mexico’s ambassador, Hector Vasconcelos, said that the council had an “obligation to act decisively and without double standards” towards the US, and it was for “sovereign peoples to decide their destinies,” according to a UN readout.

His remarks come just days after Trump told reporters that “something will have to be done about Mexico” and its drug cartels, following Maduro’s abduction.

Denmark, a longstanding US security ally, said that “no state should seek to influence political outcomes in Venezuela through the use of threat of force or through other means inconsistent with international law.”

“The inviolability of borders is not up for negotiation,” Denmark’s ambassador, Christina Markus Lassen, told the council in an oblique reference to Trump’s threat that the US would annex Greenland, a self-governed Danish territory.

France, another permanent member of the UNSC, also criticised the US, marking a shift in tone from French President Emmanuel Macron’s initial remarks that Venezuelans “can only rejoice” following Maduro’s abduction.

“The military operation that has led to the capture of Maduro runs counter to the principle of peaceful dispute resolution and runs counter to the principle of non-use of force,” said the French deputy ambassador, Jay Dharmadhikari.

Representatives from Latvia and the United Kingdom, another permanent UNSC member, focused on the conditions in Venezuela created by Maduro’s government.

Latvia’s ambassador, Sanita Pavļuta-Deslandes, said that Maduro’s conditions in Venezuela posed “a grave threat to the security of the region and the world”, citing mass repression, corruption, organised crime and drug trafficking.

The UK ambassador, James Kariuki, said that “Maduro’s claim to power was fraudulent”.

The US ambassador, Mike Waltz, characterised the abduction of Maduro and his wife as a “surgical law enforcement operation facilitated by the US military against two indicted fugitives of American justice”.

The White House defended its wave of air strikes on Venezuela, and in the waters near it, and Maduro’s abduction as necessary to protect US national security, amid unproven claims that Maduro backed “narcoterrorist” drug cartels.

Delcy Rodriguez, formerly Venezuela’s vice president, has been formally sworn in to lead the South American country following the abduction of Nicolas Maduro in a United States military operation.

On Monday, Rodriguez appeared before Venezuela’s National Assembly to take her oath of office.

Speaking before the legislative body, composed largely of government loyalists, Rodriguez reaffirmed her opposition to the military attack that led to the capture and removal of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.

“I come with pain over the kidnapping of two heroes who are being held hostage: President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores,” Rodriguez, 56, told the assembly.

“I swear to work tirelessly to guarantee the peace, spiritual, economic and social tranquillity of our people.”

A former labour lawyer, Rodriguez has been serving as acting president since the early-morning attack that resulted in the abduction. Explosions were reported before dawn on Saturday in the capital, Caracas, as well as at nearby Venezuelan military bases and some civilian areas.

Monday’s swearing-in ceremony was overseen by Rodriguez’s brother – the president of the National Assembly, Jorge Rodriguez – and Maduro’s son, Nicolás Maduro Guerra, who held a copy of the Venezuelan Constitution.

Other members of Maduro’s inner circle, including Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello and Defence Minister Vladimir Padrino, were also in attendance.

The ceremony took place as Maduro, her predecessor and former boss, faced an arraignment proceeding in a New York City courthouse.

Federal prosecutors in the US have charged Maduro with four counts related to allegations he leveraged government powers to export thousands of tonnes of cocaine to North America.

The charges include narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, the illegal possession of machine guns and other destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess such guns and devices.

Maduro and his wife have pleaded not guilty to the charges, and their allies, including Rodriguez, have denounced the pair’s abduction as a violation of international law, as well as Venezuelan sovereignty.

In court on Monday, Maduro maintained he remained the rightful leader of Venezuela, saying, “I am still president.”

The administration of US President Donald Trump, however, has signalled that it plans to work with Rodriguez for the time being, though Trump himself warned that her tenure as president could be cut short, should she fail to abide by US demands.

“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 magazine in a Sunday morning interview.

A day earlier, in a televised address announcing the attack, Trump had said his administration plans “to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition”.

On Air Force One on Sunday, as he flew back to Washington, DC, Trump doubled down on that statement.

“Don’t ask me who’s in charge, because I’ll give you an answer that will be very controversial. We’re in charge,” he told reporters.

