US military attack

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.

Caracas, January 5, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan social movements and political parties held a massive rally in Caracas on January 4 to reject the US military attacks against the country and the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro.

The Sunday march took place in the center of the Venezuelan capital and ended close to Miraflores Presidential Palace.

Demonstrators held handmade signs demanding the release and return of Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores, who were abducted in the early hours of January 3 by a US special operations team. US forces bombed several military sites in Caracas and surrounding states.

Venezuelan authorities have yet to report on damages and casualties, with unofficial sources claiming at least 80 people killed.

Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez has taken over the presidency on an interim basis after a ruling from the Supreme Court. Following a Sunday cabinet meeting, Rodríguez called on the US to respect the country’s sovereignty and invited Washington to agree to an “agenda of cooperation.”

Photos by Rome Arrieche.

I listened to the January 3 press conference with a knot in my stomach. As a Venezuelan American with family, memories, and a living connection to the country being spoken about as if it were a possession, what I heard was very clear. And that clarity was chilling.

The president said, plainly, that the United States would “run the country” until a transition it deems “safe” and “judicious.” He spoke about capturing Venezuela’s head of state, about transporting him on a U.S. military vessel, about administering Venezuela temporarily, and about bringing in U.S. oil companies to rebuild the industry. He dismissed concerns about international reaction with a phrase that should alarm everyone: “They understand this is our hemisphere.”

For Venezuelans, those words echo a long, painful history.

Let’s be clear about the claims made. The president is asserting that the U.S. can detain a sitting foreign president and his spouse under U.S. criminal law. That the U.S. can administer another sovereign country without an international mandate. That Venezuela’s political future can be decided from Washington. That control over oil and “rebuilding” is a legitimate byproduct of intervention. That all of this can happen without congressional authorization and without evidence of imminent threat.

We have heard this language before. In Iraq, the United States promised a limited intervention and a temporary administration, only to impose years of occupation, seize control of critical infrastructure, and leave behind devastation and instability. What was framed as stewardship became domination. Venezuela is now being spoken about in disturbingly similar terms. “Temporary Administration” ended up being a permanent disaster.

Under international law, nothing described in that press conference is legal. The UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against another state and bars interference in a nation’s political independence. Sanctions designed to coerce political outcomes and cause civilian suffering amount to collective punishment. Declaring the right to “run” another country is the language of occupation, regardless of how many times the word is avoided.

Under U.S. law, the claims are just as disturbing. War powers belong to Congress. There has been no authorization, no declaration, no lawful process that allows an executive to seize a foreign head of state or administer a country. Calling this “law enforcement” does not make it so. Venezuela poses no threat to the United States. It has not attacked the U.S. and has issued no threat that could justify the use of force under U.S. or international law. There is no lawful basis, domestic or international, for what is being asserted.

But beyond law and precedent lies the most important reality: the cost of this aggression is paid by ordinary people in Venezuela. War, sanctions, and military escalation do not fall evenly. They fall hardest on women, children, the elderly, and the poor. They mean shortages of medicine and food, disrupted healthcare systems, rising maternal and infant mortality, and the daily stress of survival in a country forced to live under siege. They also mean preventable deaths,  people who die not because of natural disaster or inevitability, but because access to care, electricity, transport, or medicine has been deliberately obstructed. Every escalation compounds existing harm and increases the likelihood of loss of life, civilian deaths that will be written off as collateral, even though they were foreseeable and avoidable.

What makes this even more dangerous is the assumption underlying it all: that Venezuelans will remain passive, compliant, and submissive in the face of humiliation and force. That assumption is wrong. And when it collapses, as it inevitably will, the cost will be measured in unnecessary bloodshed.  This is what is erased when a country is discussed as a “transition” or an “administration problem.” Human beings disappear. Lives are reduced to acceptable losses. And the violence that follows is framed as unfortunate rather than the predictable outcome of arrogance and coercion.

To hear a U.S. president talk about a country as something to be managed, stabilized, and handed over once it behaves properly, it hurts. It humiliates. And it enrages.

And yes, Venezuela is not politically unified. It isn’t. It never has been. There are deep divisions, about the government, about the economy, about leadership, about the future. There are people who identify as Chavista, people who are fiercely anti-Chavista, people who are exhausted and disengaged, and yes, there are some who are celebrating what they believe might finally bring change.

But political division does not invite invasion. 

Latin America has seen this logic before. In Chile, internal political division was used to justify U.S. intervention, framed as a response to “ungovernability,” instability, and threats to regional order, ending not in democracy, but in dictatorship, repression, and decades of trauma.

In fact, many Venezuelans who oppose the government still reject this moment outright. They understand that bombs, sanctions, and “transitions” imposed from abroad do not bring democracy, they destroy the conditions that make it possible. 

This moment demands political maturity, not purity tests. You can oppose Maduro and still oppose U.S. aggression. You can want change and still reject foreign control. You can be angry, desperate, or hopeful, and still say no to being governed by another country.

Venezuela is a country where communal councils, worker organizations, neighborhood collectives, and social movements have been forged under pressure. Political education didn’t come from think tanks; it came from survival. Right now, Venezuelans are not hiding. They are closing ranks because they recognize the pattern. They know what it means when foreign leaders start talking about “transitions” and “temporary control.” They know what usually follows. And they are responding the way they always have: by turning fear into collective action.

This press conference wasn’t just about Venezuela. It was about whether empire can say the quiet part out loud again, whether it can openly claim the right to govern other nations and expect the world to shrug.