He added that Rodriguez is “cooperating” and that, while he personally has not spoken to her, “we’re dealing with the people who just got sworn in”.

The Trump administration’s seeming willingness to allow Rodriguez, a former labour lawyer, to remain in charge has raised eyebrows.

Rodriguez, who served as vice president since 2018, is known to be a stalwart “chavista”: an adherent of the left-wing political movement founded by Maduro’s mentor, the late Hugo Chavez. She has held various ministerial roles under Maduro, including leading the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

But Trump’s allies in the Republican Party have argued that keeping Rodriguez in place is simply a practical reality.

“We don’t recognise Delcy Rodriguez as the legitimate ruler of Venezuela. We didn’t recognise Nicolas Maduro as a legitimate ruler,” Republican Senator Tom Cotton told CNN on Sunday.

“It is a fact that she and other indicted and sanctioned officials are in Venezuela. They have control over the military and security services. We have to deal with that fact. That does not make them a legitimate leader.”

While on Air Force One, Trump largely avoided committing to new elections in Venezuela, indicating he would instead focus on “fixing” the country and allowing US oil companies access to its vast petroleum reserves.

One reporter on the aeroplane asked, “How soon can an election take place?”

“Well, I think we’re looking more at getting it fixed, getting it ready first, because it’s a mess. The country is a mess,” Trump replied. “It’s been horribly run. The oil is just flowing at a very low level.”

He later added, “We’re going to run everything. We’re going to run it, fix it. We’ll have elections at the right time. But the main thing you have to fix: It’s a broken country. There’s no money.”

Recent presidential elections in Venezuela have been widely denounced as fraudulent, with Maduro claiming victory in each one.

The contested 2018 election, for example, led to the US briefly recognising opposition leader Juan Guaido as president, instead of Maduro.

Later, Maduro also claimed victory for a third term in office during the 2024 presidential race, despite election regularities.

The official vote tally was not released, and the opposition published documents that appeared to show that Maduro’s rival, Edmundo Gonzalez, had won. Protests erupted on Venezuela’s streets, and the nonprofit Human Rights Watch reported that more than 2,000 protesters were unlawfully detained, with at least 25 dead in apparent extrajudicial killings.

The opposition has largely boycotted legislative elections in Venezuela, denouncing them as rigged in favour of “chavistas”.

Monday’s swearing-in ceremony included the 283 members of the National Assembly elected last May. Few opposition candidates were among them.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump is planning to meet with executives from US oil companies later this week to discuss boosting Venezuelan oil production after US forces abducted its leader, Nicolas Maduro, the Reuters news agency has reported, citing unnamed sources.

The meetings are crucial to the administration’s hopes of getting top US oil companies back into the South American nation after its government, nearly two decades ago, took control of US-led energy operations there, the Reuters news agency report said on Monday.

The three biggest US oil companies – Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips and Chevron – have not yet had any conversations with the Trump administration about Maduro’s ouster, according to four oil industry executives familiar with the matter, contradicting Trump’s statements over the weekend that he had already held meetings with “all” the US oil companies, both before and since Maduro was abducted.

“Nobody in those three companies has had conversations with the White House about operating in Venezuela, pre-removal or post-removal, to this point,” one of the sources said on Monday.

The upcoming meetings will be crucial to the administration’s hopes to boost crude oil production and exports from Venezuela, a former OPEC nation that sits atop the world’s largest reserves, and whose crude oil can be refined by specially designed US refineries. Achieving that goal will require years of work and billions of dollars of investment, analysts say.

It is unclear what executives will be attending the upcoming meetings, and whether oil companies will be attending individually or collectively.

The White House did not comment on the meetings, but said it believed the US oil industry was ready to flood into Venezuela.

“All of our oil companies are ready and willing to make big investments in Venezuela that will rebuild their oil infrastructure, which was destroyed by the illegitimate Maduro regime,” said White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers.

Exxon, Chevron and ConocoPhillips did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Reuters.

One oil industry executive told Reuters the companies would be reluctant to talk about potential Venezuela operations in group settings with the White House, citing antitrust concerns that limit collective discussions among competitors about investment plans, timing and production levels.

Political risks, low oil prices

US forces on Saturday conducted a raid on Venezuela’s capital, arresting Maduro in the dead of night and sending him back to the US to face narcoterrorism charges.

Hours after Maduro’s abduction, Trump said he expects the biggest US oil companies to spend billions of dollars boosting Venezuela’s oil production, after it dropped to about a third of its peak over the past two decades due to underinvestment and sanctions.

But those plans will be hindered by a lack of infrastructure, along with deep uncertainty over the country’s political future, legal framework and long-term US policy, according to industry analysts.

“While the Trump administration has suggested large US oil companies will go into Venezuela and spend billions to fix infrastructure, we believe political and other risks, along with current relatively low oil prices, could prevent this from happening anytime soon,” wrote Neal Dingmann of William Blair in a note.

Material change to Venezuelan production will take a lot of time and millions of dollars of infrastructure improvement, he said.

And any investment in Venezuelan infrastructure right now would take place in a weakened global energy market. Crude prices in the US are down by 20 percent compared with last year. The price for a barrel of benchmark US crude has not been above $70 since June, and has not touched $80 per barrel since June of 2024.

A barrel of oil cost more than $130 in the leadup to the US housing crisis in 2008.

Chevron is the only US major currently operating in Venezuela’s oil fields.

Exxon and ConocoPhillips, meanwhile, had storied histories in the country before their projects were nationalised nearly two decades ago by former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Conoco has been seeking billions of dollars in restitution for the takeover of three oil projects in Venezuela under Chavez. Exxon was involved in lengthy arbitration cases against Venezuela after it exited the country in 2007.

Chevron, which exports about 150,000 barrels per day of crude from Venezuela to the US Gulf Coast, meanwhile, has had to carefully manoeuvre with the Trump administration in an effort to maintain its presence in the country in recent years.

A US embargo on Venezuelan oil remained in full effect, Trump has said.

The S&P 500 energy index rose to its highest since March 2025, with heavyweights Exxon Mobil rising by 2.2 percent and Chevron jumping by 5.1 percent.

Jan. 5 (Asia Today) — The U.S. military operation that captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro could reinforce North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s belief that nuclear weapons are essential for regime survival and make denuclearization talks harder, a South Korean scholar said.

Im Eul-chul, a professor at Kyungnam University’s Institute for Far Eastern Studies, said the U.S. strike and Maduro’s detention would send Pyongyang two messages: an “existential threat” and a perceived justification for clinging to nuclear arms, according to the analysis.

U.S. officials said Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were taken into custody in a covert operation and transported to the United States to face criminal charges.

Im said North Korea has long cited the fates of leaders such as Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Moammar Gadhafi in Libya as warnings tied to its own survival calculus and that the Maduro case would likely deepen distrust of denuclearization negotiations inside North Korea.

He said seeing Washington’s precision strike capabilities could further fuel Pyongyang’s argument that only nuclear weapons can deter U.S. military power, adding that North Korea may accelerate steps such as expanding tactical nuclear deployment, improving second-strike capability and tightening internal control through fear-based politics.

North Korea, which has maintained ties with Venezuela since establishing diplomatic relations in 1974, condemned the U.S. strikes on Sunday as an infringement on sovereignty, according to state media.

Im also said North Korea’s ballistic missile launches Saturday could carry a message aimed at the United States, as the regime continues to emphasize self-reliance in defense amid regional and global tensions.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Ousted Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro stood in a Manhattan courthouse Monday a captive criminal defendant: surrounded by heavy security, deprived of his power as a head of state and facing drug, weapon and conspiracy charges likely to keep him behind bars for years.

“I was captured,” he said in Spanish, before pleading not guilty during a brief arraignment. “I am a decent man, the president of my country.”

Just two days prior, more than 2,000 miles away in Caracas, Maduro was seated “atop a corrupt, illegitimate government that, for decades, has leveraged government power to protect and promote illegal activity, including drug trafficking,” according to a sweeping indictment unsealed Saturday.

What preceded Maduro’s swift downfall was not just his weekend capture in what President Trump called “one of the most stunning, effective and powerful displays of American military might” in U.S. history, but decades of partnership with “narco-terrorists” from Venezuela, Colombia and Mexico to enrich himself and his family through “massive-scale” cocaine trafficking, the indictment claims.