If this stands, the lesson is brutal and undeniable: sovereignty is conditional, resources are there to be taken by the U.S., and democracy exists only by imperial consent.

As a Venezuelan American, I refuse that lesson.

I refuse the idea that my tax dollars fund the humiliation of my homeland. I refuse the lie that war and coercion are acts of “care” for the Venezuelan people. And I refuse to stay silent while a country I love is spoken about as raw material for U.S. interests, not a society of human beings deserving respect.

Venezuela’s future is not for U.S. officials, corporate boards, or any president who believes the hemisphere is his to command. It belongs to Venezuelans.

Michelle Ellner is a Latin America campaign coordinator of CODEPINK. She was born in Venezuela and holds a bachelor’s degree in languages and international affairs from the University La Sorbonne Paris IV, in Paris. After graduating, she worked for an international scholarship program out of offices in Caracas and Paris and was sent to Haiti, Cuba, The Gambia, and other countries for the purpose of evaluating and selecting applicants.

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

Following overnight U.S. airstrikes on Caracas, the seizure of President Nicolás Maduro, and President Donald Trump’s declaration that Washington will take control of Venezuela’s oil and effectively run the country, analysts Steve Ellner and Ricardo Vaz warn that the operation constitutes an unlawful use of force.

They cite the combination of military assault, extraterritorial abduction, resource seizure, and alleged extrajudicial killings at sea as violations of international law and Venezuelan sovereignty.

Caracas, January 4, 2025 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The governments of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Uruguay, and Spain issued a joint statement Sunday rejecting “unilateral US actions in Venezuelan territory.”

“These actions contravene basic principles of international law and represent a very dangerous precedent for peace and regional security,” the communique read.

The joint statement followed widespread regional and global condemnation of Washington’s January 3 strikes against Venezuelan military sites and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores.

The countries went on to issue calls for dialogue and urged the United Nations secretary general and member states to help “de-escalate tensions and preserve peace.” 

In response to US President Donald Trump’s claim that he would “run” Venezuela, the signatories expressed concern over “attempts at foreign government control or seizure of natural resources.” However, the declaration made no mention of Maduro nor called for his release.

The diplomatic response to the US attacks also included an emergency summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean nations (CELAC), held on Sunday, January 4. Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil decried the US actions as blatant violations of international law and the United Nations Charter.

“The US has violated the personal immunity of a sitting head of state,” Gil told regional leaders in the conference call. “Kidnapping a president is kidnapping a people’s sovereignty.”

Venezuela’s top diplomat urged CELAC member-states to “take a step forward,” warning that silence would amount to acceptance of Washington’s unilateral acts.

A number of countries, including Venezuelan allies Russia and China, have forcefully denounced the US military operation. In a Sunday statement, Beijing charged Washington with a “clear violation of international law” and called for Maduro and Flores’ “immediate release.”

The UN Security Council is scheduled to hold an emergency session on Monday.

For her part, Venezuela Vice President and now acting Interim President Delcy Rodríguez reiterated demands for Maduro’s release and vowed that the country would not submit “to any empire.” Rodríguez held a press conference Saturday afternoon and confirmed the enactment of a decree establishing a “state of external commotion.” The instrument grants the executive additional tools, including the ability to mobilize troops or restrict civil liberties, for a period of 90 days that can be extended.

On Saturday night, the Venezuelan Supreme Court ruled that Maduro’s kidnapping and rendition to US soil constituted a temporary absence and that Rodríguez was mandated to take over the presidency on an interim basis.

Footage surfaced Saturday evening showing Maduro being walked out of an airplane in New York. He was later taken to a DEA facility before being moved, along with Flores, to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. He made no statements but greeted DEA officers and appeared upbeat in photos, making a peace sign and holding his thumbs up.

The Venezuelan president was indicted by a New York district court on Saturday, with charges including “narcoterrorism conspiracy” and “possession of machine guns.” A hearing is reportedly scheduled for Monday.

For their part, Venezuela’s National BolivarianArmed Forces (FANB) likewise issued a communique on Sunday, rejecting the “cowardly kidnapping” of Maduro and Flores and reiterating its mission to “confront imperial aggression.”

The FANB voiced support for Rodríguez taking over the presidency on an acting basis and vowed to maintain readiness to preserve “peace and internal order.” 

The Defense Ministry has yet to provide a report on damages and casualties from the US strikes, though Sunday’s communiqué condemned the “cold-blooded murder” of members of Maduro’s security detail. Unconfirmed reports have put forward a figure of 80 deaths.

Venezuelan popular movements and political parties took to the streets for a second consecutive day on Sunday, holding marches and rallies in Caracas and other cities. Public transportation and retail functioned to a greater degree than on Saturday.

The US attacks also spurred numerous international solidarity demonstrations over the weekend. Crowds gathered in dozens of Latin American, European and US cities. A demonstration was called for Sunday outside the Brooklyn detention center where Maduro is being held.

The January 3 operation came on the heels of the largest ever US Caribbean military build-up, with Trump having previously ordered dozebs of strikes against small boats accused of carrying drugs, killing over 100 civilians. The US president has repeatedly expressed intentions of using military threats to extract favorable oil deals for US corporations.

In a Sunday interview, Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned the acting government in Caracas to “make the right decisions” and affirmed that the US retained “leverage” mechanisms, including a naval blockade stopping oil exports.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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