The allegations, built off a 2020 indictment, stretch back a quarter-century and implicate other Venezuelan leaders and Maduro’s wife and son. They suggest extensive coordination with notorious drug trafficking organizations and cartels from across the region, and paint a world Trump himself has long worked to instill in the minds of Americans — one in which the nation’s southern neighbors are intentionally flooding the U.S. with lethal drugs and violent criminals, to the devastation of local communities.

It is a portrait of drugs, money and violence every bit as dramatic as the nighttime raid that sent jets and helicopters into Venezuelan airspace, U.S. special forces into Maduro’s bedroom and Maduro and his wife into U.S. custody and ultimately to their arraignment in court Monday.

It appears to rely on clandestine intelligence and other witness testimony gathered over the course of decades, which Maduro’s defense team will undoubtedly seek to discredit by impugning the cast of characters — some drug traffickers themselves — whom prosecutors relied on.

Legal experts said it could take years for the case to reach trial, slowed not only by the normal nuance of litigating a multi-defendant conspiracy case but the added complexity of a prosecution that is almost certainly predicated in part on classified intelligence.

“That’s very different than a typical drug case, even a very high-level drug case, [where] you’re not going to have classified State Department cables the way you’re going to have them when you’re actually prosecuting a head of state or a former head of state,” said Renato Stabile, an attorney for former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted in a similar cocaine trafficking case in 2024 before being pardoned by Trump last month.

Joe McNally, the former acting U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, which includes Los Angeles, said he expects the case will take at least a year to get to trial, after prosecutors “show their cards” and Maduro’s attorneys review that evidence and seek out their own witnesses.

He said he expects a strong case from prosecutors — despite it being “not easy to prove a case that involves high level cartel activity that’s happening thousands of miles away” — that will appropriately play out entirely in public view.

“He’ll have his day in court. It’s not a military tribunal,” McNally said. “His guilt or innocence will be decided by 12 people from the district [in New York where he’s been indicted], and ultimately the burden will be on the prosecutor.”

The case against Maduro

According to the indictment, Maduro and his fellow indicted Venezuelan leaders have since about 1999 “partnered with some of the most violent and prolific drug traffickers and narco-terrorists in the world” — including the FARC and ELN groups in Colombia, the Sinaloa and Los Zetas cartels in Mexico and the Tren de Aragua gang in Venezuela.

Among the others indicted in the case is Hector Rusthenford Guerrero Flores, aka “Niño Guerrero,” a purported leader of Tren de Aragua.

Trump has accused Tren de Aragua of committing violence in the U.S. and used alleged ties between it and Maduro to justify using a wartime statute to deport Venezuelans accused of being in the gang to a notorious Salvadoran prison. However, Maduro’s links to the group have been heavily questioned in the past — including by U.S. intelligence agencies — and the indictment doesn’t spell out any specific links between Maduro and Guerrero Flores.

The indictment alleges Maduro and his co-conspirators “facilitated the empowerment and growth of violent narco-terrorist groups fueling their organizations with cocaine profits,” including by providing “law enforcement cover and logistical support for the transport of cocaine through Venezuela, with knowledge that their drug trafficking partners would move the cocaine north to the United States.”

It specifically alleges that between 2006 and 2008, when he was foreign affairs minister, Maduro sold diplomatic passports to people he knew were drug traffickers, specifically so they could move drug proceeds from Mexico back to Venezuela “under diplomatic cover” and without military or law enforcement scrutinizing their flights.

It also alleges that between 2004 and 2015, Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, “worked together to traffic cocaine, much of which had been previously seized by Venezuelan law enforcement, with the assistance of armed military escorts.”

It alleges the couple “maintained their own groups of state-sponsored gangs known as colectivos to facilitate and protect their drug trafficking operation,” and “ordered kidnappings, beatings, and murders against those who owed them drug money or otherwise undermined their drug trafficking operation, including ordering the murder of a local drug boss in Caracas.”

The indictment references a half-dozen other criminal cases already brought in the U.S. against others with alleged ties to Maduro and his alleged co-conspirators, several of whom have been convicted.

What’s ahead

Stabile said the legally questionable nature of Maduro’s capture will no doubt be a factor in the criminal proceedings ahead, with his defense team likely to argue that his detention is unlawful. “That’s going to be front and center, and I assume it’s going to be the subject of a motion to dismiss,” he said.

Whether anything will come of that argument, however, is less clear, as courts in the U.S. have in the past allowed criminal proceedings to continue against individuals captured abroad, including former Panama dictator Manuel Noriega. Part of the U.S. argument for why Noriega could be prosecuted was that he was not the legitimate leader of Panama, an argument that is likely to be made in Maduro’s case, too.

Beyond that, Stabile said how the case plays out will depend on what evidence the government has against Maduro.

“Is his case just gonna be based on the testimony of sources and cooperators, which is pretty much what it was in President Hernandez’s case?” Stabile said. “Or are there recordings? Are there videos? Are there bank records? Are there text messages? Are there emails?”

McNally said he will be watching to see whom prosecutors have lined up to testify against Maduro.

“In most of the high-level narcotics trafficking cases, international narcotics trafficking cases that have been brought and go to trial, the common thread is that you end up with cooperators — individuals who were part of the conspiracy, they were the criminal partners of the defendant, and they ultimately decide, hey, it’s in my self-interest to come forward and testify,” McNally said.

“They obviously are cross-examined, and they’ll frequently be accused of … lying for their own self-interest,” he said. “But in my experience, cooperators in these types of cases are especially valuable, and the key is to then corroborate them with other witnesses who tell the same story or documentary evidence.”

NEW YORK — A defiant Nicolás Maduro declared himself the “president of my country” as he protested his capture and pleaded not guilty on Monday to the federal drug trafficking charges that the Trump administration used to justify removing him from power.

“I was captured,” Maduro said in Spanish as translated by a courtroom reporter before being cut off by the judge. Asked later for his plea to the charges, he stated: “I’m innocent. I am not guilty. I am a decent man, the president of my country.”

The courtroom appearance, Maduro’s first since he and his wife were seized from their home in a stunning middle-of-the-night military operation, kick-starts the U.S. government’s most consequential prosecution in decades of a foreign head of state. The criminal case in Manhattan is unfolding against the diplomatic backdrop of an audacious U.S.-engineered regime change that President Trump has said will enable his administration to “run” the South American country.

Maduro, wearing a blue jail uniform, was led into court along with his co-defendant wife just before noon for the brief, but required, legal proceeding. Both put on headsets to hear the English-language proceeding as it was translated into Spanish.

The couple were transported to the Manhattan courthouse under armed guard early Monday from the Brooklyn jail where they’ve been detained since arriving in the U.S. on Saturday.

The trip was swift. A motorcade carrying Maduro left jail around 7:15 a.m. and made its way to a nearby athletic field, where Maduro slowly made his way to a waiting helicopter. The chopper flew across New York Harbor and landed at a Manhattan heliport, where Maduro, limping, was loaded into an armored vehicle.

A few minutes later, the law enforcement caravan was inside a garage at the courthouse complex, just around the corner from the one where Trump was convicted in 2024 of falsifying business records. Across the street from the courthouse, the police separated a small but growing group of protesters from about a dozen pro-intervention demonstrators, including one man who pulled a Venezuelan flag away from those protesting the U.S. action.

As a criminal defendant in the U.S. legal system, Maduro will have the same rights as any other person accused of a crime — including the right to a trial by a jury of regular New Yorkers. But he’ll also be nearly — but not quite — unique.

Maduro’s lawyers are expected to contest the legality of his arrest, arguing that he is immune from prosecution as a sovereign head of state.

Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega unsuccessfully tried the same defense after the U.S. captured him in a similar military invasion in 1990. But the U.S. doesn’t recognize Maduro as Venezuela’s legitimate head of state — particularly after a disputed 2024 reelection.

Venezuela’s new interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, has demanded that the U.S. return Maduro, who long denied any involvement in drug trafficking — although late Sunday she also struck a more conciliatory tone in a social media post, inviting collaboration with Trump and “respectful relations” with the U.S.

Before his capture, Maduro and his allies claimed U.S. hostility was motivated by lust for Venezuela’s rich oil and mineral resources.

The U.S. seized Maduro and his wife in a military operation early Saturday, capturing them in their home on a military base. Trump said the U.S. would “run” Venezuela temporarily, but Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday that it would not govern the country day-to-day other than enforcing an existing “ oil quarantine.”

Trump suggested Sunday that he wants to extend American power further in the Western Hemisphere.

Speaking aboard Air Force One, he called Colombia’s president, Gustavo Petro, “a sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States. And he’s not going to be doing it very long.”

He called on Venezuela’s Rodriguez to provide “total access” to her country, or else face consequences.

Trump has suggested that removing Maduro would enable more oil to flow out of Venezuela, but oil prices rose a bit more than 1% in Monday morning trading to roughly $58 a barrel. There are uncertainties about how fast oil production can be ramped up in Venezuela after years of neglect and needed investments, as well as questions about governance and oversight of the sector.

A 25-page indictment made public Saturday accuses Maduro and others of working with drug cartels to facilitate the shipment of thousands of tons of cocaine into the U.S. They could face life in prison if convicted.

He and his wife, Cilia Flores, have been under U.S. sanctions for years, making it illegal for any American to take money from them without first securing a license from the Treasury Department.

While the indictment against Maduro says Venezuelan officials worked directly with the Tren de Aragua gang, a U.S. intelligence assessment published in April, drawing on input from the intelligence community’s 18 agencies, found no coordination between Tren de Aragua and the Venezuelan government.

Maduro, his wife and his son — who remains free — are charged along with Venezuela’s interior and justice minister, a former interior and justice minister and Hector Rusthenford Guerrero Flores, an alleged Tren de Aragua leader who has been criminally charged in another case and remains at large.

Among other things, the indictment accuses Maduro and his wife of ordering kidnappings, beatings and murders of those who owed them drug money or undermined their drug trafficking operation. That included a local drug boss’ killing in Caracas, the indictment said.

Flores, Maduro’s wife, is also accused of accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in 2007 to arrange a meeting between “a large-scale drug trafficker” and the director of Venezuela’s National Anti-Drug Office, resulting in additional monthly bribes, with some of the money going to Flores, according to the indictment.

Sisak, Neumeister and Tucker write for the Associated Press. Tucker reported from Washington. AP writers John Hanna in Topeka, Kan., Josh Boak in Washington, Darlene Superville aboard Air Force One and Joshua Goodman in Miami contributed to this report.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro – recently abducted with his wife by US commandos from his home – has appeared in a federal courtroom in New York City for a hearing on alleged “narco-terrorism” and other charges.

Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were brought before US District Judge Alvin K Hellerstein at 12pm (17:00 GMT) on Monday for a brief legal proceeding that kicks off a long legal battle over whether they can face trial in the United States.

Handcuffed and wearing blue jail uniforms, Maduro and his wife were led into the court by officers, and both put on headsets to hear the English-language proceeding as it was translated into Spanish.

Maduro pleaded not guilty in the US court, telling the judge: “I was captured. I am innocent and a decent man, the president of my country.”

Across the street from the courthouse, the police separated a small but growing group of protesters from about a dozen pro-intervention demonstrators, including one man who pulled a Venezuelan flag away from those protesting the US abduction.

The left-wing leader, his wife, son and three others could face life in prison if convicted of allegedly working with drug cartels to facilitate the shipment of thousands of tons of cocaine into the country. Some observers say there is no evidence linking him to cartels.

Maduro’s lawyers said they’ll contest the legality of his arrest, arguing he is immune from prosecution as a sovereign head of a foreign state, though he is not recognised as Venezuela’s legitimate leader by the US and other nations around the world.

Flores also pleaded not guilty to US charges against her during the arraignment. Hellerstein ordered the Venezuelan leader to next appear in court for a hearing on March 17.

‘Attacks’ against US people

Near the end of the hearing, Maduro’s attorney Barry J Pollack said his client “is head of a sovereign state and entitled to the privilege” that the status ensures.

Pollack said there were “questions about the legality of his military abduction”, and there will be “voluminous” pretrial filings to address those legal challenges.

Earlier, images showed the pair being led handcuffed and under heavy guard from a helicopter en route from a detention facility to the courthouse, two days after they were forcibly removed from Caracas in a brazen US special forces operation.

“The United States arrested a narco-trafficker who is now going to stand trial in the United States,” US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz told an emergency UN Security Council meeting about the US attack on Venezuela on Saturday.

Waltz accused Maduro of being “responsible for attacks against the people of the United States, for destabilising the Western Hemisphere, and illegitimately repressing the people of Venezuela”.

Samuel Moncada, Venezuela’s ambassador to the UN, accused the US of carrying out an illegal armed attack against his country.

Venezuela was subjected to bombing, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, the loss of civilian and military lives, and the “kidnapping” of Maduro and his wife, Moncada said.

The abduction of a sitting head of state breached a core norm of international law, the personal immunity of leaders in office, he added, warning that such actions set a dangerous precedent for all countries.

Vast oil wealth

All eyes are on Venezuela’s response to the swiftly moving events after US President Donald Trump said late on Sunday that the US is “in charge” of the South American nation, which has the world’s largest proven oil reserves.

Interim President Delcy Rodriguez, who took the place of her ally Maduro, initially took a defiant stand against the seizure of the president in what some observers labelled a return to “US gunboat diplomacy”. But she has now offered “to collaborate” with Washington.

Venezuela’s opposition appreciates US intervention to remove Maduro from power, but is alarmed by Trump’s comments about US plans to “run” Venezuela, apparently with members of his government, one analyst said.

“Trump doesn’t recognise the decision of the Venezuelan people. We are not a colony of the US. We are an independent country,” Jose Manuel Puente, a professor at the Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Administracion, a private university in Caracas, told Al Jazeera.

“We want to initiate a transition to democracy, to rebuild the institutions, to rebuild the economy, to rebuild the oil sector. And we don’t see that from Trump until now.”

Rodriguez has served as Maduro’s vice president since 2018, overseeing much of Venezuela’s oil-dependent economy and its feared intelligence service, and was next in the presidential line of succession.

She’s part of a band of senior officials in Maduro’s administration who now appear to control Venezuela, even as Trump and other US officials say they’ll pressure the government to fall in line with their vision for the oil-rich nation.

On Sunday, some 2,000 Maduro supporters, including rifle-wielding men on motorcycles, rallied in Caracas with crowds shouting and waving Venezuelan flags. The Venezuelan military, loyal to Maduro, announced it recognised Rodriguez and urged calm.

The White House indicated on Sunday that it does not want regime change, only Maduro’s removal and a pliant new government that will enable US companies to exploit the country’s vast oil reserves – even if the government is filled with his former associates.

Jan. 5 (UPI) — U.S. President Donald Trump issued a warning to Venezuela’s new president, Delcy Rodriguez, to “do what’s right,” or face a similar or worse fate than President Nicolas Maduro, who is in a U.S. prison after being seized by U.S. Special Forces over the weekend.

“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, adding that regime change remained on the table, saying that it was preferable to the present state of affairs and the situation “can’t get any worse.”

Rodriguez, who was due to be sworn in as president in Caracas at 7 a.m. EST with the support of the country’s military and the supreme court, has said she is willing to cooperate with the United States after initially condemning the arrest of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, and demanding their release.

“We invite the U.S. government to collaborate with us on an agenda of cooperation orientated towards shared development within the framework of international law,” she told her cabinet at her first meeting in charge on Sunday.

Trump said U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had spoken with Rodriguez and that she was “essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again.”

Amid conflicting messaging, it was unclear if that was Trump’s meaning when he said in his news conference Saturday announcing the military operation that the United States was “going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.”

“We’re going to be running it with a group, and we’re going to make sure it’s run properly,” Trump said.

Rubio clarified Sunday that Trump was talking about exerting control from outside the country to bring about major policy shifts.

He said sanctions were one of the tools at the administration’s disposal to ensure the cooperation of the acting leadership, saying in an American broadcast TV interview that a blockade on Venezuela’s oil exports, being enforced by the U.S. military, would remain in place.

“We continue with that quarantine and we expect to see that there will be changes not just in the way the oil industry is run for the benefit of the people, but also so that they stop the drug trafficking, so that we no longer have these gang problems, so that they kick the [Columbian insurgent groups] FARC and the ELN out, and that they no longer cozy up to Hizballah and Iran in our own hemisphere,” Rubio said.

Meanwhile, Maduro was due to make his first appearance in Federal Court in New York later Monday, where he and Flores will be read a 25-page indictment accusing the pair of accumulating vast wealth from a narco-terrorism conspiracy.

They also face three related charges of cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices.

They are due to be transferred from the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, which houses defendants accused of regular crimes, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in White Plains, N.Y., to appear at 12 p.m. EST.